Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The G5 - Is it really Slow????

Regardless of benchmarks, my TiBook is the fastest computer I have ever used. Why? Because it works 99% of the time, it turns on instantly, and the OS is stable. I beat PC laptops to the punch almost every time since my Mac comes on instantly and talks to a DHCP server faster. And I find my Mac browses PC networked file shares faster than a PC.

So regardless of benchmarks, for me the Macintosh is a faster computer because on average I can do my work faster.
 
Originally posted by Stelliform
Regardless of benchmarks, my TiBook is the fastest computer I have ever used. Why? Because it works 99% of the time, it turns on instantly, and the OS is stable. I beat PC laptops to the punch almost every time since my Mac comes on instantly and talks to a DHCP server faster. And I find my Mac browses PC networked file shares faster than a PC.

So regardless of benchmarks, for me the Macintosh is a faster computer because on average I can do my work faster.
Click to expand...

exactly i belive this has been said before....but we shouldnt base the mac vs pc debate on raw speed alone. I would base on productivty and how fast/well your work is done on which ever computer you choose to do it on. THis mumble jumble about G5's not being fast seems like an excuse for these guys to keep wasting there money on buying pc's. For me a Mac is WAY WAY WAY better than any pc!!
 
This is utter nonesense. For a site that deals with computers he should be ashamed of himself for his apparent lack of any knowledge about how software optimization works.

He wants to play the "the Dells weren't running special MS optimized code" game, does he?

If he had been running the G5 (which he does not have access to I might add) with G5 optimized code he would have found the G5 to put out far more processing power.

NASA ran independent benchmarks of the G5s running with only one processor and found that in all ACTUAL REAL WORLD applications involving mathematical computations that the G5 outperformed the P4 in every way. In fact with both processors activated the G5 outperformed the P4 by 95.3% yielding 498 MFlops compared to the paltry 253 MFlops of the P4.



The Bottom Line Is:
Do not trust benchmarks from someone who does not have what they are benchmarking.
 
Originally posted by Billicus
Being biased, I believe it's a bunch of Balogna because they're just trying to swing the numbers in their favor, obviously. One could also argue that Apple swings the numbers in their favor, so it's a toss up.
Click to expand...

Grrrrrrr.

It's "Bologna", which comes from the city in Italy for which it's named after. How it got named after that city, I have no idea.
 
iJon nailed it dead on on this one, I think.

Slashdot has some threads like this:
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/03/06/24/1232237.shtml?tid=126&tid=181

which I've found have the best arguments from both "sides." When the dust cleared, it seems that the general consensus is that the benchmarks were as fair as possible, and that the G5 really is faster.

Here's the qick responses to this idiot's article:

1. SPEC/Compilers. Apple's choice was either to use GCC (which all Linux and OSX users use daily) which runs on both platforms, or use ICC for the intel box, and an optimized Power4 compiler for the G5. It's a lot more fair to use the same compiler on both machines, so that's what Apple did. Had they used optimized compilers for both machines, they'd likely be under more fire yet, as this would be much LESS fair. When people say that "apple made the intel numbers lower than what dell gave them as," that's because Dell was using ICC and not GCC, not because Apple fudged numbers.

2. "They Used Red Hat... not Windows." Guess what kids, Apple VP Greg Joswiack answered a few questions about this, and it turns out that they used Linux because it made the PC look BETTER -- other sites show the same thing; the PC gets more spec points under linux than under windows.

3. It's also a big consensus that the real world app performance couldn't have been fudged, and that there's no doubt that the G5 knocked the P4 on its ass in real world performance tests.

4. Another number people have been debating is the quake 3 figures apple posted on their site -- showing a P4 getting 275 fps and a G5 getting 350 fps at 640x480. The gamers screamed -- P4s are capable of 400fps with such setups, they yelled, and pointed to benchmarks from Toms Hardware, etc. However, at the end of the day, it was pointed out that Apple was running default config (sound ON)for 1.32 and runing Demo4, while Tom's was using 1.17 and Demo1 and had some tweaks (sound OFF). Benchmarks were run again all over the web, and sure enough -- on 1.32 Quake 3, with sound on, and running Demo4, the P4/R9800 gets between 270 and 280 fps.

Anyways... believing all of Apple's propaganda would lead you to believe even your iBook is an "awesome game machine," but in the case of the G5, I think the box really is as fast as they're claiming it is.
 
-awulf

You see, if the soured PC zealots (yes, the do exist) feel that if they shout, bitch, and scream loud enough, they can make the G5 slower in their minds, and thereby drowing us out.

But we know better don't we? :D
 
Re: Re: LOL..another PC Idiot

Originally posted by Cubeboy
Actually the pdf clearly stated that the G5 system used a optimized high speed single threaded malloc library as well as some register tweaks (to reduce snoop times although this is somewhat acceptable since they used dual cpus). Regarding GCC, the GCC compiler used on the G5 (GCC 3.3 Build 1379) is specifically optimized for the G5 processing architecture whereas the GCC compiler used by the P4 (GCC 3.3) is the stock version. GCC as a whole, is quite poorly optimized for the P4.
Click to expand...

Ok Cubeboy, could you please explain what exactly does the malloc library do. As far as I know, it’s only for memory management purposes (no optimization there). Also, you forgot to mention that the Xeon had 2GB of ram and the G5 had 1.5GB. Could you please provide some links form ***reliable*** sources backing up your statement that GCC 3.3 is optimized for the ***PowerPC*** G5 and its poorly optimized for the ***x86** PIV. Thanks.
 
hacurio1:

Well I'm not gona dig up any links, but anyway there are certainly tests out there showing that GCC 3.x on a P4 is a lot slower than ICC 6/7 on a P4, whereas on an Athlon the compilers are "pretty close" with ICC still leading. The conclusion that GCC doesn't like P4's is pretty reasonable, I've even seen quotes from GCC programmers talking about it being at least partly due to a lack of information about how to do proper instruction scheduling.

As far as GCC 3.x being well optimized for a PPC970, well I don't believe that. Probably better optimized than for a P4, but it still lacks the sort of trickery ICC 6/7 can pull off with autovectorization.
 
Re: Re: Re: LOL..another PC Idiot

Originally posted by hacurio1
Ok Cubeboy, could you please explain what exactly does the malloc library do. As far as I know, it’s only for memory management purposes (no optimization there). Also, you forgot to mention that the Xeon had 2GB of ram and the G5 had 1.5GB. Could you please provide some links form ***reliable*** sources backing up your statement that GCC 3.3 is optimized for the ***PowerPC*** G5 and its poorly optimized for the ***x86** PIV. Thanks.
Click to expand...

All the tests in the SPEC CPU2000 benchmark suite have a memory footprint of between 100 and 200 MB so having lots of memory isn't going to affect the scores.

Malloc Libraries helps allocators manage large numbers of objects ("heaps") that would otherwise cause fragmentation which would degrade the allocator's performance as the heap size grows. They can also reduce swapping and maintain better locality, as well as other things which I will not delve into now. How much a malloc library can affect performance would depend on how much of the total execution time your application spends on allocating memory. Considering your typical application (and I'd expect SPEC to be similar) spends 40% of it's total execution time allocating memory, performance can be significantly improved.

Regarding compiler comparisons, look up the FLOPS comparison done by Aces hardware or go to any of the links below:

http://www.willus.com/ccomp_benchmark.shtml?p2

http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/almabench.html

http://www.polyhedron.com/compare/win32/f77bench_p4.html

http://www.polyhedron.com/compare/win32/f90bench_p4.html

http://www.polyhedron.com/compare/linux/f77bench_p4.html

http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/intel_comp/intel_gcc_bench2.html (Note the Scimark 2.0 scores Tychay)

http://www.intel.com/software/products/compilers/techtopics/compiler_gnu_perf.pdf

The time that Intel moved to ICC was about the same time that they introduced the Pentium 4, GCC has since had very few optimizations for the Pentium 4 from what I've read, it doesn't even have a scheduler.

GCC 3.3 Build 1379 used for the G5 was Apple's own version and has never been seen before until the benchmark and the introduction of the G5, GCC 3.3 used by the Dell was downloaded off the internet. For all we know, Apple could well have spent the better part of the year optimizing the compiler for the G5.

Also it seems that my original suspicions about hyperthreading improving SpecRate have been proved to be correct. Hyperthreading does indeed, increase the performance of SpecRate on a single processor pentium 4.

Note these two official SPEC submissions, the Dell submission had hyperthreading turned off, the Intel submission had hyperthreading on.

Dell SPECint Rate Base: 12.6
Dell SPECfp Rate Base: 12.7

Intel SPECint Rate Base: 13.8
Intel SPECfp Rate Base: 13.6

Overall a Pentium 4 with hyperthreading turned on improved SPECint Rate by nearly 10% and SPECfp Rate by 7%. Looks like somebody <cough> Joswiak </cough> was lying.
 
What I really wish Apple would have done is lots and lots of benchmarks in addition to the ones that they did.

The problem with these numbers (irrelevant as they may be) is that were dealing with a small data set. It would be better if they had run these tests + Intel optimized compilers, + Apple opt. comps. + run Unix, Linux, Windows (many flavors), OS/2, virtual PC, turned the G5 upside down, whatever! Just do a whole bunch of things and show us all the data and let us make up our own minds.

In my opinion, it helps Apple's case if they lose a couple of tests.

At the end of the day - I'm buying a Mac anyway and I'm just happy to have faster machines available. Some WIN users will never ever buy a Mac - no matter how fast.
 
Originally posted by Anticipat3
Another number people have been debating is the quake 3 figures apple posted on their site -- showing a P4 getting 275 fps and a G5 getting 350 fps at 640x480. The gamers screamed -- P4s are capable of 400fps with such setups, they yelled, and pointed to benchmarks from Toms Hardware, etc. However, at the end of the day, it was pointed out that Apple was running default config (sound ON)for 1.32 and runing Demo4, while Tom's was using 1.17 and Demo1 and had some tweaks (sound OFF). Benchmarks were run again all over the web, and sure enough -- on 1.32 Quake 3, with sound on, and running Demo4, the P4/R9800 gets between 270 and 280 fps.
Click to expand...

Barefeats conducted their own Quake 3 benchmark out of suspicion on this, with the same configurations as was used by Apple, a Pentium 4 with a Radeon 9800, scored between 36 FPS to 43 FPS faster than Apple's Pentium 4.
 
World's Fastest Personal Computer!

Apple made no claims that the G5 was the fastest processor in the world, but that the PowerMac G5 was the fastest computer. The huge pipes make this computer faster in real world applications because these applications need to manipulate memory. I think people are twisting "World's Fastest Personal Computer" into "World's Fastest Processor", which Apple has never claimed. I think the real world tests Apple showcased proves that the G5 is the fastest computer.

The processor is not the computer!!:D

Not that the G5 isn't fast!
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: LOL..another PC Idiot

Originally posted by Cubeboy
Overall a Pentium 4 with hyperthreading turned on improved SPECint Rate by nearly 10% and SPECfp Rate by 7%. Looks like somebody <cough> Joswiak </cough> was lying.
Click to expand...

Which compiler?
 
Re: World's Fastest Personal Computer!

Originally posted by Edot
Apple made no claims that the G5 was the fastest processor in the world, but that the PowerMac G5 was the fastest computer. The huge pipes make this computer faster in real world applications because these applications need to manipulate memory. I think people are twisting "World's Fastest Personal Computer" into "World's Fastest Processor", which Apple has never claimed. I think the real world tests Apple showcased proves that the G5 is the fastest computer.
Click to expand...

Smart thinking! You're spot on with this observation which also neatly explains the much bigger advantages of the G5 SYSTEM in the real world app demos than those of the G5 PROC in the benchmarks.
 
It's all about real world use. When September rolls around what will it matter what someone else says when you can personally burn a P4 with your new G5.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOL..another PC Idiot

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Ok, so maybe under GCC, HT incurs poorer performance just like Joswiak said?
Click to expand...

Not so sure about this, the Dell did beat the Intel in SPEC int and fp, so it's pretty reasonable to assume that the reason the Intel beat the Dell in SPEC rate had to do with how SPEC rate works, not how the compiler works.

By the way, hows the weather in San Diego, still perfect, I assume?
 
It's always gonna be us vs. them. If the Mac is slower it's, "who cares if it's a little slower, it's still better". If the PC is slower, number are scrutinized over machines that haven't even been released yet. And "OMG, a business is using deceptive marketing to make us buy their products" (like they all don't do it). And "well, I still can't use this program or game on it", or whatever.

Who cares?

The G5 may be faster at some things, the P4 or Opteron for others. Apples are better for some things, WinTels better at others. This debate will rage on, and people are still going to buy whatever they feel suits their needs.

The G5 is fast. I, for one, am happy to have some hardware parity. Call me a zealot, but I consider myself merely a drowning fish.

Think about that one for a second. :D
 
Spec is nothing but slight of hand.It has never produced results that matched real world performance.I was reading just yesterday on aceshardware I believe about how the p4 slapped the athelon silly on spec but was murdered in real world tests.This was written a few years ago.The only reason Apple used it was so they could make the claim of "Worlds fastest computer" useing an "industry standard" benchmark.Apple used its own tricks to level the playing field,which of course meant getting rid of intels compiler that even the head of the microprocessor report admitted was "tuned" for tests like spec.Check out the submitted scores on spec.org.Even AMD uses intels compiler.It is foolish to base your perceptions of performance on a handful of simple app fragments in a benchmark you have to pay for in an industry where intel has called the shots for decades.The results look so skewed its clear the spec code is biased towards x86 and intel in particular.Of course the thought will outrage some I'm sure.
 
Originally posted by tazo
if apple came out with the equivalent of a 400 mhz celeron in their next big computer (like G5, etc), I believe a lot of mac users would buy it because of its pretty case.
Click to expand...

ummm, NO.

No professional, who makes their living off of their computer, is gonna plunk down $3000 for a 400 mhz celeron system, not even for a super-duper-Ives designed case. There is a simple reason that PowerMacs have not sold well until now: they were slow. And there is a reason now why they're flying off the shelves (figuratively speaking): they are fast.

please, even if you're gonna exaggerate, don't cite such silly hypotheticals.
 
I'd have to agree with dongmin here.

The original 500 MHz G4 was pretty cool when it finally came out, but you remember the nightmare that was Motorola (even then IBM had to bail them out).

Then OS X came out, and when it matured into .1 and .2, Apple was even cooler. But their processors were slow. And I don't mean slow, as in slower than Intel or AMD. I mean slower than they should have been. Remember how unimpressed we were with the 1.42 G4s even?

Now, finally, we will have the G5 (fast) and 10.3 (even faster). Even if a $4,000 Dual Xeon or Opteron slightly beats it in benchmarks, it's still fast. And still faster than the G4s and 10.0-.2 (maybe even OS 9).

I still say yippee. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back