PDA

View Full Version : Apple G5 smokes the competition - according to Apple.


Sazar
04-29-05, 04:07 PM
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

We should all buy G5's NOW apparently.

http://images.apple.com/powermac/performance/images/photoshop20050427.jpg http://images.apple.com/powermac/performance/images/renderinghdv20050427.jpg

http://images.apple.com/powermac/performance/images/lightwave20050427.jpg http://images.apple.com/powermac/performance/images/aftereffects20050427.jpg

http://images.apple.com/powermac/performance/images/audio20050427.jpg http://images.apple.com/powermac/performance/images/bbs20050427.jpg

Excellent. Now Apple has demonstrated what none of us knew before. A64's are miraculously SLOWER than p4's in tasks and G5's are 200% faster.

:thumbsup:

There is a reason I despise Apple's PR. And I think its plain to see.

Their test suite


Testing conducted by Apple in April 2005 using preproduction dual 2.0GHz, 2.3GHz and 2.7GHz Power Mac G5 units; all other systems were shipping units.
File size = 600MB. For PC systems, cache sizes were: Dell Dimension XPS Gen4 = 2048K L2; Dell Precision 670 = 2048K L2; Alienware Aurora 5500 = 1024K L2; Boxx Tech Series 7300 = 1024K L2.
The Power Mac G5 systems were testing with a prerelease version of Final Cut Pro 5. The PC systems were tested with Adobe Premier Pro version 1.5.1. For PC systems, cache sizes were: Dell Dimension XPS Gen4 = 2048KB L2; Dell Precision 670 = 2048KB L2; Alienware Aurora 5500 = 1024KB L2; Boxx Tech Series 7300 = 1024KB L2.
Benchmark scene = Skull_Head_Newest. For PC systems, cache sizes were: Dell Dimension XPS Gen4 = 2048K L2; Dell Precision 670 = 2048K L2; Alienware Aurora 5500 = 1024K L2; Boxx Tech Series 7300 = 1024K L2.
For PC systems, cache sizes were: Dell Dimension XPS Gen4 = 2048K L2; Dell Precision 670 = 2048K L2; Alienware Aurora 5500 = 1024K L2; Boxx Tech Series 7300 = 1024K L2.
All Power Mac systems were tested using Logic Pro 7.0. The Dell Dimension XPS Gen4, Dell Precision 670, Alienware Aurora 5500 and Boxx Tech Series 7300 were tested using Steinberg Cubase SX 3.01. For PC systems, cache sizes were: Dell Dimension XPS Gen4 = 2048K L2; Dell Precision 670 = 2048K L2; Alienware Aurora 5500 = 1024K L2; Boxx Tech Series 7300 = 1024K L2.

saturnotaku
04-29-05, 04:22 PM
Wow, the G5 is faster in applications that absolutely nobody uses. Bravo, Apple, I (salute) you.

einstein_314
04-29-05, 05:22 PM
A64's are miraculously SLOWER than p4's in tasks and G5's are 200% faster.

A64's are slower than P4's in the tasks that were tested so I wouldn't say that nobody knew that. And it doesn't say anywhere that the G5 is 200% faster. There is a 99% faster one but no 200%.

Wow, the G5 is faster in applications that absolutely nobody uses. Bravo, Apple, I (salute) you.

I wouldn't say nobody uses them. In fact, the majority of people that buy a G5 buy it because they use those programs. Apple has always had these graphs on their webpage too so it's not that big of a deal. And no where does it say that you should buy one NOW. I'm predicting that this thread will turn into the usual apple bashing thread.

GlowStick
04-29-05, 05:43 PM
Yeah my 2.53 northwood p4 pwns my AMD FX-53 in gameing, i was like playing Quake II on it at like 200fps and then i loadeder up Doom3 on my fx-53 and got like 50fps i was like wtf intel is the ownerer at gameing. thats like a gazillion percent bettah!

omg!

retsam
04-29-05, 06:56 PM
utoh this thread mocking apple might cause apple to sue nvnews..... hurry and someone delete these posts before jobs sends in his lawyers :D

Sazar
04-29-05, 07:32 PM
Wow, the G5 is faster in applications that absolutely nobody uses. Bravo, Apple, I (salute) you.

Apps tested == Apple Apps on Apple systems. 3rd party apps on the rest.

Real apples to apples. Pun intended :D

Sazar
04-29-05, 07:36 PM
A64's are slower than P4's in the tasks that were tested so I wouldn't say that nobody knew that. And it doesn't say anywhere that the G5 is 200% faster. There is a 99% faster one but no 200%.


A64's are not faster in all elements, I quite agree but there are plenty of benches out there for similar subject matter which don't show that big a beating down.

Further, there are a few tests where the G5's are indeed about 3x faster, I would consider that to be more than 99%.

I wouldn't say nobody uses them. In fact, the majority of people that buy a G5 buy it because they use those programs. Apple has always had these graphs on their webpage too so it's not that big of a deal. And no where does it say that you should buy one NOW. I'm predicting that this thread will turn into the usual apple bashing thread.

I posted it as a bit of a lark because thats what it was posted as on [H]

It is not designed to be taken seriously, just like those numbers :)

Read the test suite and compare the apps. If there were 3rd party apps run on BOTH sides it would make for a fairer compare. I use a dual G5 config on a regular basis and I have never seen a performance delta that large in real life.

Rakeesh
04-29-05, 09:18 PM
Eh...why are they comparing dual CPU setups against single CPU setups?

And why are they comparing against xeon and opteron? AFAIK these CPUs are designed more for integer operations proper for the server environment.

A proper benchmark IMO would be to just compare it with a dual P4 and a dual athlon (on top of fixing their big ****ups in the test suite.)

rohit
04-30-05, 04:00 AM
Wat is G5? i thot intel and amd were the only major cpu manufacturers, and VIA followed. :S

Rakeesh
04-30-05, 04:12 AM
Wat is G5? i thot intel and amd were the only major cpu manufacturers, and VIA followed. :S

I don't even know where to begin telling you whats wrong with everything you just said.

Then again...soup sandwich...'nuff said.

jolle
04-30-05, 04:44 AM
big ol conspiracy thing been going on over here since Apple first released their G5 benchmarks..
http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powermac-G5/

They had hyperthreading ENABLED for the single-processor benchmarks, but DISABLED for the multi-processor benchmarks
Apple/Veritest used a special fast "relaxed IEEE math operations" compiler option on the G5 benchmark, but did NOT use it on the Dell/Intel benchmark, thus giving the G5 an unfair advantage in floating-point operations.

there is a bunch of stuff there.. dunno if its true tho..
Its about the old tests tho..

-=DVS=-
05-02-05, 12:40 AM
Nice now if apple would show off some amezing game scores or atleast a game or two id be impressed :p

MUYA
05-02-05, 12:40 AM
iD be impressed too :p

XP_GUN
05-02-05, 12:49 AM
They try to make themselfs seem good I mean there are people out there who think that a XBox is more powerfull then a PC without doing any research, so apple makes the G5 look like its the fastest computer out there and people still buy it.

netviper13
05-02-05, 02:46 AM
do you need high fps in adobe photoshop cs?... hehe

I don't know about you, but I like to play my Photoshop with at least 6x AA and 16x Aniso filtering... :p

AthlonXP1800
05-02-05, 09:44 PM
Who need Apple Mac? On the PC you dont really need it, you can running OS X Panther or Tiger at very fair good speed of a 750MHz G3 or G4 on PearPC 0.4 emulator. :)

gmontem
05-03-05, 02:36 AM
do you need high fps in adobe photoshop cs?... hehe

There are many people who use CS and CS2 to process the RAW images captured from their DSLRs.

joltcola
05-04-05, 04:47 PM
Are there any reasonable reviews done on comparing AMD and/or intel based graphic workstations (assuming that is what a dual core G5 would be used for, not donkey kong) vs. what apple is releasing now for the market?

-- jolt