Quad 3GHz Mac Pro vs Quad 2.5GHz PowerMac

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?

Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
 

Felldownthewell

macrumors 65816
Feb 10, 2006
1,053
0
Portland
Amazing.

However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...
 

MovieCutter

macrumors 68040
May 3, 2005
3,342
2
Washington, DC
Felldownthewell said:
Amazing.

However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...
I did...:D

DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!
 

ricgnzlzcr

macrumors 6502a
Jun 7, 2005
802
0
Wow, I'm really surprised by those photoshop tests. When those go universal I'm sure my jaw will drop
 

Danksi

macrumors 68000
Oct 3, 2005
1,554
0
Nelson, BC. Canada
Felldownthewell said:
Amazing.

However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...
My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.

On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
 

Chaszmyr

macrumors 601
Aug 9, 2002
4,263
76
iGary said:
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?
I couldn't say for sure, but I would guess that the current version of FCP was carefully optimized for the G5, and has not yet undergone the same treatment for Intel chips.
 

FF_productions

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Apr 16, 2005
2,822
0
Mt. Prospect, Illinois
Danksi said:
My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.

On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.

Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.
 

darh

macrumors member
Oct 1, 2005
86
0
FF_productions said:
Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.

Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.
Couldn't it be the harddrive that is the limiting factor in this bnechmark?
 

QCassidy352

macrumors G4
Mar 20, 2003
10,631
2,771
Bay Area
oh WOW. Considering that a single 1.67 G4 beats a dual 2.0 core duo in photoshop when the core duo has to use rosetta, the fact that the xeon is nearly even is amazing. That thing is going to be amazing when CS3 comes out! :eek:
 

FF_productions

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Apr 16, 2005
2,822
0
Mt. Prospect, Illinois
darh said:
Couldn't it be the harddrive that is the limiting factor in this bnechmark?
When rendering in FCP, it's all about the CPU.

Fast hard drives contribute to real-time effects, but do NOT contribute to rendering.

Ram helps a little bit.
 

Danksi

macrumors 68000
Oct 3, 2005
1,554
0
Nelson, BC. Canada
FF_productions said:
Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.

Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.
I've not really used Motion yet, just the other apps within FC-Studio.

Just been comparing their iMac 1.9 G5 results with those of the 2.66Ghz Mac Pro numbers... I don't think I'll be disappointed in the performance boost! :D

I guess my main concern is whether or not Apple integrates the individual Final Cut Studio applications more closely, so all of a sudden you'd need a better graphics card to comfortably run the 'editor', rather than just Motion as is the case at the moment.

I think I'll stick to the 2.66Ghz and standard graphics card, as FCP and compressor are more CPU intensive I believe.
 

FF_productions

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Apr 16, 2005
2,822
0
Mt. Prospect, Illinois
Danksi said:
I think I'll stick to the 2.66Ghz and standard graphics card, as FCP and compressor are more CPU intensive I believe.
Premiere Pro, for an example, is starting to use GPU-accelerated effects, I think it's a trend that will soon be coming over to FCP.

I'd get the 2.6 ghz, then add another graphics card in the future if the current one doesn't suffice.
 

Danksi

macrumors 68000
Oct 3, 2005
1,554
0
Nelson, BC. Canada
FF_productions said:
Premiere Pro, for an example, is starting to use GPU-accelerated effects, I think it's a trend that will soon be coming over to FCP.

I'd get the 2.6 ghz, then add another graphics card in the future if the current one doesn't suffice.
Good to know. Thanks.
 

NATO

macrumors 68000
Feb 14, 2005
1,692
28
Northern Ireland
Interesting results, definitely makes me want to rob the local bank to buy a 3.0GHz Mac Pro :p

Spotted something amusing when browsing the barefeats page, an ad for the Apple store advertising 'The New Power Mac G5 Quad - Shop Now' ... Not so new now :p
 

Some_Big_Spoon

macrumors 6502a
Jun 17, 2003
855
0
New York, NY
Well, we all knew that the G5 isn't a "bad" chip necessarily.. It's older tech, and I think, wasn't really meant for this kind of work (non-server applications).

Preaching to the choir am I?

iGary said:
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?

Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.