PowerMac G5's...what speed bumps can be expected?

[jiggie2g]

OC would definitely help performance I'm speaking stock only. Personally I'm going for a Dual over the single anyways. Unless, they release a single dual-core PM.

I agree you really should go with a Dual machine or just wait till Dual core as they are expected soon and will be less expensive. The G5 as a stand alone single core CPU is not very promising.

Out of plain curiousity i ran Cinebench for the 1st time on my PC just to see how it would stack up to the G5 results posted on barefeats.com.

Here's what i got

Cinebench 2003 -CPU Render / CB Rating:

iMac G5 1.8ghz(600mhz FSB) - 251 ...from Barefeats

Old PM G5 1.8ghz(900mhz FSB) - 251 ...from Barefeats

AMD Athlon XP-M 2400+ OC'd @2.4ghz - 303 (Dual Channel 400mhz FSB)
@2.2ghz - 263

Now b4 i get flamed or called a troll , know that I am a mac Owner.
my 15in iMac G4 800Mhz served me well for 3yrs , till this past Dec i decided i wanted a new Computer and the G5 was out of my budget. So i went back to Winblows.

that said , being on this side again made me realize that it's very , very convient to be able 2 swap anything u like and being able to chooses every component down to the Heatsink & Thermal Paste on your CPU.

Sure i had to overclock but mind you the G5 is supposed to be State of the Art and my $77 Mobile CPU which was released back in summer 2002 with a much slower FSB just kicked it's ass.

As for Speed Bumps , i think Apple should not invest anymore time in the G5 as it's inferior to the Athlon 64 clock 4 clock(numerous benchmarks have proven this). they should just do a speed bump , Video card upgrade and finally make 512 ram standard plus 16X DVD-+RW/6X dual layer(Pioneer DVR 109).

after that find a way to implemt Cell Chip technology even if it means rewriting OSX , it will pay off in thew long run. because on it's current path the Mac is doomed.

 

[minimax]

As for Speed Bumps , i think Apple should not invest anymore time in the G5 as it's inferior to the Athlon 64 clock 4 clock(numerous benchmarks have proven this).

after that find a way to implemt Cell Chip technology even if it means rewriting OSX , it will pay off in thew long run. because on it's current path the Mac is doomed.

Did you actually have math at elementary?

The 1.8 Ghz almost performs the same as an athlon at 2.2 Ghz. So your benchmark doesnt quite support your clock4clock claim. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[jiggie2g]

Did you actually have math at elementary?

The 1.8 Ghz almost performs the same as an athlon at 2.2 Ghz. So your benchmark doesnt quite support your clock4clock claim. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Did u actually have english at elementary?

The 1.8ghz almost performs the same as an Athlon XP 2.2ghz (XP as in +3yrs old CPU) , my clock 4 clock claim was based on the Athlon 64. If you would have read what i wrote u would have realized what I was talking about.

Clock 4 clock the Athlon 64(939pin) is about 5-10% faster performance wise , and i won't even speak about the FX ...notice how barefeats happened to forget to post a single mode CPU Render Test in Cinebench.

http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html

And Gaming is just Humiliating

http://www.barefeats.com/mac2pc.html

Just Sour Grapes from another Mac Fanboy.