Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Match these G5 Specs

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 13, 2003 10:25:33 PM

I constantly hear how the G5 is overpriced, so I thought I'd put up a challenge. Can anyone match these specs with a matching dual 64bit PC system? Although the Build Your Own crowd is welcome to put their two cents in, I think it would be more fair to configure an factory-supplied configuration.

And you must match up specs as closely as possible, no cheating on "extras".

Here's the configuration, below this I've listed some of the specs that it comes with but which aren't listed in the initial configuration:

• Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5
• 512MB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 2x256
• 160GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
• ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
• AirPort Extreme Card
• Bluetooth Module
• 56k V.92 internal modem
• SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
• Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
• Mac OS X - U.S. English

Subtotal $3,148.00

This machine also ships with:
Firewire 400
Firewire 800
8X AGP Graphics
1Ghz system bus (and both processors have their own independent bus)
Serial ATA
PCI-X (PCI-Express would be a suitable alternative)
Built-in Bluetooth
Built-in Wireless both 802.11b and 802.11g
DVI, ADC, and VGA video support
Optical Digital Audio In and Out (along with analog)
Support for 8gigs of RAM
10/100/1000T Ethernet
OS X (when quoting a windows box no quoting Windows XP Home, and XP Pro must be a full, legal copy, no upgrades or OEM editions...if you want to go with Linux, ok, although I consider the ability to run programs like Office and Photoshop NATIVELY more than a slight issue)

And a couple of final notes, this machine will run 32bit applications natively, it's industrial design is remarkeable, and ......it is shipping NOW!!

I'm not looking for flames or Platform wars, I'm just curious how this will turn out.

"It's just a computer platform, people!"

More about : match specs

September 13, 2003 10:31:29 PM

Can a 32-bit one be used if it would perform better?
September 13, 2003 10:37:37 PM

You cant make a post about Macs without a flame or platform wars, its best just to not make the posts because many of them are stupid and the thread starter(you) is just looking is just looking to justify a stupid purchase
Related resources
September 13, 2003 10:43:36 PM

"Can a 32-bit one be used if it would perform better?"

No, for a couple of reasons.

32-bit systems can only support 4gigs of RAM, and once Panther (OS X.3) ships and programs are optimized for 64bits, 32bit systems will not out-perform 64bit systems (not to mention the fact that it is highly debatable whether any 32-bit system right now could outperform this configuration, see the following link for a fair and objective look at SINGLE G5 benchmarks...as it says in the study "Note that even though the G4 and G5 systems have dual processors, detailed benchmarks in the present study pertain to a single processor only.")





"It's just a computer platform, people!"
September 13, 2003 10:46:33 PM

"You cant make a post about Macs without a flame or platform wars, its best just to not make the posts because many of them are stupid and the thread starter(you) is just looking is just looking to justify a stupid purchase"


Just because YOU can't discuss this subject without flaming doesn't mean that other people can't....how about if you don't have anything constructive to add other than insults, you just don't post?

Is that so difficult?

"It's just a computer platform, people!"
September 13, 2003 10:48:52 PM

If support for a lot of RAM is so important, then why does your sample system ship with only 512 MB?
September 13, 2003 10:55:38 PM

"If support for a lot of RAM is so important, then why does your sample system ship with only 512 MB?"

Because I'm trying to establish a base-line here, the G5 uses standard PC3200 DDR SDRAM, thus the additional cost of RAM would be the same regardless of platform.

I'm looking forward to some specs and prices.

"It's just a computer platform, people!"
September 14, 2003 5:14:44 AM

If you limit your criteria to 512MB of RAM, then the advantage of a 64-bit system has been severely cut down. At this point, you can no longer say "this 64-bit Mac is better than any 32-bit system" since you're only using 512MB of RAM anyway.

As for comparable PC's. I've not seen benchmarks on the PPC 970's so I can't tell you what would be a similarly performing PC. It also depends highly on what software you care about in terms of performance. Do you want Photoshop filter timings? Mpeg4 encoding timings? Gaming? Or just RC-5?

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
September 14, 2003 12:43:44 PM

I just popped over to a UK online shop and a built a:

P4 2.8C with MSI mobo
512MB PC3200 dual channel low latency ram etc.
180GB HD
Radeon 9600 Pro blah blah
Sony DVD+/-R multi-format drive
Case/PSU/cordless keyboard+mouse etc.
Win2K Pro OEM (only idiots buy retail)

Cost: £1150 or $1850

It doesn't have all the goodies that the G5 has and it only a single CPU etc., but it would be more than sufficient for my needs (which is all that matters).

Anyway, you only need to look at the options path to see that Macs are overpriced ($250 extra for 1GB RAM?! $300 extra for an R9800 Pro?!)

AND, look at what you get for $1999 (my system cost $1850):

1.6GHz PowerPC G5
800MHz frontside bus
512K L2 cache
256MB DDR333 128-bit SDRAM
Expandable to 4GB SDRAM
80GB Serial ATA
SuperDrive
Three PCI Slots
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
56K internal modem

That is daylight robbery!

"Some mice have two buttons. Macintosh has one. So it's extremely difficult to push the wrong button." - Apple ad. circa 1984.
September 14, 2003 12:47:14 PM

This thread's title...
Quote:
Match these G5 Specs

...is misleading. Specs don't matter at all, it's the performance that matters. GeForceFX's specs were incredible and impossible to beat, but real life was a little different.

Now if Apple uses wrong scores for benchmarks on other platforms, it's only natural that people get suspicious. And we still lack a really thorough comparison...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 14, 2003 3:20:12 PM

" just popped over to a UK online shop and a built a:

P4 2.8C with MSI mobo
512MB PC3200 dual channel low latency ram etc.
180GB HD
Radeon 9600 Pro blah blah
Sony DVD+/-R multi-format drive
Case/PSU/cordless keyboard+mouse etc.
Win2K Pro OEM (only idiots buy retail)

Cost: £1150 or $1850"


I suspect it could be built for even cheaper than this if one really shopped around for the lowest prices. But here's the real kicker - I'd be willing to bet for *most* applications that someone would be using they wouldn't notice a difference in performence. But I'm willing to bet they'd notice that $1000+ sitting in their wallet. All these ads on TV saying the G5 is "the world's fastest PC" are really marketing towards the everyday user who will basically never need this amount of power and therefore should save their money!!! Maybe some people have some special applications that they want the G5 for and that's fine but I feel like it's a rip off for anyone just doing everyday applications. But this discussion with relation to performence (which is what really matters) is pretty pointless because we don't have any independent benchmarks yet (ie - ones where the benchmarker didn't cripple the G5s competition to make the G5 look better than it really is). I think everyone is still waiting for Tom to do an article about it - but for some reason I don't think it's coming.....

"Don't question it!!!" - Err
September 14, 2003 8:05:47 PM

A Dell Precision 650 with dual 2.4Ghz Xeon processors sells for about $2900, with a 17" monitor.
September 14, 2003 8:16:08 PM

well in the mean time...

perhaps we al can do a little of our own testing...

maybe some one should set Up a web page for everyone to down load some stuff... like say a video to encode a spacific image to render in PhotoShop... these saort of things...

3 reasons this is a good idea... One it will keep the debate alive till Toms FINALLY does there own... 2 we'll have a good idea how it MIGHT compair to the MAC and 3 we'll have a good idea how our set up compares to other comprable setups, PC to PC.

jsut a though! Im Sure and MAC user would love to try and compete that way... Of coarse ther is no realy way of knowing if they are cheating or not as it would relay only be stop watch. but its a start!

ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2003 11:41:01 PM

A 3GHz CPU is faster than 2 2GHz CPU's. Apple knows this but can't do much about it because their chips simply don't clock that high.

I could build a P4 3GHz system with better specs for $2000.

I could build a P4 3GHz system with similar specs for around $1500.

I could build a Dual Xeon workstation with better specs for about $3000.

And I could build a dual Athlon-MP system for around $2500.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 15, 2003 12:37:44 AM

Who here actually owns a PowerMac G5? Without that, I don't think we would accomplish this "independent benchmarking" scheme.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
September 15, 2003 3:19:14 PM

ok how about these specs..
MSI neo fis2r
1x opteron 244 @ 1.8ghz
512mb pc3200
160gb sata 150
radeon 9600pro
dvd-r/cd-rw
56k modem
winxp home
comes with 8x agp, firewire, gigabit ethernet

£1338 or $2143
now i realise its only a single 1.8 cpu but considering ahow it smokes the p43.2 and in some cases dual p43.06 xeons this setup should be prett close to your apple system performance wise.
all for $1000 cheaper
all priced from dabs.com
there are cheaper online suppliers about but im in a rush so didnt bother shopping about
September 15, 2003 3:19:43 PM

ok how about these specs..
MSI neo fis2r
1x opteron 244 @ 1.8ghz
512mb pc3200
160gb sata 150
radeon 9600pro
dvd-r/cd-rw
56k modem
winxp home
comes with 8x agp, firewire, gigabit ethernet, 6ch audio

£1338 or $2143
now i realise its only a single 1.8 cpu but considering ahow it smokes the p43.2 and in some cases dual p43.06 xeons this setup should be prett close to your apple system performance wise.
all for $1000 cheaper
all priced from dabs.com
there are cheaper online suppliers about but im in a rush so didnt bother shopping about
September 15, 2003 6:33:39 PM

WOW a 56k modem! They still make those things? Is firewire 800 standardized yet? Are there any products that use it? I don't use firewire, so I honestly have no idea. I could care less about bluetooth too, since I don't use it. Maybe one day it will be the greatest thing, but not yet. I'm pretty sure that Mac OSx is actually Unix, skinned like a Mac with some Mac APIs added, but that doesn't matter. 8 Gb of Ram!!! You're killing me kid! On a small server, that would be cool, but would you EVER use that on a desktop? Probably not. It kinda makes me sad to think that a $1000 PC can do 99% as much work as a $3100 Mac. I don't mean to talk sh!t, but really...
September 16, 2003 12:29:03 AM

>>>A 3GHz CPU is faster than 2 2GHz CPU's. Apple knows this but can't do much about it because their chips simply don't clock that high.

I could build a P4 3GHz system with better specs for $2000.

I could build a P4 3GHz system with similar specs for around $1500.

I could build a Dual Xeon workstation with better specs for about $3000.

And I could build a dual Athlon-MP system for around $2500.<<<


Do you have any facts to go along with that, or is your word supposed to be enough?

Here's a link showing what a SINGLE G5 is capable of:

http://members.cox.net/craig.hunter/g5/

So please bring facts if you want to be considered in this little study.



"It's just a computer platform, people!"
September 16, 2003 12:31:23 AM

Again, this isn't what YOU need, this is about configuring a comparable system to the one I posted.

If you have some facts to add about configuring a 64bit PC config, bring it.

"It's just a computer platform, people!"
September 16, 2003 12:33:29 AM

"A Dell Precision 650 with dual 2.4Ghz Xeon processors sells for about $2900, with a 17" monitor"

Specs and prices, please, that tells me nothing about what the Dell has....facts, please, facts.

"It's just a computer platform, people!"
September 16, 2003 12:35:06 AM

"A 3GHz CPU is faster than 2 2GHz CPU's. Apple knows this but can't do much about it because their chips simply don't clock that high."

This benchmark from NASA comparing an un-otpimized SINGLE G5 says otherwise.

http://members.cox.net/craig.hunter/g5/

"It's just a computer platform, people!"<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by americanflats on 09/15/03 08:39 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 16, 2003 12:38:44 AM

"



WOW a 56k modem! They still make those things? Is firewire 800 standardized yet? Are there any products that use it? I don't use firewire, so I honestly have no idea. I could care less about bluetooth too, since I don't use it. Maybe one day it will be the greatest thing, but not yet. I'm pretty sure that Mac OSx is actually Unix, skinned like a Mac with some Mac APIs added, but that doesn't matter. 8 Gb of Ram!!! You're killing me kid! On a small server, that would be cool, but would you EVER use that on a desktop? Probably not. It kinda makes me sad to think that a $1000 PC can do 99% as much work as a $3100 Mac. I don't mean to talk sh!t, but really..."

Again, to repeat myself, this isn't about what YOU want or need, this is about a top-of-the-line desktop.

Video users, Photoshop users, 3-D user, scientific users will use every bit of the 8gigs and want more.

Listen, there are a ton of other categories and uses we could compare, but I am interested at this time in this one category....if you have some facts, bring them.





"It's just a computer platform, people!"
September 16, 2003 12:46:21 AM

"Anyway, you only need to look at the options path to see that Macs are overpriced ($250 extra for 1GB RAM?! $300 extra for an R9800 Pro?!)"

If you think that Mac users pay Apple RAM prices you are sadly mistaken. One of the reasons I left the config not maxed out on RAM is the simple reason that the G5 uses STANDARD PC3200 SDRAM DDR MEMORY, and just like any PC user after I buy the machine, I'm going to price-shop for the best deal on RAM.


So, again, can anybody actually reply to me original post with a comparably configured PC, or is it just the same old Mac Bashing without substance?

(And for the record, I spend more time on a P4 IBM Windows Box than I do on any Macintosh, so I'm not a fanboy, I'm not trolling, I just want to see people lay their cards on the table.

Is it that difficult?


"It's just a computer platform, people!"
September 16, 2003 12:55:18 AM

>>> I'm pretty sure that Mac OSx is actually Unix, skinned like a Mac with some Mac APIs added, but that doesn't matter<<<

Why don't you actually use OS X before you comment on how good it is or isn't? Because it does actually matter.

Here are a couple of links that you may find interesting, if, that is, you are able to be a somewhat objective person:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/05/35OPconnectio...

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/12/36OPconnectio...


Use OS X, then feel free to comment on what it is or isn't.

"It's just a computer platform, people!"
September 16, 2003 1:09:41 AM

Quote:
This benchmark from NASA comparing an un-otpimized SINGLE G5 says otherwise.

http://members.cox.net/craig.hunter/g5/


I hope you realize that 2x the processor != 2x the speed. In fact, in a single-threaded application such as the one tested in your post, it will not make a difference at all. Hence, the single 3.06 GHz P4 (your tests showed the 2 GHz G5 similar to a 2.66 P4) would be faster than a dual 2 GHz PPC 970 in that benchmark.
Other programs differ and may scale better when going to dual processors, but then again, other programs may run better on the P4 or vice versa.

Take Lightwave,
<A HREF="http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/" target="_new">This site</A> has several submissions for different Lightwave scene rendering times. Unfortunately, there was only 1 submission for a dual PPC 970 2 GHz (G5) system for the Tracer Radiosity benchmark. It took 550 seconds to render vs 395 seconds for a 3.06 P4 submitted.

It's pretty difficult to find more relavent (Photoshop filtering, video encoding, gaming, not that there are many games for Mac anyway) benchmarks as few have been allowed to benchmark these new dual G5 systems (common Apple, can't spare one machine to a review site?) and posted them on a website.

However, judging from the one you've posted and the lightwave rendering mark, the PPC dual 2.0 G5 can probably perform similarly to a single 3.06 P4 (in any decently multithreaded benchmark). In single-threaded applications, it'd be no contest, the P4 would be ahead.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
September 16, 2003 1:52:09 AM

"Specs and prices, please, that tells me nothing about what the Dell has....facts, please, facts."

www.dell.com
a b à CPUs
September 16, 2003 2:43:38 AM

I AM a factual source.

I forget I'm talking to an idiot/newbie/mackie/whatever (doesn't know crap about PC pricing). I'm a system builder. That means I'm a source. That meanse I'm a source for prices also. Those number are generous enough to ensure that I make at least SOME money in the build. Go to Newegg and put together a price list, you'll understand then.

Most of those parts are cheap, only the CPU is expensive with the P4's, and only the motherboard is expensive with the dual AMD.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 16, 2003 2:51:28 AM

Model Specifications

Dual AMD® Opteron® Processor Capable
AMD-8131 HyperTransport PCI-X Tunnel
AMD-8151 HyperTransport AGP Tunnel
128-bit Dual Channel Memory Bus
Up to 16GB ECC Registered 333MHz DDR
(8) DIMM Slots
Dual Channel UltraDMA 133 IDE Controller
Four Channel Serial ATA RAID (0,1,0+1)
6 Channel Audio
(1) 8x AGP Pro Full Length Slot
(2) Full Length PCI-X 64bit/133MHz Slots
(2) Full Length PCI-X 64bit/66MHz Slots
(1) Onboard 10/100/1000Mbs Ethernet Adapter
(4) USB Ports: (2) Front USB 1.1, (2) Rear USB 2.0
(2) IEEE1394 Ports: (1) Front, (1) Rear
(4) 3.5" x 1" Internal hard drive bays
(3) 3.5" Exposed drive bays
(2) 5.25" Exposed drive bays
460W Power supply
(2) 92MM, (1) 80MM Cooling fans
1.44MB Floppy drive
Tower Chassis (Optional 4U Rackmount kit)
Physical dimensions: 7.0"W x 17.0"H x 17.5"D


Quote Number: 377987
Monday, September 15, 2003






Configuration

1 x 200GB 7200 rpm ATA133 hard drive 8MB Cache
1 x DVD+R/+RW/-R/-RW CDRW Combo drives EIDE (black bezel)
1 x 3 Button Kensington PS2 Mouse
1 x Dual Opteron Model 240
1 x 1GB PC2700 ECC Reg DDR (2- 512MB DIMMS)
1 x 1GB PC2700 ECC Reg DDR (2- 512MB DIMMS)
1 x NVIDIA Quadro4 380 XGL 64MB 8X AGP
1 x Windows XP Professional Edition
1 x Black 104 key keyboard
System Total: $3,441.00
Accessory Total: $0.00

*Grand Total: $3,441.00

from BOXX technologies. that's a Dual AMD Opteron work station. www.boxxtech.com if you want to go build your own. This is extreme overkill for a PC, since it is a workstation. the Stats on the G5 are more of a workstation quality system, not a home PC. plus, the G5 doesn't even operate in 64-bit mode last i checked. (i could be wrong, i have been before, and will be again, so i'm not afraid to admit it) the Opteron won't either unless you're running the specific OS for it.
anyway, my two cents into the arena
Cheers
a b à CPUs
September 16, 2003 2:53:04 AM

Hehe, just like I said, only this one's better, the link you gave shows that 1 2.66GHz P4 is barely faster than a 2x2GHz G5.

And a 3GHz P4 is even faster still. Thanks, now I can save even more money in the comparison and rate it by 2.66GHz P4's. But that seems kind of pointless since the 2.60GHz is faster and actually makes use of DDR400 in dual channel mode.

Now go to Newegg and price it out, the cheapest DDR400 (PC3200), the cheapest Radeon 9600 Pro, a retail boxed P4 2.60GHz, etc.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 16, 2003 7:29:18 AM

You do realise that the P4 2.66Ghz surpassed any Mac processor in two of those tests. The other one in whuch the P4 was involved was basically IPC, where it was beaten by all of the Macs, but IPC only means anything if the processors are going to be running at the same speed, and theyre not.

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6752830" target="_new">Yay, I Finally broke the 12k barrier!!</A>
September 16, 2003 10:16:22 AM

I have this small test for you. Let's say you are a home user and need to buy a new system tomorrow. Now, would you prefer the G5 with those specs you mentioned for $2999 or the following system?:

• Pentium 3.0c
• Asus P4P800 Deluxe
• 512MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM
• 128MB Radeon 9800 Pro
• Sony DVD+-RW Drive (DRU-510A)
• Seagate 160GB SATA HDD
• On-board 10/100Mbps Ethernet
• 2 x Firewire Ports
• 6 x USB 2.0 Ports
• Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy 2
• Antec Sonata Mid-Tower Case

Total: $1500 (!!!)

Half the price! And my point is this. Yeah, maybe the G5 is suitable for SOME people that work with specific apps where the G5 is good at. But for the rest of us (and I mean 98%), I believe the system I just posted would suit us better .. for $1500 less !!!
September 16, 2003 11:51:02 AM

Quote:
I constantly hear how the G5 is overpriced, so I thought I'd put up a challenge. Can anyone match these specs with a matching dual 64bit PC system? Although the Build Your Own crowd is welcome to put their two cents in, I think it would be more fair to configure an factory-supplied configuration.

So what you are telling me is paper numbers are better than actual speed? Tell me, what do you use on you G5 Mac. I can give you a PC that is 1/2 the price and will perform better than that mac.

Quote:
No, for a couple of reasons.

32-bit systems can only support 4gigs of RAM, and once Panther (OS X.3) ships and programs are optimized for 64bits, 32bit systems will not out-perform 64bit systems (not to mention the fact that it is highly debatable whether any 32-bit system right now could outperform this configuration, see the following link for a fair and objective look at SINGLE G5 benchmarks...as it says in the study "Note that even though the G4 and G5 systems have dual processors, detailed benchmarks in the present study pertain to a single processor only.")

Again more paper. First of all you probably won't need 4gigs of Ram until maybe one year later if that soon. Most people can't even use 1 gig now. Second, 64 bit programs will be comming out SOON. So even if it does outperform 32bit processors, we don't know by how much. Third, there aren't many 64bit programs right now. So we can worry about 64bit programs when it gets widespread. A64 will be comming out soon also.

<A HREF="http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html" target="_new">Benches of P4 VS G5.</A>

The only debatable thing apple has better than PC is the OS which is SUPPOSED to be more stable. Although WinXp and 2K is extremely stable, but that goes into another debate.
September 16, 2003 5:46:21 PM

Quote:
This benchmark from NASA comparing an un-otpimized SINGLE G5 says otherwise.

http://members.cox.net/craig.hunter/g5/

Yes, that link shows exactly how well the G5 stacks up to those old 32-bit PoS from Intel. I mean the dual 2GHz G5 only lost to the single 2.66GHz P4 by 1 MFlop. Why that's a veritable tie if I ever saw one! Great job IBM and Apple!

Oh, wait ... that was a single P4 (NorthwoodB) 2.66GHz running single-channel PC2700. Gee, I wonder how well a P4 Northwood C with it's improved FSB bandwidth and and HyperThreading would do. A P4 NWC 2.4GHz generally ties with a P4 NWB 2.66GHz in performance.

And then what if we actually used a modern motherboard and dual-channel PC3200 instead of single-channel PC2700? I mean the Pentium4 is a very bandwidth-hungry processor and performs rather poorly when it's bandwidth needs aren't being met. So that should also really boost performance.

And crap, even the Northwood C is up to 3.2GHz, which is a considerable improvement over that 2.66GHz as well.

But nah, there's <i>no</i> way that the P4 (<A HREF="http://www.supermicro.com/PRODUCT/MotherBoards/E7505/X5..." target="_new">or dual 3.06GHz Xeons with <font color=red><b>8</b></font color=red>GB of RAM</A>) could possibly outperform that G5. Apple still has it in the bag. Yeah. Really. Honest.

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>
* edit: Made the 8 in 8GB <i>really</i> stick out.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by slvr_phoenix on 09/16/03 12:49 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 16, 2003 7:24:19 PM

Can the G5 be overclocked? The 2.4C can be overclocked to 3.0. It can have 1100 mhz Quad FSB. Costs 180 for CPU, 100 for motherboard, and like 210 for memory. Total $390! Course you would want a few other things. Would beat the G5 most every way.
Imagine getting 10 of those and hooking them together...
The price would be comparable.
September 16, 2003 7:26:52 PM

MFlops should not be effected much if at all by increased memory bandwith....


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile:
September 16, 2003 7:47:49 PM

Quote:
MFlops should not be effected much if at all by increased memory bandwith....

Tell that to the scientists who crunch through large streamed data sets, the folks who do MPEG compression/decompression, and the artists who crunch through intense 3D renderings.

It all depends on the application. The program that was benchmarked may or may not be affected much, but there is definately software that uses floating-point precision that is.

Besides, that was only one point of many. ;) 

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>
September 16, 2003 8:06:42 PM

I know this, i ment most MFlop benchies would not detect the diffrence and MFlops mean in the real world, unless you are doing a purely cpu intensice app.

Compare a P4 NW A to NW C in performance


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile: <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by piii_Man on 09/16/03 04:07 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 16, 2003 8:45:46 PM

Quote:
I know this, i ment most MFlop benchies would not detect the diffrence and MFlops mean in the real world, unless you are doing a purely cpu intensice app.

I'm not sure that I follow what you're trying to say.

Quote:
Compare a P4 NW A to NW C in performance

Okay. There's a <i>huge</i> performance difference at the same clock across the board. Even if you look at fp-specific benches like SPECfp you get:
2.8GHz 4x100MHz FSB = 878 / 887 = 74% of C
2.8GHz 4x133MHz FSB = 1010 / 1020 = 85% of C
2.8GHz 4x200MHz FSB = 1186 / 1204 = 100% of C
So from A to B you get an 11% jump. From B to C you get a 15% jump.

So I'm just really confused. The FSB makes a huge difference in a P4s performance, whether in Flops or Iops or whatever.

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>
September 16, 2003 8:50:19 PM

I always beleived that MFlops were purley cpu horsepower related, as in, not effected noticably by things like bus speed, cache and memory timmings. Hehe, looks like i was wrong...


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile:
September 16, 2003 9:15:53 PM

That G5 is extremely impressive and can smoke any PC out in the market but wat makes it or in generally expensive is tha lack of software you can get for them. PCs always get the first dibbs on software.

F-DISK-Format-Reinstal DO DA!! DO DA!!
September 16, 2003 10:59:41 PM

Umm, it'd be nice to back it up with some proof.
September 16, 2003 11:09:36 PM

Quote:
I always beleived that MFlops were purley cpu horsepower related, as in, not effected noticably by things like bus speed, cache and memory timmings. Hehe, looks like i was wrong...


The question always is, how are you going to measure it? You need data to work those instructions on and you have to get that data from somewhere. Guess where? Main memory. There's no way to measure "pure CPU" because the processor *always* depends on memory. Now, you can try your best to minimize the impact memory has, such as write your code to fit in cache most of the time, preload data.
All in all, at the end, memory will still play a role no matter how hard you try to rule it out.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
September 16, 2003 11:31:10 PM

I remember back a couple years when my freind picked up a dual G4 800 or 866(not too sure on that spec. It is a dual 8 something any how.

We both did alot of work on stupid iMacs at the school... these were only G3 400's and 500's So as you may have figured the differace beyween them were Massive.

however we did do some testing (simple stop watch method)
with a couple filters.

our fastest iMac 500 we could find ( as school computers... PC or MAC are inherently CRAP )
I on my P1 233
him on his G4 800 MP
another friend on a P3...or P2, (sorry i forget) 733

as you can see it was a while ago, and we obvioulsy didn't wright anythng done case that would have been a good idea.

andhow, his G4 creamed all our machines...what ever the numbers were i remember that the iMacs were about 2x faster then mine the 733 was about the same or little faster then the iMac and the G4 was well over 2x faster then the iMac.

I do remeber a few things here and there about how many poeple talked about and asked question of what was realy faster a LOT. Most of the time people came up with per MHZ the Mac is faster.

That little gain i suppose is the price that one had to pay for the "better" machine. but since the PC (intel & AMD) are now more then 1Ghz faster (150%) in the Hz department, that little bit faster per/hz thing that they have, can't compete.

so i have NO proof here, but a handfull of students who are all now Graphic designers, some on PC some on MACs. can attest to the per/hz thing.

I'd say its a good split 50 50 of what they have at home AND for those that go to work use its a little more on the PC side in the GD field... 40 60.

ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.
September 17, 2003 3:09:32 AM

Ok talked to my frind again... what he remebers is something like a

5 inch x 5 inch ----- CMYK ----- 300 dpi ----- one Flat colour

took about
- 40 sec - on the -iMac G3- that had only -256 RAM-

and about

- 3 - on his -dual 833 G4- with -768 Ram-

We decided to test this again... on My new machine and his.

I'll post the results shortly

ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.
September 17, 2003 3:15:06 AM

hahaha
i got a
athlon 2700+
512mb ddr400 (single)
2xraptor 32gig hard disk 10000rpm
radeon 9800pro 128mb
and all other thing includint 17" lg flatron f700b
and sub woofer for........
1350 CAN so that mean ...... 900-1000 us
I can have tree computer like mine for the price of the g5 :/ 

just get a company name and buy from distributor damn it...
you save 20-50% of the price for 20$/year :/ 
September 17, 2003 3:59:04 AM

Here are the <b>Photoshop Gaussian blur and @ 250. Pixel Radious results</b>

<font color=red>cdpage
P4 2.4B
2 x 512M DDR333
ATI 9500 Pro
WD 80G HD (8M Buffer)</font color=red>

<font color=blue>Jay
G4 833 MP
512 + 256 SDRAM 133
80 GB HD</font color=blue>

- <b>TEST ONE</b> - "you can do this at home"

Make a NEW file 50" x 50" 300dpi CMYK and fill it with any colour. Set set the gaussian blur to 250 radius and click ok. (for better results leave the preview OFF)

<font color=red> 2:47 </font color=red> average
<font color=blue> 2:55 </font color=blue> average

- <b>TEST TWO</b> - "you can do this at home too but w/o the same pic the results may differ"

a file 25" x 25" 300dpi CMYK with an image (we used the same image). Gaussian blur to 250 radius again.

<font color=red> 1:25 </font color=red> average
<font color=blue> 1:23 </font color=blue> average

ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by cdpage on 09/17/03 00:01 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 17, 2003 4:32:29 AM

Not exactly the results i had expected...At all.

i thought they would be close with my machine ahead, but thats basicly the same.

SOOOO as for that on PAPER deal My machine is Far better then his;

<b><font color=red>2.4 Ghz</b></font color=red> vs. <b><font color=blue>2 x 833 Mhz</b></font color=blue>
<b><font color=red>80 8MG Cache</b></font color=red> vs. <b><font color=blue>80GB HD ultra ata/66</b></font color=blue>
<b><font color=red>Radeon 9500 Pro</b></font color=red> vs. <b><font color=blue>Gforce MX 2 64Mg </b></font color=blue>
<b><font color=red>1G DDRAM</b></font color=red> vs. <b><font color=blue>768 PC 133 SDRAM</b></font color=blue>


My machine is in every respect a better amchine...on paper.

ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by cdpage on 09/17/03 00:35 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 17, 2003 4:56:14 AM

To be honest, you should probably try something a bit more complex than just filling it in with a solid color and running a filter. That kind of data arrangement makes an almost perfect SMP setup (2x 833Mhz WOULD equal 1x 1666 MHz).

Try the test with an actual high resolution photo. The results should be quite different. And probably match real-world situations more.

And yes, a 1.666 GHz PPC G4 (non-plus) would probably be as fast as a 2.4B P4 in this kinda stuff.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
September 17, 2003 4:30:27 PM

Well yes thats what the second test was about...we used the same photo.

i just didn't think that the G4 a 1.66 would be faster then my 2.4 considering the 4 reasons i listed that my machine would be faster.

thought it'd be close but still.

I use both Mac & PC and am not a fanboy of eather platform...honestly they both suck, but thats for another discution.

I am glad that the G4 beat mine... to some extent. hopefully some of the "PC happy" people here might take notice of this, Yes, ONE simple test.

ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.
!