How fast is the Mac G5 really?

B

Bad Seed

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2003
Messages
140
Now that the dust and hoopla has settled - how fast is the G5? Werent there scandals about Apple lying on the benchmarks? Even with this in mind, is it fast enough to keep up with current Intel-AMD competitors?

How does a single processor G5 rate against an older generation solution like an Athlon XP 3200?

Please give unbiased answers, and not mention price - we all know Macs are overpriced. However, I am still in the market right now for a G5 for work reasons (color matching, typography, and Quark are not perfectly compatible between Windows and Macs).
 
G5 is good for photoshop and some video editing. besides that it would be better to get an intel or amd.
 
Actually, it's a bit ironic... The dually G5 systems beat dual Xeon or Opterons at just about everything but Photoshop. Not games, though, but.... bah. If all you do is play games, you wouldn't get a Mac anyway.

Anyway. The G5s are VERY fast! But, as always, not at everything. To say that they are slower than the x86-platform, however, is pure idiocy.

http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

Most good tests I've seen show similar results.
 
Most of the questionable benchmarks that show that the G5 might not be as fast as they say, is based on "video games" which isn't apple's fault. Apples are not very good when it comes down to video games, and its a lack of good coding for the apple systems, therefore the game doesn't run as well as it migh run on a PC based system. Let me Just say I work with the 2.0Ghz MP G5 and its very fast. Apple is actually one of the only companies that is modest about its freqeuncies, they focus more on the effeiceny of the process rather than the raw speed, much like AMD. The G5 is very fast, and I wish that IBM could release it for the PC market, but alas that won't happen.
 
The G5 is very fast, and I wish that IBM could release it for the PC market, but alas that won't happen.
Click to expand...

Scrape up $10,000 and buy its bigger cousin, the IBM workstation with two POWER4+ processors? :D


Apples are not very good when it comes down to video games, and its a lack of good coding for the apple systems, therefore the game doesn't run as well as it migh run on a PC based system
Click to expand...

Actually, Mac OS X is quite good at running games. It's generally the drivers and poor ports that cause it, and the lack of DirectX... In Q3, for instance, the G5s actually outperform... well... everything.
 
lets put it this way.
what do you want to use the system for primarily?
what secondary things do you need/want to run, but not required to be the fastest?
what are you willing to spend?
what operating systems are you comfortable with and which do you prefer? (i ask because if you take the opteron for example, using linux verse windows is anywhere from 20 to 50 % faster, and in some cases, close to 100% faster - for certain applications)
>random side note: how are the 64bit linux ppc ports doing, anybody know?

basically a lot of it comes down to just what you want to do with the system. a really strange thing, apple's own G5 benchmarks are insulting to the power of the 970. ibm should be ashamed they allowed such a powerful processor to be called apple's own.
 
Originally posted by MTB2Live,Live4Comps
lets put it this way.
what do you want to use the system for primarily?
what secondary things do you need/want to run, but not required to be the fastest?
what are you willing to spend?
what operating systems are you comfortable with and which do you prefer? (i ask because if you take the opteron for example, using linux verse windows is anywhere from 20 to 50 % faster, and in some cases, close to 100% faster - for certain applications)
>random side note: how are the 64bit linux ppc ports doing, anybody know?
Click to expand...
Yeah, those are the most important things. In a year, both Macs and Wintel boxes will be faster anyway. The 64-bit linux PPC ports are coming along, I think, but the demand is not as great, because of Mac OS X. Only one I know of for certain is Gentoo.

basically a lot of it comes down to just what you want to do with the system. a really strange thing, apple's own G5 benchmarks are insulting to the power of the 970. ibm should be ashamed they allowed such a powerful processor to be called apple's own.
Click to expand...

I take it you're talking primarily about the SPECint/fp tests... in the other benchmarks Apple have posted, the G5s whip everything's ass. But SPEC are, while realworld tests, utterly irrelevant.
 
Originally posted by Black Morty Rackham
I take it you're talking primarily about the SPECint/fp tests... in the other benchmarks Apple have posted, the G5s whip everything's ass. But SPEC are, while realworld tests, utterly irrelevant.
Click to expand...
well SPEC for one but in the VERY limited number of outside-of-apple-funded benchmarks i've seen, the ones posted by apple don't do the 970 justice. afterall, it is a very powerful chip and the hypertransport-based interconnect helps it scale very well. i definitely find it strange they don't let more of them out for benchmarking though. eh win some you loose some
 
SPEC isn't as much a benchmark as it is a hype-tool. :p

But yeah, I agree that they're not really doing the processor justice. But they're marketing people, not hardware people. I'm pretty sure they have a better idea of how to make it sell than you or I do, even though it wouldn't surprise me if our technical knowledge exceeds Apple's marketting department's.
 
Originally posted by Black Morty Rackham
SPEC isn't as much a benchmark as it is a hype-tool. :p
Click to expand...
It's perhaps the most unbiased benchmark in the industry. Its benchmarks are well documented, and contenders are screened for authenticity. Finally, its benchmarks are useful to the business world, unlike most benchmarks cited at review sites. If you still think it's a hype tool more than a benchmark, I'll accept that. Opinions are like assholes...
 
Short answer is they're very fast. Are they the fastest? No. Are they the slowest? No. Do they compare favorably to what AMD and Intel have? Yes.

The actual performance will bounce around between the different systems for which is best. There's no longer a matter of simple superiority. For one task a certain system may perform better, however that may simply be as much as matter of software optimization as it could be sheer system performance differences.

I am happy to be able to say something like this and not feel like I'm lying through my teeth. The G5 is the first time in years that I've actually seen the Apple be competitive in the power department. IMO this is a good thing, but they better not slouch like they have in the past.
 
The problem with SPEC is that is benchmarks the compiler as much as it benchmarks the processor. That's why the Pentium 4's get such enormous scores on SPEC tests, that aren't really representing real world performance in real applications. Intel's compiler is specially tuned to give their processors high scores on SPECint/fp. Apple tested using the same compiler (GCC, perhaps?) on all systems in the SPEC-tests they posted, and the Dell with a 3.2GHz P4 got about half of what they get with Intel's compiler.

The only benchmarks I care about is real world application tests with applications I would run. If you never, EVER, run Photoshop, it doesn't matter if a processor is better at it.
 
That's the thing, the results specify which compiler is used, so that you can compare results as you'd like.
 
I was browsing through SPEC's results database and didn't find any results for either any Apple machine or a P4 using something other than the Intel compiler.
 
There another wrinkle - the next version of X 10.4 will surely have some huge speed gains built into it as a result of using a hell of a lot more G5 specific code in it. By the time you get to 10.4 and compare it with 64 bit Windows I think Windows will be on the short end of the stick. It should be, it's behind OS X by 3 years on the development front.

There's a lot Apple can do to OS X yet for the G5 that is hasn't pulled out of the hat yet.
 
The areas where the G5 shines are generally areas where 64-bit optimized code will help, so by making the OS fully support 64-bit code (Panther doesn't), it will become even better at the things it's already good at, especially as optimized applications start coming along. 64-bit computing is generally overhyped. It will not help you render webpages faster or whatever, but it WILL help a great deal for some things... and Apple will most likely not have the (graphics) driver problems plaguing WinXP 64-bit (real-time 3D graphics is one area that benefits from 64-bit computing).
 
Agreed, it's too soon to tell what MS will actually do with XP-64, one of the many reasons I didn't build a dual Opteron workstation and just built a single P4 while I wait for 64 bit to figure itself out.
 
One of the main problems with Windows is the size of it. With such an extreme user base, such a vast amount of different applications, hardware, drivers, etc etc etc etc etc, I'm actually surprised Windows is as good as it is... :p

Apple has an easier time, to put it lightly... a smaller user base, smaller amount of applications/hardware/drivers and such, and an OS based on UNIX, which has already been tried and tested in 64-bit workstations.
 
Originally posted by Black Morty Rackham
One of the main problems with Windows is the size of it. With such an extreme user base, such a vast amount of different applications, hardware, drivers, etc etc etc etc etc, I'm actually surprised Windows is as good as it is... :p

Apple has an easier time, to put it lightly... a smaller user base, smaller amount of applications/hardware/drivers and such, and an OS based on UNIX, which has already been tried and tested in 64-bit workstations.
Click to expand...

I have been saying the same thing. The size of windows is tremendous, it has to support legacy devices people wouldn't even think of putting on an Apple, but it also has to run modern components and software quickly and reliably. It really does a fantastic job blending all that, even though it isn't perfect, like any OS. I have to admit, with 2k and XP, I don't have any problems with the system and can safely use my workstation for weeks without the need to reboot. In fact I have only rebooted for reasons other than a Windows problem. Generally this is also true for the OS X workstations I use.

XP 64 may work out fairly well, and the driver support should hopefully exist once it is released (when is that anyway? :p ). It's a larger community though, so like you said the 64 bit changeover should be considerably easier for Apple. Either way, I'm anxious to see the battle between the G5 and AMD-64 processors again under their new battleground... a 64 bit environment (barring any distributions of linux/unix).
 
To be honest, I'm more interested to see if Intel/Microsoft actually manages to move away from the x86 platform... Itanium 2 is the right move, if you ask me, but the processor is very, VERY, far from perfect.
 
I'd like to see a move from x86 as well, but I think it's been extended at least another 5 or 6 years by the 64 bit addition. It's one of the many solutions out there, but it is getting dated.

The Itanium was a nice idea, but a terrible implementation. Eventually they'll have to move away, but I guess if it aint broke, don't fix it.
 
Originally posted by Black Morty Rackham

Actually, Mac OS X is quite good at running games. It's generally the drivers and poor ports that cause it, and the lack of DirectX... In Q3, for instance, the G5s actually outperform... well... everything.
Click to expand...

Thats what I meant. ;)
 
My G5 is the fastest computer I've ever used. Make sure you get as much ram as possible. With the stock 512 it can get slow but now I have 1.5 gigs it runs like a dream. I can't imagine what 8 gigs would feel like.
 
Originally posted by AMD Oracle
I can't imagine what 8 gigs would feel like.
Click to expand...

Probably not much different 99% of the time. 512 is a pure joke on a system that costs that much and I cannot believe Apple considers that the stock amount that system should have. It should start at 1 gig.
 
Someone asked about 64 bit linux distros:

Fedora has a Core 1 beta out for it.
SuSE and Mandrake have full releases out, working GREAT.
Gentoo has it, it's a mess though.
FreeBSD has it, solid release, from what I hear.
NetBSD has it, of course... (it runs on a TOASTER for crying out loud :p)

That's all I know of at the moment.
 
Originally posted by Black Morty Rackham
Actually, it's a bit ironic... The dually G5 systems beat dual Xeon or Opterons at just about everything but Photoshop.
Click to expand...

Please refer me to some Opteron vs. G5 comparisons proving your statement. I haven't found any with benchmarks that validate your comments.
 
By the time you get to 10.4 and compare it with 64 bit Windows I think Windows will be on the short end of the stick. It should be, it's behind OS X by 3 years on the development front.
Click to expand...
You know it isn't as if Microsoft has never done a 64 bit operating system before, and they've had years to be working on their X86-64 port. I see absolutely no reason to believe Windows for X86-64 will be any less reliable than Windows for IA32.

As for Apple having the lead, where do you get that idea? Microsoft has been developing 64bit operating systems (and operating systems for a LOT of platforms) for years, and has had access to X86-64 for quite some time. If Apple is so far ahead, why don't they have a 64bit OS out the door now? It sure as hell isn't because Apple doesn't ship unfinished products *cough* 10.0 *cough*.
 
FUD. Are you really saying that MIcrosoft 64 bit windows is on a par with OS X right now? I really dont see how that could be true.

All your other points combined dont negate mine - I think Apple is farther ahead on the 64 bit front than Microsoft is. And NO, Im not gonna sit here and argue about it like a little kid. I got other things to do tonite.
 
Originally posted by Selecter
FUD. Are you really saying that MIcrosoft 64 bit windows is on a par with OS X right now? I really dont see how that could be true.

All your other points combined dont negate mine - I think Apple is farther ahead on the 64 bit front than Microsoft is. And NO, Im not gonna sit here and argue about it like a little kid. I got other things to do tonite.
Click to expand...

Microsoft had an IA64 (itanium) version out before Apple had a G5, so I'd agree with him. G5 launched in 2003, itanium was out in 2000-2001. x86-64 is similar, so they've got more time on it for 64bit extensions.

I'd say the Windows64 > OSX 64 WORK wise so far (and experience), but personally OSX > Windows for most things.
 
Are you really saying that MIcrosoft 64 bit windows is on a par with OS X right now?
Click to expand...
Given that we're talking about 64bit operating systems. I would say Microsoft is ahead of OS X, because 64 bit Windows actually exists.

Microsoft has YEARS of experience with developing for 64bit, on both Itanium and Alpha (was MIPS 64bit back around NT4?). They've also had years of development time for X86-64 Windows, and they have the programming expertise and power to make the product happen quickly and be complete.

Unless you have any evidence, or even any anecdotal support, that Apple is farther along with 64bit development, I would say you're the one spreading FUD.
 
I forgot about Alpha. There was a 64bit version then.

The difference between BSD and those is in the level of professionalism.

No offence to BSD (I'm a linux/BSD guy), but a company driving a software project (like MS) is bound to get a LOT more experience and be able to design something for the common man a LOT faster than the *nix guys. I mean, just look at the current state of things for general use ATi drivers for Linux. They DON'T WORK. Linux / BSD are so diverse that there are TONS of unforseen problems, while MS has charted out a great deal of those and is driving toward one standard on a commercial product.

It's kinda hard to explain...
 
I use a dual 1.8 G5 and a P4 2.4C at work every day using the same apps [Photoshop & Illustrator] and the Mac is much smoother to use. I don't bother with benchmarking them because most stuff happens in realtime unless you're working with press-resolution images [plus I have actual work to do at work] though. It's hard to say how much is the OS but I work side-by-side with both platforms and I never find myself waiting on the Mac unless I'm doing something really gnarly.
 
Originally posted by qirex
I use a dual 1.8 G5 and a P4 2.4C at work every day using the same apps [Photoshop & Illustrator] and the Mac is much smoother to use. I don't bother with benchmarking them because most stuff happens in realtime unless you're working with press-resolution images [plus I have actual work to do at work] though. It's hard to say how much is the OS but I work side-by-side with both platforms and I never find myself waiting on the Mac unless I'm doing something really gnarly.
Click to expand...

Whoosh, I'd hope a dual 1.8 would be able to run a little smoother than a P4 2.4c. :) In actual single tasks in photoshop, I doubt it's a ton faster but it can no doubt handle running those tasks and other things as the same time better. Dual processors are like that (which is a good thing).
 
Originally posted by jarman
Please refer me to some Opteron vs. G5 comparisons proving your statement. I haven't found any with benchmarks that validate your comments.
Click to expand...

http://barefeats.com/g5op.html
http://barefeats.com/pentium4.html
http://barefeats.com/p4game.html

I could probably find more, but I'm not gonna bother. :p

[...]They've also had years of development time for X86-64 Windows[...]
Click to expand...
No. Itanium isn't x86, and neither is Alpha. I'd say that makes quite a big deal. Just optimizing for 64-bit wouldn't help ONE bit when you're dealing with so extremely different platforms.

Also, you must remember the following... WinXP-64 has LOADS of problems. It's in the beta stage. It's generally flawed. Panther has more 64-bit support than WinXP non-64. WinXP-64 is unusable if you ask be because of the flaws. Thusly, Apple have the better 64-bit support of the two. There, now stop bickering.

Whoosh, I'd hope a dual 1.8 would be able to run a little smoother than a P4 2.4c. In actual single tasks in photoshop, I doubt it's a ton faster but it can no doubt handle running those tasks and other things as the same time better. Dual processors are like that (which is a good thing).
Click to expand...

It's a wee bit faster, yeah.... heh. Hell, even the single 1.6 is faster than a 2.4C.
 
Originally posted by Black Morty Rackham
It's a wee bit faster, yeah.... heh. Hell, even the single 1.6 is faster than a 2.4C.
Click to expand...
Not by a huge margin in every day usage that I've found. If I were on a budget and picking between the 2 I'd go with the 2.4.
 
Originally posted by Black Morty Rackham

No. Itanium isn't x86, and neither is Alpha. I'd say that makes quite a big deal. Just optimizing for 64-bit wouldn't help ONE bit when you're dealing with so extremely different platforms.

Also, you must remember the following... WinXP-64 has LOADS of problems. It's in the beta stage. It's generally flawed. Panther has more 64-bit support than WinXP non-64. WinXP-64 is unusable if you ask be because of the flaws. Thusly, Apple have the better 64-bit support of the two. There, now stop bickering.
Click to expand...

No, itanium ISN'T x86-64, but it (and alpha) ARE 64bit systems. Thus MS has more experience working with them then Apple did when they started with the G5. Given the amount of time that those systems were around and in use, I don't think that Apple is going to catch up in experience any time soon.

Of course Windows64 has bugs. It's BETA. It's NEW tech. I'm saying that the grand sum total knowledge and experience that MS has is larger then what Apple has; they've been doing it longer. x86-64 is new, but there are LOTS of other 64bit designs that have been in use for longer then Apple ever DREAMED of using the G5. MS has done it longer.

We weren't talking about usability/support, we were talking about who has more experience.

EDIT: oh, and the x86-64 standard has been public for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top