Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

zigzag · Sep 9, 2003, 11:26 AM

http://www.macintouch.com/g5.html

Eug · Sep 9, 2003, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by zigzag:
http://www.macintouch.com/g5.html

More even-handed review, but most of the benches aren't all that useful.

zigzag · Sep 9, 2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Eug:
More even-handed review, but most of the benches aren't all that useful.

True, but it avoids hysteria and makes the sensible judgment that if you have a single-processor G4, a single (or dual) G5 would probably be worth your while, but if you have a dual G4, it's a closer question and you might want to wait until the dual G5s become more affordable. Pretty simple.

I'm so tired of the hysteria surrounding these machines - "OMG a 1.6 doesn't blow away my dual 1.42 on Cinebench so it must be a waste of money and the G5 is a failure" etc. Judging from your similarly sensible posts, I suspect that you feel the same.

Socially Awkward Solo · Sep 9, 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Eug:
More even-handed review, but most of the benches aren't all that useful.

They NEVER are.

Boochie · 05:56 PM

I never understand why people *expect* each new generation of computer to blow away the previous one. The 2GHz P4 laptop I use at work is not radically faster than the 750 MHz PIII I used to have at my previous job; it's just faster. It takes a few successive generations to make a huge difference.

Eug · Sep 9, 2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
They NEVER are.

So why do you bother reading threads about performance tests?

benb · Sep 9, 2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Eug:
So why do you bother reading threads about performance tests?

He likes to complian and be a pessimist.

axlepin · Sep 9, 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by zigzag:
True, but it avoids hysteria and makes the sensible judgment that if you have a single-processor G4, a single (or dual) G5 would probably be worth your while, but if you have a dual G4, it's a closer question and you might want to wait until the dual G5s become more affordable. Pretty simple.

I think that you about have it, but I'd add something extra: let's see how the G5 performs with Panther.

All the tests we've seen so far are with an OS not optimized for G5, and with apps not tweaked for G5. If we really want to see how this chip really does, we need to give it what IT needs, including RAM...

For gosh sakes! Some of the benchtests I've seen are with a G5 with minimal RAM going head up against a G4 with 2 or 3 times the RAM!

How on earth is that a fair comparison? Modern computing tasks and OSs require RAM, plain and simple...Photoshop is KNOWN for its RAM-guzzling prowess, yet many of the G5 tests involve a G5 1.6 with a mere 256MB of RAM...just barely enough for the OS itself, let alone demanding Photoshop tests.

You might as well race at Indy with square wheels!

axlepin

Socially Awkward Solo · Sep 9, 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Eug:
So why do you bother reading threads about performance tests?

Just to see how silly people look who surf the web and write emails all day need to know how long it takes to apply a twirl filter to a 300 meg photoshop file.

Plus with that macintouch review I skipped over the benchmarks part.

Eug · Sep 9, 2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Just to see how silly people look who surf the web and write emails all day need to know how long it takes to apply a twirl filter to a 300 meg photoshop file.

Plus with that macintouch review I skipped over the benchmarks part.

Well, these are Power Macs, but even iMac users encode DVDs or use Final Cut Express.

MusicalTone · Sep 9, 2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by axlepin:
I think that you about have it, but I'd add something extra: let's see how the G5 performs with Panther.

All the tests we've seen so far are with an OS not optimized for G5, and with apps not tweaked for G5. If we really want to see how this chip really does, we need to give it what IT needs, including RAM...

For gosh sakes! Some of the benchtests I've seen are with a G5 with minimal RAM going head up against a G4 with 2 or 3 times the RAM!

How on earth is that a fair comparison? Modern computing tasks and OSs require RAM, plain and simple...Photoshop is KNOWN for its RAM-guzzling prowess, yet many of the G5 tests involve a G5 1.6 with a mere 256MB of RAM...just barely enough for the OS itself, let alone demanding Photoshop tests.

You might as well race at Indy with square wheels!

axlepin

So you think RAM is important then?

neilw · Sep 9, 2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Boochie:
I never understand why people *expect* each new generation of computer to blow away the previous one.

It's because in this case, the previous generation (Moto G4) was perceived to have fallen way behind the state of the art, and the G5 was, in theory, supposed to catch up and maybe pull ahead in one fell swoop. Not an incremental change, but a giant generational leap.

The upgrade from G4 to G5 offered a release from years of frustration at the stagnation of the G4 platform. People want to know that it lives up to its billing.

Of course, reality isn't as clear-cut as all of that, but this truly isn't just any old upgrade, at least not for longtime Mac users.

I think that once Panther and the G5-optimized apps are all in place (we should be in decent shape by the end of this year I think), the G5's will be looking damned good, if they aren't already.

axlepin · Sep 9, 2003, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by MusicalTone:
So you think RAM is important then?

yeah, and I think that most people doing any kind of graphics-related work do. I have always tried to load up on as much as I could afford. I have an iBook maxed out at 640, a G4 with 1.5 GB, and will begin G5 life at 2.5GB RAM, increasing as I can.

I can remember the days when I tried to scrape by with the bare minimum of RAM, and recall that there were many things I just couldn't do, and the rig as a whole was sluggish and slow.

Therefore, I can't take seriously any bench tests in which one or both Macs/PCs don't have a proper complement of RAM, or software which isn't optimized for it.

axlepin

osiris · Sep 9, 2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by neilw:
It's because in this case, the previous generation (Moto G4) was perceived to have fallen way behind the state of the art, and the G5 was, in theory, supposed to catch up and maybe pull ahead in one fell swoop. Not an incremental change, but a giant generational leap.

The upgrade from G4 to G5 offered a release from years of frustration at the stagnation of the G4 platform. People want to know that it lives up to its billing.

Of course, reality isn't as clear-cut as all of that, but this truly isn't just any old upgrade, at least not for longtime Mac users.

I think that once Panther and the G5-optimized apps are all in place (we should be in decent shape by the end of this year I think), the G5's will be looking damned good, if they aren't already.

yeah, but it's a little more personal than that...

The G5 was inspired over the course of many years of anguished duress and castration by the emasculating bitch that is Motorola.

Therefore, Apple & IBM want to crush Motorola once and for all. Hopefully with Panther & G5s.

Boochie · Sep 9, 2003, 05:58 PM

I hope you're right, but the realist in me says not to get my hopes up. Having IBM's muscle on "our" side will certainly help catch up to the wintel world, but I don't think the value proposition for Macs will ever be minimum $$/processing power.

Originally posted by neilw:
It's because in this case, the previous generation (Moto G4) was perceived to have fallen way behind the state of the art, and the G5 was, in theory, supposed to catch up and maybe pull ahead in one fell swoop. Not an incremental change, but a giant generational leap.

The upgrade from G4 to G5 offered a release from years of frustration at the stagnation of the G4 platform. People want to know that it lives up to its billing.

Of course, reality isn't as clear-cut as all of that, but this truly isn't just any old upgrade, at least not for longtime Mac users.

I think that once Panther and the G5-optimized apps are all in place (we should be in decent shape by the end of this year I think), the G5's will be looking damned good, if they aren't already.

Eug · Sep 9, 2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by osiris:
yeah, but it's a little more personal than that...

The G5 was inspired over the course of many years of anguished duress and castration by the emasculating bitch that is Motorola.

Therefore, Apple & IBM want to crush Motorola once and for all. Hopefully with Panther & G5s.

Nope. We'll have G4s in laptops and iMacs for quite some time, and may get them in iBooks soon too.

osiris · Sep 9, 2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Eug:
Nope. We'll have G4s in laptops and iMacs for quite some time, and may get them in iBooks soon too.

Opps. Okay, I didn't say that. Just don't tell Motorola.

slipjack · Sep 9, 2003, 09:10 PM

I agree... what good is testing against a 733? The real question is how does the 1.8 handle against a 1Ghz or better G4... or duals.

zigzag · Sep 9, 2003, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by slipjack:
I agree... what good is testing against a 733?

Simple: a lot of people have sub-1 GHz G4s and want to know what they stand to gain by spending $2000 or more on a G5.

Pierre B. · 04:37 AM

Originally posted by Eug:
More even-handed review, but most of the benches aren't all that useful.

Eug is right, the majority (if not all) of the benches of the G5 mean probably nothing. And very often people forget where is the real power of the G5 and expect a huge performance advantage under the current testing conditions, where the monster-bus and the 64-bit capabilities of the processor are totally under-utilized and the results are mostly frequency-dependent. Take for example that 1.8 GHz G5 and give it, say, 8 GB RAM. Now throw it a process that requires 6 GB of memory and do the same in a maxed out G4 (double processor for you and maximum available frequency). Then wait and watch...