PDA

View Full Version : Pentium beaten by Apple G5



Beamtracer
08-24-2003, 06:10 AM
[re-edited post]

I had previously posted some benchmarks from the Blanos website pitting a Pentium against one of the new Apple G5s.

I've deleted the original post after the reliability of those benchmarks was shown to be questionable (they tested configurations of machines that didn't exist).

I guess you have to beware of this sort of thing from websites where people can self-post benchmarks.

js33
08-24-2003, 06:45 AM
Gee Beam you should really go work for Apple. :D

Cheers,
JS

js33
08-24-2003, 06:59 AM
Sadly those benchmarks were faked. :mad:

That is too bad I hoped they were true.

Still waiting for real benchmarks. :cool:

Cheers,
JS

Beamtracer
08-24-2003, 08:08 AM
Yeah, it's a pity that people have been adding false benchmarks to Blanos. Now when real bone-fide benchmarks come in we won't know whether to trust them.

Hervé
08-24-2003, 11:41 PM
What counts at the end is the qualitu of work, not on what machine it was done, and at what speed...

facial deluxe
08-25-2003, 05:51 AM
Could't find even one G5 results...
Eeeeeh, really don't care, I guess some new Pentium (P5 ?) will be on market in not too long, Apple will be eaten once more..

Alliante
08-25-2003, 07:19 AM
Very cool about the G5 scores! How does it compare against a Pentium II?

Lightwolf
08-25-2003, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Now when real bone-fide benchmarks come in we won't know whether to trust them.
Well, I guess when a couple of different benches come from different people, we'll be able to rely on them, at least a bit more. That is the nice thing about blanos, you even see the differences in theoretically identical systems with different set-ups from different people.

WizCraker
08-25-2003, 08:32 AM
Especially now that the G5 officially has started shipping just a few days ago. I called apple about the G5 back in June and they told me there was a 12 week waiting list.

Here is something interesting from Pixar
https://renderman.pixar.com/products/news/power_mac_G5.html

vitovonantwon
08-25-2003, 12:06 PM
I built myself a p4 2.8c o/c to 3.26, and it's pretty fast. It reaches the same benchmarks tha Tom's hardware and anandtech get using lightwave.

IF someone can post thier benchmarks,
of a real G5, please do. My friend has one on order, and when he gets it, He will post the benchmark, and we will see what's faster, a P4 or a G5.

VitoVonAntwon

link....
VitoVonAntwon's p4 2.8c Oc 3.26 (http://www.nyclightwave.com/forum/index.php?act=SF&f=26)

archiea
08-25-2003, 12:35 PM
he, he he he

Imagine if Beam worked for NASA...

DigiLusionist
08-25-2003, 08:02 PM
Ironic that as much of a Macophiliac as he is, he would quote Bill Gates to drive home his pro-platform message. :p

hrgiger
08-25-2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by WizCraker


Here is something interesting from Pixar
https://renderman.pixar.com/products/news/power_mac_G5.html

Hmmm, wonder if that has less to do with G5 performance and more to do with Steve Jobs?

And for how much more the G5 costs, it better be faster....

WizCraker
08-25-2003, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by hrgiger
Hmmm, wonder if that has less to do with G5 performance and more to do with Steve Jobs?


I don't think Pixar would port Renderman to the Mac if they could not utilize it in their infrastructure. Steve Jobs probably has some influence on the direction of technology but I wouldn't be surpised if the G5 technology was customized for Pixar and the other Pro fields.

As for Price the G5 Dual goes for about the same cost as a Boxx AMD 64 Opteron. 3k.

I'll probably get the G5 as I've been wanting to get Final Cut, Logic, and the new Shake for a while now.

hrgiger
08-25-2003, 11:39 PM
Well, that's what I'm saying. I'm sure it works fine for them, but I think the decision was probably a little easier with Steve Jobs there.

jin choung
08-26-2003, 12:32 AM
hmmmmm,

yah, i wonder why the pc people have been visiting the mac forums... considering subject lines like this one.

anyhoo, patience. do they even have 64bit apps to test with yet?

jin

Original1
08-26-2003, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by jin choung
hmmmmm,

yah, i wonder why the pc people have been visiting the mac forums... considering subject lines like this one.

anyhoo, patience. do they even have 64bit apps to test with yet?

jin

From a dedicated PC man there are indications that the fact that the undelieing G5 Core in OS X means even the 32 bit apps get some performance increase.

Since we will not have a 64 bit OS for the PC til 2005 it sucks I can't have my dual opterons yet:D

Karmacop
08-26-2003, 07:12 AM
Linux is 64 bit ... ;)

dwburman
08-26-2003, 08:44 AM
The Opturons are supposed to be fully compatible with 32-bit code , like the G5 is.

I haven't heard anything about a 64-bit Mac OS yet either... I've heard some rumors about Panther being 64-bit, but I don't know how likely that is. Of course, given its Unix core maybe it'll be easier to port/recompile than Windows.

Karmacop
08-26-2003, 09:21 AM
Well unixes have been 64 bit for decades now (including bsd) so I'm sure it wouldn't be too much trouble for them ..

MiniFireDragon
08-29-2003, 07:35 AM
From what I read on flay.com about the G5 v P4 benchmarks weren't that the machines didn't exist, it's that all the speed increased built into the P4 processor were turned off (hyper threading being one of them) while they were left on on the G5. Thus making the G5 faster then the P4.

Karmacop
08-29-2003, 08:34 AM
The original tested were skewed for Apple. The newer tests show that apple is a bit faster than intel when using two processors. The IBM tests using an optimized compiler (the previous ones were gcc with no special optimization for either chip) show that the G5 chips can be really really fast ...

hopicus
08-29-2003, 03:05 PM
so hey, ive got a question... [ woo hoo for me:D ] the xeons are 64 bit right? so what all software out there actually supports 64 bit... is there a 64 bit and a 32 bit versions of lightwave? or maya? or whatever? or can you support both in one?... or something...

jin choung
08-29-2003, 03:18 PM
xeons aren't 64bit... they're based on pentium 4s.

ITANIUMS are 64bit and only 64bit (well, it'll run 32bit dog slow).

AMD64s will be 64bit and run 32bit faster than the athlonxps.

no,

there are no 64bit apps out now worth mentioning.

jin

toby
08-30-2003, 07:45 PM
"From what I read on flay.com about the G5 v P4 benchmarks weren't that the machines didn't exist, it's that all the speed increased built into the P4 processor were turned off (hyper threading being one of them) while they were left on on the G5. Thus making the G5 faster then the P4."

"The original tested were skewed for Apple."

It's already been shown that this is not true -

The Pentium went slower with Hyperthreading turned on, so it was left off, and it's also had years more optimization for gcc than the G5.

js33
08-30-2003, 09:46 PM
But NO real apps on Windows use the gcc. I would think the gcc compiler is only used for open source Linux compiles. Windows software is compiled generally with either the MSVC or Intel's compiler so again that test proves nothing.

Cheers,
JS

toby
08-30-2003, 10:47 PM
It was a test of hardware only. You can't do that with different compilers.

Karmacop
08-31-2003, 03:06 AM
Yeah, they were just testing the hardware. They tried to keep everything else the same, thus they both used the gcc. If you look at the IBM results (http://www.spscicomp.org/ScicomP7/Presentations/Blainey-SciComp7_compiler_update.pdf) from a few days ago that used an optimised compiler you can see the G5 can run the tests faster too ..

Lightwolf
08-31-2003, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by toby
The Pentium went slower with Hyperthreading turned on, so it was left off, and it's also had years more optimization for gcc than the G5.
Both aren't true:
HT can speed up, doesn't tend to on SPECmarks though.
gcc isn't really P4 optimized, it is optimized for the i386 architecture, which is a whole lot different.
On te other hand, for the G5 they used a gcc version that wasn't available to the publiic back then, and it did have G5 optimizations.
A test with IBMs compiler vs. intels icc would be more informative than the benches by Veritest (esp. since people testing on an almost identical PC set-up (only difference: different motherboard, same chipset though), got PC scores that were around 15% higher than the ones reported).
Cheers,
Mike

Jimzip
08-31-2003, 05:32 AM
MiniFireDragon,
Mac's don't have hyperthreading, so it can't have been left on! ;)

Jimzip :D

Karmacop
08-31-2003, 05:43 AM
Lightwolf, when you look at IBM's results they show about a 50% speed up for nearly all the tests when using their compiler instead of gcc?

Lightwolf
08-31-2003, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by Karmacop
Lightwolf, when you look at IBM's results they show about a 50% speed up for nearly all the tests when using their compiler instead of gcc?
I know, I posted that link as well a couple of days ago ;)
Which, finally, means that the G5 has a compiler that allows for fast, optimized code.
I was afraid that if Apple would have to stay put on gcc, the G5s would never reach their true potential. Now they can, and if developers switch the compiler, we'll be seeing fast software on the G5s too.
I wonder if Apple will use it for OS development as well...
At least according to SPEC, that will put the G5 2GHz in the same league as the P4/Xeon 3.2 and the Opteron 2GHz (currently, the Itanium2 tops everything at 1.5GHz, but isn't really relevant since you won't find it in workstations/desktop anytime soon).
Now, looking at the price tag, the G5 will be for the first time a Mac than can compete price/performance wise, and that is a very good thing imho.
Cheers,
Mike

A Mejias
08-31-2003, 07:13 AM
Apple cheating on benchmarks is nothing new. They were caught doing it when the G4's were introduced. Anyone remember the "Weapons Grade" ads?

I'm more interested comparisons between the G5's, G4's and G3's and am curious why they haven't. I think it would be much more useful for current Mac owners to know how much faster the G5's are than what they are using now and therefore worth the upgrade.

I just wish Apple would stop the constant comparisons, derision and lies in regard to Intel/Windows/Microsoft. It just makes them look bad and perpetuates the cult mindset which in turn keeps many new converts away. I think Apple makes some great products. The G5's look like they will be great machines and would be good for any LightWave Mac users.

Karmacop
08-31-2003, 09:47 AM
I think Apple will stop the lies when intel and microsoft do. It's in a company's interest to skew the truth as much as they can without getting in much trouble.

Original1
08-31-2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by A Mejias


I'm more interested comparisons between the G5's, G4's and G3's and am curious why they haven't. I think it would be much more useful for current Mac owners to know how much faster the G5's are than what they are using now and therefore worth the upgrade.

>snip

I think Apple makes some great products. The G5's look like they will be great machines and would be good for any LightWave Mac users.

I couldn't agree more, what I really want to see is a comparision of reall world tasks.

lightwave renders, photoshop filters etc.

Lightwolf
09-01-2003, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by Karmacop
I think Apple will stop the lies when intel and microsoft do. It's in a company's interest to skew the truth as much as they can without getting in much trouble.
See, that's why I don't believe Apple, Microsoft or intel ;)
Too bad Apple has to jump on that bandwagon too, I thought they were cool.

Jimzip
09-01-2003, 05:19 AM
Apple's still cool. As long as they keep innovating they will keep that way in my mind.


Jimzip :D