Mac Power G5 vs. AMD Athlon 64 system....

Hey.

I have a friend who want to buy a computer. He should spend about 3000-4000$. He is primary going to use the computer for video editing.
He have heard a lot positive about the Mac Power G5, people says that it is a extremely good machine.
I would rather have my friend to buy a AMD or Intel system machine, since Mac doesn´t support any other things than Multimedia. You can´t play usual computer games, and running usual computer apps(for windows based programs).

Should I choose AMD or Intel. Intel used to be the best for compressing and video editing, but have this changed?
So I have set up a AMD system, which cost almost the same as the Mac Power G5 system:
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.2Ghz S939 2MB
- Corsair TWINX 2048MB(2x1024MB CMX1024-3200C2) 400Mhz
- DFI Lanparty nF4 SLI-DR
- Hiper 580W Dual fan silent
- Plextor DVD-RW PX-716SA SATA
- Samsung or Hitachi(what is best2) SATA2 8MB/16MB cache harddrive
- 2x(running in SLI mode) XFX Geforce 7800GTX 256MB GDDR3, HDTV, 490Mhz PCI-Express ViVo(is the SLI so good as they say it is?)

Versus Mac Power G5:
- 2x 2.3Ghz PowerPC G5 processor(512kb 2. cache)
- 1.15Ghz buss external
- 2GB PC3200
- ATI Radeon 9600 128MB

I don´t got to much specs for the mac mashine, since I have never had a mac. But are their machines much better than the AMD or Intel machines? As better as their are writing on the Apple web site?

Thanks for help
34 answers Last reply
More about power athlon system
  1. I got a good laugh when i read t hat the machine was going to be primarily used for video Editing and u threw in 2x 7800's in there. Seriously the money from that would be better spent on 74gig raptors for a raid for sort of a buffer drive and 2 huge drives for storage. Also high performance RAM will not make any difference for vid editing. I'm not sure of hte prices but if i was t o get a machine for just video editing with that budget i'd look into dual core opteron's which give me 4 real cpu's and then lots of RAM and hard drives.

    The know-most-of-it-all formally known as BOBSHACK
  2. When you're in this super-high-end segment, it's not a question of performance, but now it's about preferences. What operating system would your friend prefer, Mac OS or Windows? It's going to be as much of a personal preference as anything else. If it's only going to be used for production, then you're basically even money for both sides, and it'll just be whatever is more desiable.

    For video editing on the x86 side, I'd go with Intel if the only concern is sheer performance. Compression and video editing is actually a rather simple computation, thus Intel's higher clock speed does help it out a lot.

    The last option is that sometime between June 2006 and the end of 2007, Apple is actually switching to Intel processors, meaning that they're going to run on x86 chips. This implies that option of dual-booting Windows and Mac OS on the same machine (so long as you go with Apple hardware). Most likely, the Power Mac G5s will be the last piece of hardware that'll get switched over (iBook, Mac mini, Powerbook, Power Macs in that order woudl be my guess for the switch).

    Jsut some thoughts about the options.
  3. Oki.

    So you are saying that a Intel machine would be the best.
    Should I be going for the Intels Extreme Edition, or what?
    Do you know if it is good having a extremely good Video graphic card(like the Geforce 7800), when you are editing?
    Would you bought a Geforce or ATI video graphic card?


    Thanks.
  4. Ok, let's make it clear..

    First, for editing, the speed pf the HDD is what matter. If you have big amount of data to mo to and from the editing apps. So, havibg fast HDD subsystem is your first consideration. Then, the CPU. It will be usefull foe ENCODING, not really for editing.. this is the difference. When you start to add effect, title, sound,.. to your movie in editing, when you make the final movie, this is called encoding. The cpu now come into play. It will take the chunk created by editing en encode them in the format you want. Which one is better? You dont care. Because benchmark are based on one thing in a controller environnement, this will actuallt create a difference between CPU. But you, when you'll be using your computer, you wont benchmark it. Time that it will take will depend of the codec you use, the filter you are using, the effect you had. AMD cpu are faster in some operation and Intel, in other... So, at the end of the day, even if the encoding has taken 1 more minute, if you saved the minut on the effect generator because that CPU is better in that area, then you're even.

    So, either AMD or Intel should do good there. But I'm giving the edge on the AMD here for one reason, the one that make me buy them. HEAT and POWER. The Intel need more power to operate and generate way more heat than Intel. Add that to the heat produced by the HDD, video card and the other component, then this could cause some problem. First, you'll need adequate case cooling. You simply need to evacuate the heat from the case. And bring fresh cool air into. And you'll need a bigger PSU, because the drawn power will overheat a weak PSU. Unless you go liquid cooling, you'll end up with a noisy machine that put out heat like creazy. The AMD are cooler and need less power, they still need good cooling, but not as extreme as with the Intel machine. But, in the end, Either CPU will get the job done on time. the choice is much more about compfort here.

    For the video card. No, a 7800 wont help much for editing. If he was happy with the Mac 9600, then an ATI AIW X600 shoud do well. it has some adequate 3d performance, TV and FM tuner, VIVO digital audio out, composite out,.. you can find all the spec at ATI web site. So, SLI is not really useful here. So you can save money by getting a non SLI motherboard that could be better spent on SCSI hdd with a RAID controller...

    But remember, when you choose a CPU based on benchmark only, you are making your choice on a 2-3 minutes basis. He'll be using his computer on a day long basis..

    <font color=red>Sig space for rent. make your offer.</font color=red>
  5. Quote:
    For video editing on the x86 side, I'd go with Intel if the only concern is sheer performance. Compression and video editing is actually a rather simple computation, thus Intel's higher clock speed does help it out a lot.

    AMD X2 is faster than Intel.
    <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=6" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=6</A>
    <A HREF="http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=11" target="_new">http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=11</A>
    Quote:
    So I have set up a AMD system, which cost almost the same as the Mac Power G5 system:
    - AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.2Ghz S939 2MB
    - Corsair TWINX 2048MB(2x1024MB CMX1024-3200C2) 400Mhz
    - DFI Lanparty nF4 SLI-DR
    - Hiper 580W Dual fan silent
    - Plextor DVD-RW PX-716SA SATA
    - Samsung or Hitachi(what is best2) SATA2 8MB/16MB cache harddrive
    - 2x(running in SLI mode) XFX Geforce 7800GTX 256MB GDDR3, HDTV, 490Mhz PCI-Express ViVo(is the SLI so good as they say it is?)

    Versus Mac Power G5:
    - 2x 2.3Ghz PowerPC G5 processor(512kb 2. cache)
    - 1.15Ghz buss external
    - 2GB PC3200
    - ATI Radeon 9600 128MB

    Radeon 9600 in a MAC but 2x7800gtx in AMD system, but AMD is cheaper ? :lol:

    I would go for AMD X2, or dual Opteron.

    <font color=red>"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
    - Albert Einstein</font color=red>
  6. I second the AMD X2.
  7. i say dual opteron w/ a bunch of 15k scsi hard drives in raid 5 =D.... didn't one xs guy put 2 g5(the water block) in a single loop with two opterons? poor poor d5

    <font color=red>gforce mx100/200 @ 230/440 =]</font color=red>
  8. no it doesnt...

    <font color=red>gforce mx100/200 @ 230/440 =]</font color=red>
  9. Wusy I wouldn't argue with him if I was you... how can you compete with that "no it doesn't..." is a pretty strong rebuttle. I guess you could always use a tried and true response here such as "Yes it does..."

    <b><font color=red>Go date P4man or something, bye!</font color=red><b>
  10. My friend is also going to use the machine for video encoding. Everything that has something about video to do.
    Is it important running with fast memory too?

    So the importance(a summary?:
    - Fast harddrives
    - Fast CPU(for encoding etc.)
    - Graphic card, doesn¨t matters that much? Since it is mostly the CPU which is doing most of the job?

    Thanks
  11. Hardware Controller card RAID 5 is an excellent choice. My pick would be <A HREF="http://www.bestpricedv.com/Detail/27314" target="_new"> NetCell RAID card</A> for video editing.

    <pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
    And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
    So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>
  12. I'm not sure where Wusy got his idea that RAID5 would suck for video editing. I couldn't imagine a more perfect solution than a SCSI RAID5 15K 5HD array. :O

    Taking that idea to silliness, here's an example setup (prices from pricewatch) with a 5 disk RAID 5 setup (and a seperate drive for the OS and programs) that should be a lot of fun for any videophile.

    Antec Titan 550 (w/ True Control II 550 PSU) = $187
    Panaflo M1A 92mm w 4-pin = $15
    Panaflo M1A 92mm w 4-pin = $15
    AMD Athlon 64 4200+ X2 2.2GHz 512KB s939 = $475
    DFI Lanparty nForce4 SLI-DR = $165
    OCZ PC3200 DDR 2x1GB (OCZ4002048PFDC-K) = $223
    Leadtek GeForce 7800GTX 256MB PCI Express VIVO = $493
    Western Digital 36GB SATA 8MB 10KRPM = $109
    Floppy Drive = $9
    Lite-On SOHW-1693S DVD +/-RW 16X Dual Layer IDE = $47
    Windows XP Pro SP2 OEM Full = $133
    Logitech 967457 Black Keyboard + Optical Scroll Mouse = $22
    Logitech X-530 5.1 Surround Speakers w/ Subwoofer = $40
    Sony GDM-5411 21" Black Flat CRT .24mm = $376
    Adaptec 2230SLP U320 SCSI RAID 128MB 2-Channel PCI-X = $477
    Seagate ST336753LW 36.4GB Cheetah 15K U320 SCSI = $227
    Seagate ST336753LW 36.4GB Cheetah 15K U320 SCSI = $227
    Seagate ST336753LW 36.4GB Cheetah 15K U320 SCSI = $227
    Seagate ST336753LW 36.4GB Cheetah 15K U320 SCSI = $227
    Seagate ST336753LW 36.4GB Cheetah 15K U320 SCSI = $227

    Total = $3921

    :evil: یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil:
    <font color=red><i>The Devil himself is good, when he is pleased.</i></font color=red>
    @ 195K of 200K!
  13. In video editing, you need high disk access to allow it to use parts as a scratch disk to frequently read AND write to. RAID 5 doesn't give you this until you implement at least 5 disks as the overhead with the rest of the implementation slows it down. RAID 0 is a much better choice for this situation as you don't need data redundancy, just quick access.
  14. I beg to differ. Redundancy is exceedingly important IMHO. If a drive fails it's much better to not lose countless hours of work. I can't imagine any professional not having some form of redundancy, whether it be regular backups or RAID.

    And on that note, most studies show that four disks in RAID5 are only marginally slower than the same four disks in RAID10 so long as you use a RAID card with a decent XOR engine. (Instead of throwing that task onto the CPU.)

    But where RAID10 loses storage on half of its drives for redundancy, RAID5 only loses one drive for its redundancy. And, of course, going to five disks in RAID5 only makes it even better than any four disk solution.

    Of course, a good SCSI card and five 15K RPM U320 hard drives is rather expensive, which is why I said it was a silly design concept. Some people might consider it worth it, but others might prefer instead to use a four disk 10K RPM SATA RAID10 solution to save enough for that second video card in SLI. ;) And some might even just use a 2 disk SATA RAID0 solution with a backup external 7200RPM IDE drive and Norton Ghost.

    It's all about options and priorities. :)

    :evil: یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil:
    <font color=red><i>The Devil himself is good, when he is pleased.</i></font color=red>
    @ 195K of 200K!
  15. 10000 rpm SATA HDD as RAID 1 (fairly inexpensive).
    Another option is RAID 5 with 3-4 drives (other RAID's are too expensive of 3-4k budget, unless you find good deal for RAID 6 card).
    Dual core CPU (AMD X2).
    Lots of RAM, 2GB or more.
    Some inexpensive GFX card will do.

    I think SCSI is too expensive, use the money for extra memory.

    <font color=red>"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
    - Albert Einstein</font color=red>
  16. If you bothered to actually read what I said, it was that you needed the high thru-put of RAID for a SCRATCH area. I don't know many graphics professionals that need redundancy and back-up for an area that gets deleted every 15 minutes. Thus a 4 drive RAID 5 would be impractical in this instance.
  17. My pick would be <A HREF="http://www.bestpricedv.com/Detail/27314" target="_new"> NetCell RAID card</A> for video editing.

    RAID 0 speeds with RAID 5 security!

    <pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
    And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
    So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>
  18. <A HREF="http://images.snapfish.com/3447893923232fp58=ot>2345=<77=89;=XROQDF>2323:49;777<5ot1lsi" target="_new"> Diagram for Wusy </A>

    <pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
    And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
    So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>
  19. Seriously, this NetCell card will give RAID 5 (RAID 5 security, RAID 0 speed) with just 3 drives.
    Of course 5 drives is optimal performance...But 3 drives give you equivlant speed of RAID 0 on two drives.

    <pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
    And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
    So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>
  20. <A HREF="http://www.acnc.com/04_01_50.html" target="_new"> RAID 3 </A>

    NetCell uses a hybrid of RAID 3...Giving the speed of RAID 0 and Security of RAID 5

    <pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
    And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
    So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>
  21. Quote:
    If you bothered to actually read what I said

    Funny, because if <i>you</i> had bothered to read what <i>I</i> said, then you'd know that I'm talking about using the RAID5 array for more than just a scratch area.

    :evil: یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil:
    <font color=red><i>The Devil himself is good, when he is pleased.</i></font color=red>
    @ 195K of 200K!
  22. Quote:
    The writting performance on RAID 5 really sux arse

    Wusy, where is your proof? <i>Every</i> review that I've read puts a five disk RAID5 array ahead in performance of a four disk RAID10. And most also put the performance of a four disk RAID5 only slightly behind a four disk RAID10. (The advantage of RAID5 being that you have a LOT more hard drive space.)

    Sure, if you're going for cheap, then a non-redundant two disk RAID0 can't be beat for performance.

    But if you want performance <i>and</i> redundancy without losing half of your storage capacity, then you just can't beat RAID5.

    :evil: یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil:
    <font color=red><i>The Devil himself is good, when he is pleased.</i></font color=red>
    @ 195K of 200K!
  23. Usually, 2-digit raid is a combination of the individual raids. I.e. raid 50 is raid 5 and 0. Raid 10 is raid 1 and 0.

    So, raid 50 is striping across several raid 5 arrays. Raid 05 would be a raid 5 array on a series of striped arrays.

    Raid50:
    these 2 raid 5 arrays striped together:

    raid5 raid5
    ----- -----
    disk0 disk3
    disk1 disk4
    disk2 disk5

    Raid05:
    These 3 raid 0 arrays in a raid 5 config.:

    raid0 raid0 raid0
    ----- ----- -----
    disk0 disk2 disk4
    disk1 disk3 disk5

    Mike.

    <font color=blue>Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside the dog its too dark to read.
    -- Groucho Marx</font color=blue>
  24. i would like to add in one more thing.

    Vid Editors tend to have more then one monitor going.
    if they only use 1 or two monitors your fine... but if they like 3 or more.... or might want a 3rd... it might be something you may need to consider.

    <b><A HREF="http://www.digitalgunfire.com" target="_new">DigitalGunfire-Industrial EBM</A></b>
    ASUS P4S8X-P4 2.4B - 2x512M DDR333 - ATI 9500Pro - WD80G HD(8M) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW
  25. Quote:
    Show me the reviews.

    I've read them all years ago, but I suppose I could try to dig one up. In <A HREF="http://techreport.com/reviews/2002q4/ideraid/index.x?pg=17" target="_new">this</A> review you'll see where even with IDE drives and software XOR processing, RAID10 and RAID5 have about the same write performance with four drives.

    Quote:
    If only my mobo worked properly I'd show you how RAID 5 sux arse.

    Do you have onboard RAID or a card? Do you have IDE, SATA, or SCSI? Do you have hardware or software XOR? (If it's SATA/IDE, then it's about 99% likely to be software.) How much memory does your RAID hardware have? (If it's SATA/IDE, it's about 80% likely to be <i>none</i>.) How much of your CPU is used by your RAID5 array?

    Chances are that if you're seeing RAID5 suck, it's because your have IDE/SATA RAID with software XOR and little or no memory in your RAID controller. Not only is this slow compared to a proper solution, but it sucks up a CPU's resources like ... well, I'll leave that to your imagination.

    A <i>good</i> RAID5 solution (IE. SCSI RAID5 controller with hardware XOR and lots of cache running 15K drives) is expensive, but it kicks the pants off of a cheap SATA RAID5 setup <i>and</i> uses almost no CPU resources while doing it.

    The biggest advantage of RAID0, RAID1, and RAID10 are that they take very little processing power and no cache to run, so cheap (most IDE/SATA) solutions using them work well. Where as cheap solutions for RAID5 are awful. But pay the money to do RAID5 right and it's completely different.

    :evil: یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil:
    <font color=red><i>The Devil made me do it, but I <b>liked</b> it.</i></font color=red>
    @ 196K of 200K!
  26. Wusy... dude... <b>software</b> RAID 5 does indeed suck. However, <b>hardware</b> RAID 5 kicks serious ass. You'll never see software RAID 5 in a server; and at the same time, why do you suppose most servers use RAID 5 and not RAID 10?

    Exactly... it kicks ass. :tongue:

    <font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
  27. Quote:
    The problem with my mobo is the solutionless PCI latency problem with the AMD 786 southbridge causing slowdowns on data rate hence I can't get an accuate result.

    Ouch man. Is that as bad as it sounds?

    :evil: یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil:
    <font color=red><i>The Devil made me do it, but I <b>liked</b> it.</i></font color=red>
    @ 196K of 200K!
  28. Quote:
    You'll never see software RAID 5 in a server; and at the same time, why do you suppose most servers use RAID 5 and not RAID 10?


    Because:
    1) You need atleast 5 drives in the RAID 5 to get the performance up to RAID 1, 0, or 10 levels (although, that's only a 1 drive difference). You'd be hard pressed to find a server with a hardware RAID that doesn't have atleast 5 drives.
    2) Budget. Everyone likes redundancy, but no-one likes paying double for it, when you can get the majority of the speed and redundancy for a hell of a lot less.
  29. Quote:
    You need atleast 5 drives in the RAID 5 to get the performance up to RAID 1, 0, or 10

    Wow. Even if we ignore things like the above link I provided that shows a four-disk RAID5 array on par with a four disk RAID10 array in a <i>software IDE</i> RAID solution, there's still that RAID1 by itself is only slightly faster in read (and the same speed in write) as a single drive. I mean RAID1 is useful for redundancy, but it's certainly not used for performance.

    You'd have been much better off if you'd just specified RAID0. But, of course, RAID0 isn't in any way redundant. In fact, it <i>reduces</i> MTBF.

    Which then brings us right back full circle. RAID5 wastes the least storage capacity to achieve redundancy, has the second-best performance (only losing to the anti-redundant RAID0), scales rather nicely, and is quite flexible. The price for hardware XOR and controller memory is RAID5's only major downfall.

    :evil: یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil:
    <font color=red><i>The Devil made me do it, but I <b>liked</b> it.</i></font color=red>
    @ 196K of 200K!
  30. Quote:
    The problem occupied pretty much my semester holiday trying to solve it and I found no solutions.
    Details are all in my RAID-5 thread in the HDD forum.

    Ouch. I read it. It sounds like you're screwed. Sorry. (It also sounds like it's not a RAID5 problem, but a PCI-write problem.)

    :evil: یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil:
    <font color=red><i>The Devil made me do it, but I <b>liked</b> it.</i></font color=red>
    @ 196K of 200K!
  31. Man do I ever hear that. :( My DVD burner has been dead for two months now and I <i>still</i> haven't scrounged up the fifty bucks to replace it. Damn weird optical drive failures. I swear there's a gremlin that loves to toy with eject mechanics in my PC. It's the second time in the last year that a drive has just stopped ejecting the tray properly.

    :evil: یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil:
    <font color=red><i>The Devil made me do it, but I <b>liked</b> it.</i></font color=red>
    @ 196K of 200K!
  32. I know the feeling mate.

    ...*cries*... :frown:

    :eek: I didn't lose my virginity, Wusy stole it :eek:
  33. Oki. But can someone here confirm that the AMD X2 or Intel Pentium Extreme Edition systems are a much better choice than spending money on a MAC Power G5?

    What harddrive should my friend buy? After the reviews I have read, it seems like it is the Western Digital drives which are the fastest ones, but I have some bad experiences with this brand. I think their drives doesn't last as long as they says. No I am currently trying the Samsung drives, and they seems like beeing of high quality, but are they very fast.

    My friend doesn't want to invest in SCSI system, so he is going to buy SATA drives. So should I advice him to invest in AMD X2 processor, not the best graphic card(but a quite good one), and a good overclocker motherboard.
    But there has been some different replies about if it is important to have fast memory. You know, the machine should also been using to video decoding/encoding, so I say that it is important with a fast MB and fast memory, especially, if you should overclock the computer(in the future).
    Agree?

    Thanks.
  34. Quote:
    I think their drives doesn't last as long as they says.

    Seagate has a 5yr warranty on their drives. They're quiet dependable and fast.

    __________________________________________________
    <font color=red>You're a boil on the arse of progress - don't make me squeeze you!</font color=red>
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Computer AMD Macintosh Product