G5 absolutely trampled by PCs

eden · Oct 16, 2003

<A HREF="http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,1,00.asp" target="_new">http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,1,00.asp</A>
The first comprehensive and truly detailed test putting all the highest contenders against each other. Several FX-51 systems used as well to show any discrepancies in setup differences.
The last page has the G5 tests. Amazingly it simply loses except for a few Photoshop tests, but actually does lose in PS7 against the Dual 2GHZ Opteron (a fairer match anyways?). So now a 2GHZ Opteron Dual system which likely costs less than the G5 system can trample G5's best advantage, and yet it is already taking advantage of the 64-bit plug-in PS7 has. (I wonder if it even does anything, considering Apple's 64-bit does nada other than pure 64-bit extension, compared to AMD64's extra 8 registers!)
Does that spell little performance to be gained by G5s from the 64-bit support?

In anycase, the result is clear: PCs own, and in no way is that an overstatement. They cost thousands less, yes even the FX-51 (imagine if they put in an EE as well just to extend some of the leads in multimedia against G5!), and are clearly better suited for the future, especially for apps which will use AMD64's extra 8 register extension.

Deduct what you will, but I am rather convinced, this thorough test leaves no doubts about the fact G5 is stripped of IPC for higher clock, and is simply NOT a contender to modern PCs anymore. It performs well, but for its price and one-button mouse crazyness (I have to cope with that 3 out of 5 days), this is simply a zealot machine.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol: Edited by Eden on 10/15/03 11:40 PM.

Snorkius · Oct 16, 2003

I just realised that people bought macs for performance. Thanks for enlightening me.


Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens.
J. R. R. Tolkien

Guest · Oct 16, 2003

I disagree slightly. PC's have always enjoyed a better price/performance ratio than Mac's, that's not different now. However, I give some credit to the PPC970; few if any apps at the moment are recompiled to take advantage of its features. 64 bit support is not the issue (even OSX can hardly be called a 64 bit OS at this point), but the different architecture of the PPC970 is. I've seen a few benchmarks floating around the web where recompilation gained 30% to even 100% speedups. WHile I don't expect 30% to be the norm, I expect a healthy increase nevertheless.

Also, price performance is only one metric; sure an important one, but an existig MAC customer that knows and loves OS-X, has tons of MAC software, should take into account buying new x86 versions of all his apps. Not to mention OS-X is still a great OS .

Maybe those new macs arent the fastest workstations on the planet, but they perform pretty damn well nevertheless, and they make a lot more sense than the old G4's, especially to someone who has been using mac for years. You don't have to be a mac zealot to appreciate one.

As for the one button mouse; you can buy a 5 button USB mouse for a few dollar and hook it up to your mac if you like.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

eden · Oct 16, 2003

As for the one button mouse; you can buy a 5 button USB mouse for a few dollar and hook it up to your mac if you like.

Ah if only you could convince the Colleges and Institutions otherwise.

I disagree slightly. PC's have always enjoyed a better price/performance ratio than Mac's, that's not different now. However, I give some credit to the PPC970; few if any apps at the moment are recompiled to take advantage of its features. 64 bit support is not the issue (even OSX can hardly be called a 64 bit OS at this point), but the different architecture of the PPC970 is. I've seen a few benchmarks floating around the web where recompilation gained 30% to even 100% speedups. WHile I don't expect 30% to be the norm, I expect a healthy increase nevertheless

I was maybe a bit ahead I guess. I thought the PowerPC 970 had been already optimized for.

Oh and about OSX, don't get me wrong now, I do like it. I've given my concensus for it in this forum and the POLLS one. I just don't appreciate how they offer these machines for such a price for such limited functions. Even OS X feels limited. I love using it in College work, but anything outside some Internet and image editing, and it gets very annoying. Ever tried word processing? It's hell.

One thing Windows should inherit at least, is the Cascade window mode. That's damn useful on the OS X. Everything scrolls from left to right in Window folders.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

ksoth · Oct 16, 2003

I just don't see why Macintosh doesn't go to x86 where they can actually compete with Microsoft. To me, it seems Macs are bought for their software and looks, not their internals. Being that most of their internals are so similar to PCs nowadays, why not just go all the way?

If they have their OS operate on Intel or AMD systems, that would drastically reduce the cost of Mac systems, and drastically increase sales as a result. PCs really need competition in the OS part of the market, and with Apples know-how and user base there, I think they can really be in position to be that player.

-------------------------------------------
 "Trying is the first step towards failure."

eden · Oct 16, 2003

It's funny because there was once a test involving an Athlon on OS X and apparently it ran some programs faster!
Imagine now the G5 runs Microsoft's OS and IT runs better than on PCs! :lol:

The problem with MAC OS' in the x86 world in my eyes would be that, while it is excellent in visuals and ease of use, it also is very limited in options and flexibility as well as the ability to tweak it, and when it crashes, it's a true whore. I've seen some crashes on OS X, they take down everything or simply hang the comp. And that's from working in IE and Photoshop.
Granted it could be easy for beginners, but it just isn't very open so you can find problems and fix them.
I guess the one-button mouse design would cater to the newbies hehe. "There's no way you can get lost, it's just one button!"

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

cdpage · Oct 17, 2003

Eden man, i can see that the one button thing realy drives you nuts!!!

I am pretty sure that the OS will hotswop your mouse.. just bring it to the college and plug it in. at the end of class take it with you... i new a few poeple while i was in school that had their own.

yes it would be nice to have the college supply them for you...but they wont. so bring your own... it doesn't solve everyones problem.. but it deos solve yours.

heh... I remeber when my school got in all new iMac's with the new clear Mouse... EVERYONE loved them becasue they were 100 Times better then those godforsaken Pucks!!! oh GOD how i hated those....so people(disrespectedly) destroyed a hand full of all the pucks just so that the school would have to get new mice... hopeing to get the new ones... low and behold we did... mind you we had to wait a few weeks befre every one had mice... but we got what we wanted...(granted some of use wanted more then one button, but i guess we all figured that they HAD to ored the APPLE mice for some garantee purpose i suppose.

anyhow... ill stop now and take alook at that link.

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.

cdpage · Oct 17, 2003

pretty good read.. skimmed alot of it mind you but its pretty much what i would expect.

though apple may not have the fastest... its nice to see that they are finaly contending... now they just need to eather start winning or pricing their machine accordingly...

I am a little anctious to see what panther has to offer...but i wouldn't expect it to make such a leep as to keep...er sorry, 'cause' apple to take 1st place in the 64 Bit world. but will just have to wait and see... its only going to be a week till its release...

so i guess we'll have to wait a month or more before we can find out how it stands up to compitition...and again the compition will have all its new stuff out by then to say that they are faster...

you know its like a game of Leap frog...but PC always seems to say were the bast louder.

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.

Atolsammeek · Oct 17, 2003

Guys Remember this. The Twits that read Mac Crap sites that beleave that there PCs are faster are reading One Website. People Who are reading One website are DUMB. It was funny when I read Mac sites and then started reading 20 Other sites. The more test done. I love it When Imac website was almost @ faster. yet when I seen other sites. that where doing test it was Like even. But facts where people in Apple company disable stuff on the Intel or Apple to make there cpu faster. Like HT. But when other sites did the same test with every thing running on intel and Amd they seem to run closer to apple.

But everyone Know this. Never go to manufacture for the test. That means Amd for amd test or Intel for intel test or Apple for apple test. If anything write down the high scores and check other sites and see if there right.

But for me I hit around 20 websites to try to make ture statment about a hardware. At least that gives me % of being right.

One thing I dont care if it amd or intel or apple. I m looking into a Intel laptop and looking into a New computer. The laptop mainly for games and Muisc when I m not home. and for a company from home. And Looking into a Athlon 64 for Games at home that deal with 64 bit but that will be a while. I will wait for the prices drop. And it will also help with my company. And I wait untel my Laptop payed off

FUGGER · Oct 18, 2003

The G5 is currently infantile in its release, give the OS time to mature on its new CPU.

Panther is due to be released October 24th

"The 1.8-GHz single-chip G5 ($2999)" www.apple.com dual 2Ghz for $2999

Jaguar has no ability to handle 64 bit extensions in its current rev. Its comperable to running dual 2Ghz G4's on a 1Ghz bus. None of the current shipping G5's have a 64bit version of OS X with them (Unless you are a Apple developer or attended WWDC). It will be shipped later on the release date. All G5 buyers get Panther for free, and G4 owners can get panther for $100 and a 5 pack license for $199. Not a bad deal for OS licensing.

Photoshop CS will have the 64 bit OS X advancements not photoshop 7. goes back to the dual G4 2Ghz speed equivelance equation with Photoshop 7. Yes we are already running Photoshop 7 on the G5 dual 2Ghz

8 slots DC DDR 400 is a good start.

<A HREF="http://fugger.netfirms.com/g5/g51.jpg" target="_new">System config page</A> I installed 2x 512 PC2700 DDR sticks into the DDR 400 slots and had no problems so far.

<A HREF="http://fugger.netfirms.com/g5/g5cpuout.jpg" target="_new">I pulled out a CPU before I ever plugged it in, looking down on the CPU socket</A>

<A HREF="http://fugger.netfirms.com/g5/g52.jpg" target="_new">This is what came out</A>

<A HREF="http://fugger.netfirms.com/g5/g5b.jpg" target="_new">A closeup of the bottom of the CPU, showing pins and how fragile the socket is</A>

<A HREF="http://fugger.netfirms.com/g5/g5cpu.jpg" target="_new"> Another shot of the bottom, you can see heat pipe on left side</A>

<A HREF="http://fugger.netfirms.com/g5/g5cpu1.jpg" target="_new">Side view, heat sink installed</A>

<A HREF="http://fugger.netfirms.com/g5/g5sink.jpg" target="_new">The heatsink is huge w/heat pipes</A>

<A HREF="http://fugger.netfirms.com/g5/g5multis.jpg" target="_new">A close up of the multiplier settings on the bottom of the CPU</A>

<A HREF="http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/main.html" target="_new">http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/main.html</A>

I want to take one to 2.6Ghz and run some super pi

Shipped from Hong Kong...

Oh yeah, <A HREF="http://fugger.netfirms.com/4764.jpg" target="_new">I moved up to #1 in the world non-LN2/CO2</A>I am above all CO2, only 2 LN2's above me. R507 modded Mach1 cooling.

"Granted I dont own a P4. But I read enough stuff and waste enough time on forums newsgroups IRC and computer news sites that I proberly know more then if I DID own a P4." -vk2amv

imgod2u · Oct 18, 2003

Jaguar has no ability to handle 64 bit extensions in its current rev. Its comperable to running dual 2Ghz G4's on a 1Ghz bus. None of the current shipping G5's have a 64bit version of OS X with them (Unless you are a Apple developer or attended WWDC). It will be shipped later on the release date. All G5 buyers get Panther for free, and G4 owners can get panther for $100 and a 5 pack license for $199. Not a bad deal for OS licensing.

How are they able to ship G5 systems with 8GB of memory? And unlike x86-64, the 64-bit extension to the PPC ISA does not involve more registers or any other enhancements other than just being 64-bit. So unless you're talking about addressing more than 4GB of memory, there'd be no speed improvements.
Compilers may get better for the PPC 970 as IBM continues to improve upon them and in time, performance will, of course, grow, but it will have nothing to do with whether the OS is "64-bit" or not.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.

eden · Oct 18, 2003

Well said.

If there is anything it will do, is remove the OS limits on applications. But that means jack for performance.

I'd really like to see where the heck are Mac freaks coming up with "64-bit optimizations will help!"

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

vagabond · Oct 18, 2003

Other than the fact that Apple uses a different OS and infrastructure I don't see what's so advantageous in owning a MAC in the first place other than the feeling of exclusivity.

I'd rather put that money into either a dual XEON or OPTERON system. My opinion.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=23810" target="_new">My System </A>
VAGABOND

veni,vidi, and ended up in THGC

FUGGER · Oct 18, 2003

I can imagine you completely overlooked who makes the G5 processor, the bus technology and altavec.

Let me answer mr I dont have one to know what I am talking about's question on installing 8gb ram into a G5 with jaguar and Ill get back to your misconceptions.

"Granted I dont own a P4. But I read enough stuff and waste enough time on forums newsgroups IRC and computer news sites that I proberly know more then if I DID own a P4." -vk2amv

FUGGER · Oct 18, 2003

The G5 architecture can adress up to 8GB of memory but in reality with a 32 bit OS there is a problem. There is a bug or a barrier at 1.5GB ram to install applications.

Example: If you had 2 GB memory in your G5 loaded with Jaguar you could not install "FileMaker Pro" or "Corel Knockout" without taking out 512MB of memory or 1 GB to keep DC DDR. You can re install the memory after the software install and the application will work normally. There are a few other applications that are effected by this memory check.

Everything over 2GB is ignored until Panther it seems.

modified 10/14/03
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=107338

We are running with 2GB until Panther is released.

"Granted I dont own a P4. But I read enough stuff and waste enough time on forums newsgroups IRC and computer news sites that I proberly know more then if I DID own a P4." -vk2amv

eden · Oct 18, 2003

Erm I am well aware of the 2GB limit.

That however has no relation to "Better performance". What exactly do you fathom getting more in performance because you can run more RAM?

You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

FUGGER · Oct 19, 2003

"You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better."

End of discussion for me, it appears you are trolling with the lamest of intentions. You might want to work on better angles if you plan of trolling with any sucess.

Thanks for the new signature.

"Granted I dont own a P4. But I read enough stuff and waste enough time on forums newsgroups IRC and computer news sites that I proberly know more then if I DID own a P4." -vk2amv

eden · Oct 19, 2003

It may be able to work with bigger files, but what does that have to do with performance itself?

Imgod2u even stated there shouldn't be any performance increases because the 64-bit technology in it isn't like AMD64 with the extra registers. So why am I the "troll" here?

Fugger your attemps at judging people are truly not putting you in the place to argue. If you had proof that there were optimizations from 64-bit and that it actually would increase performance even when the OS doesn't need to calculate 64-bit integers for the particular application, then there wouldn't be a discussion.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol: Edited by Eden on 10/18/03 05:16 PM.

cdpage · Oct 19, 2003

Nice look into that machine there thanks...

as for that Stick of Ram... Strange that Apple would say that there parts are only but the best... but is that CL 3.0 RAM? isn't 2.0 or lower supposed to be considered better? Just wondering.

wonder if there would be anydiff if you put in better RAM?

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.

cdpage · Oct 19, 2003

I thought that this might shed some light on to what kind of perfomance boosts one could find with upgradeing to Panther. ( note that G4's are not 64bit and they too gain boosts for this update)

Startup times greatly improved: Not only does the system itself start up faster (particularly on multiprocessor machines, compared to Jaguar), but logging in and out of user accounts is also nearly instantaneous on most systems. If one automatically logs in, for some systems boot times are cut by as much as half.

Application launch times: These have also vastly improved over Jaguar. Even under moderate to heavy loads, a dual 867MHz PowerMac G4 (MDD) will launch most applications in less than one full "bounce" of their Dock icons -- almost instantly -- and even on older systems the difference is like night and day. Panther just plain scales performance by an order of magnitude compared to Panther across the board.

Mail: The new mail filters are much more effective, even "untrained," compared to those in Jaguar's version of Mail.app. Performance, particularly when viewing HTML messages, is greatly improved.

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.

Quetzacoatl · Oct 19, 2003

End of discussion for me, it appears you are trolling with the lamest of intentions. You might want to work on better angles if you plan of trolling with any sucess.

That's just about borderline fanboy'ism as it comes. He's not bashing or putting down macs at all.

You haven't proven anything that once 64-bit support comes out, it will perform even better.

How is that trolling at all? It's just a statement asking whether or not you can prove that 64 bit extentions will give the G5 a boost or not. Look at the Hammer, even just judging by it's poor performance using it's SSE2 extensions, one could say that it still has some driver development to go before it really gets a boost. And even under betas of 64 bit windows, all the code needs to be recompiled, drivers and such, and even with that, it performs worse in some cases. Read up on tech documents and sites like Anandtech that have already done testing with the betas.

I run my AthlonXfx at 7.65 Exahertz

HolyGrenade · Oct 19, 2003

Didn't you use to be an intellite?

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

HolyGrenade · Oct 19, 2003

G5s are good, but not as good as apple make them out to be.

One button mice are bad, but I've been hearing rumours that apple are developing a really good mouse with Ipod style scrolling. But the problem is I've been hearing that for a while.

I like OSX as it is good to the user. But it does have a [-peep-] load of compatiblity problems, for hardware AND software. And someone here mentioned people with OSX having lots of software. What about people with OS9 and LOTS of software. No, classic mode doesn't work. Well hardly anyway, and when it does, its too slow. You can't boot into OS9 with these G5s so they're screwed.

All in all, apple ain't as bad as they used to be.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

eden · Oct 19, 2003

Startup times greatly improved: Not only does the system itself start up faster (particularly on multiprocessor machines, compared to Jaguar), but logging in and out of user accounts is also nearly instantaneous on most systems. If one automatically logs in, for some systems boot times are cut by as much as half.

Application launch times: These have also vastly improved over Jaguar. Even under moderate to heavy loads, a dual 867MHz PowerMac G4 (MDD) will launch most applications in less than one full "bounce" of their Dock icons -- almost instantly -- and even on older systems the difference is like night and day. Panther just plain scales performance by an order of magnitude compared to Panther across the board.

Mail: The new mail filters are much more effective, even "untrained," compared to those in Jaguar's version of Mail.app. Performance, particularly when viewing HTML messages, is greatly improved.

CD, although I'd ask for proof here, I can already tell you some of those claims are absurd if they're "generalized", especially for the G4 ones. It's nice to see improved startup times, but anyone who even complains OSX takes time on G4s is nuts. We work with simply uni-867MHZ G4s and it's never been a problem. But where it gets absurd is the program startup times. I can understand if IE or Safari launches fast, but Adobe Photoshop?
Yeah right!

( note that G4's are not 64bit and they too gain boosts for this update)

I think this is what gives it away, in that (no offense of course) this has nothing to do with proving G5s with 64-bit will do better.
It's great to hear though. I hope the college buys the licenses for upgrades. Productivity helps. I guess if Duals get better, it's because Apple has figured out how to optimize for that. I hope it works for uni-processor systems too.

But still, what is interesting is Fugger's blatant attack where he doesn't prove one bit that G5s get optimized for 64-bit. It's a given they will run more RAM and bigger files with 64-bit, where the performance comes is beyond me. And then he comes and calls the skeptics like me, trolls.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

eden · Oct 19, 2003

Oh I know what you mean. Although until we see a performance ratio that actually conforms to its price premium, I don't think it is worth it. Future Dual Opterons at 2.2GHZ and above will continue to up the performance delta and still cost less. So one is left wondering just where will the performance come from other than compiler and OS optimizations.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

G5 absolutely trampled by PCs

Champion

Splendid

Guest

Guest

Champion

Distinguished

Champion

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Distinguished

Champion

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Champion

Share this page