Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Xbox360 Specs put PMac G5's to Shame!

Xbox360 Specs put PMac G5's to Shame!
Thread Tools
garypix
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:06 PM
 
WTF???

Microsoft's new Xbox 360 has more horespower than our new apple's dual 2.7GHz PowerMac G5.

The Xbox has a 3-core IBM PowerPC processor running at 3.2GHz.. How come Bill gets to cross over the 3GHz bottleneck and Steve doesn't?? HMMM...

The clock speed alone is nearly 20% higher than the fastest PowerMac, and a 3-core CPU is to outperform a pair of single-core CPU's by up to 50%.

Although noone knows how much the xbox 360 will finally be selling for, but it will surely be a lot less than our $2999 PowerMac G5! It will probably even be selling at less than the Mac Mini... Imagine that!

Let's hope IBM gives apple same treatment as Microsoft...
     
sideus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:07 PM
 
No. Different processor. try again.
     
garypix  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by sideus
No. Different processor. try again.
Different, but faster
the xbox 360 games are developed on PowerMac G5's
( Last edited by garypix; May 19, 2005 at 05:34 PM. )
     
sideus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:10 PM
 
G5 is extremely more powerful than what is in the Xbox 360.
     
garypix  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by sideus
G5 is extremely more powerful than what is in the Xbox 360.
you'd like to think that, but in reality, the xbox 360 IS faster...
even the GPU is faster and more powerful than what's in the dual 2.7's
just read all the specs and commentaries on the web.
Let's just hope we get the same chip or better before the xbox 360 comes out.
     
sideus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:14 PM
 
This has been posted in many threads and it is fact, the PowerMac G5 is a more powerful machine than the Xbox.

IBTL
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by garypix
you'd like to think that, but in reality, the xbox 360 IS faster...
even the GPU is faster and more powerful than what's in the dual 2.7's
just read all the specs and commentaries on the web.
Let's just hope we get the same chip or better before the xbox 360 comes out.
because, you've got one and have seen it for yourself? Or, are you simply speculating about vaporware (which has been debunked) in the hopes of starting a flame war?


Grow up or go away.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
sideus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:19 PM
 
I thinks we have a troll. New user, starts a "OMGZ! XBOX ST0L3 @PPL3S MEGAHURTZ!" thread.
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:22 PM
 
Interestingly (but not surprisingly), the Xbox 360 games at E3 were running on Power Macs. Probably 2.0 GHz. The main limitation seemed to be GPU, if this page is correct.

And yes, for most usage except games, a dual 2.7 GHz Power Mac will be significantly faster than an Xbox 360 (that is if you could run a general purpose OS on the Xbox 360).
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:26 PM
 
My 1991 Ford Ranger can run lots of RPMs and still not be as fast as my wife's (zoom zoom) Mazda.


Think about it.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
greenamp
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:42 PM
 
PC troll.

I rate him a 2/5 for lack of creativity and general ignorance in terms of technology.
     
garypix  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by greenamp
PC troll.

I rate him a 2/5 for lack of creativity and general ignorance in terms of technology.

I love my PowerMac and my PowerBook
     
greenamp
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by garypix
I love my PowerMac and my PowerBook
Then why don't you marry them?
     
Anoesis
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
Interestingly (but not surprisingly), the Xbox 360 games at E3 were running on Power Macs. Probably 2.0 GHz. The main limitation seemed to be GPU, if this page is correct.

And yes, for most usage except games, a dual 2.7 GHz Power Mac will be significantly faster than an Xbox 360 (that is if you could run a general purpose OS on the Xbox 360).
actually the alpha dev kits which are shown in those pics are running at 1/3 the power of the final xbox 360 hardware gpu and cpu wise.
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Anoesis
actually the alpha dev kits which are shown in those pics are running at 1/3 the power of the final xbox 360 hardware gpu and cpu wise.
I think the main limiting factor would be the GPU here.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Anoesis
actually the alpha dev kits which are shown in those pics are running at 1/3 the power of the final xbox 360 hardware gpu and cpu wise.
Speculation and rumor.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
garypix  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by greenamp
Then why don't you marry them?
i would if i could
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:55 PM
 
No, he is right, the XBox is faster... but my Panasonic KX-TG5050W 5.8 GHz Cordless would blow both of them out of the water!!! WOOT!!!

It's almost twice as fast as the XBox!!!
     
alphasubzero949
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:55 PM
 
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:58 PM
 
By the same argument, the XBox's hardware would be a lot faster than any pc (Mac or x86) out there. Ditto for the PS2.

There is no full-fledged G5 in any of them -- just take a look at the cooling systems.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 04:59 PM
 
I wonder what a beowulf cluster of Panasonic KX-TG5050W 5.8 GHz Cordless phones would be like... I bet it could play Wolfenstein 1.0 full screen on my iPod.
     
garypix  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
By the same argument, the XBox's hardware would be a lot faster than any pc (Mac or x86) out there. Ditto for the PS2.

There is no full-fledged G5 in any of them -- just take a look at the cooling systems.
I agree with you.
From the looks of it, the PS3 has a lot better specs than the Xbox 360
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 05:01 PM
 
On a serious note, it does beg the question... could Apple make a $299 Mac?
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 05:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh
On a serious note, it does beg the question... could Apple make a $299 Mac?
How about a $499 Mac with a full general purpose OS with multimedia applications thrown in as well as a CD burner?
     
garypix  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 05:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
How about a $499 Mac with a full general purpose OS with multimedia applications thrown in as well as a CD burner?
you mean the MacMini?
     
Busemann
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 05:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNStein
Speculation and rumor.
It is true. No doubt the GPU is the main bottleneck, though.

It is difficult to compare console vs computer performance, but the PS3 can decode 12 1080p videos at the same time, apparently. A dual G5 struggle to keep up with one.

On a serious note, it does beg the question... could Apple make a $299 Mac?
If they got royalties on all third party software sold, then yes.
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Busemann
It is difficult to compare console vs computer performance, but the PS3 can decode 12 1080p videos at the same time, apparently. A dual G5 struggle to keep up with one.
No it doesn't. 1080p isn't THAT hard, unless you're talking H.264. And you can be sure that the demo was not H.264.

A dual G5 definitely wouldn't be able to do 12 HD streams though. Not even close.
     
AB^2=BCxAC
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 05:23 PM
 
The XBox 360 at E3 was 2 G5 Macs! Or at least one was on.

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-...box-360-104285



Gizmodo: Eagle-eyed reader Andrew sent us this super-secret photo of the real Xbox 360 - a pair of G5s churning away inside a steel cube. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that MS hasn’t ramped up their production of final units by any stretch. Could this mean a dearth of 360s come Christmas? Will millions of children cry on December 25th when the open their presents and receive only underwear and a rain check from EB Games? Stay tuned.
"I stand accused, just like you, for being born without a silver spoon." Richard Ashcroft
     
garypix  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by AB^2=BCxAC
The XBox 360 at E3 was 2 G5 Macs! Or at least one was on.

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-...box-360-104285

going to e3 tomorrow and gonna check out those G5's in action! Yeah!
     
Busemann
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 05:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
No it doesn't. 1080p isn't THAT hard, unless you're talking H.264. And you can be sure that the demo was not H.264.
How can you be so sure? It's either WMV or H.264, since those are the only two standards that work with BluRay.
     
garypix  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 05:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Busemann
How can you be so sure? It's either WMV or H.264, since those are the only two standards that work with BluRay.
Buseman's got a point there.
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 05:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Busemann
How can you be so sure? It's either WMV or H.264, since those are the only two standards that work with BluRay.
Incorrect.

Not that Blu-Ray vs not Blu-Ray matters here, since you can be sure it wasn't playing off Blu-Ray.
     
invisibleX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 05:55 PM
 
My understanding is that the processors were developed for games, thus their instruction sets are optimized for a completely different use, and that a single G5 is indeed much faster clock-for-clock.
-"I don't believe in God. "
"That doesn't matter. He believes in you."

-"I'm not agnostic. Just nonpartisan. Theological Switzerland, that's me."
     
Kenneth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bellevue, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 06:03 PM
 
not again...
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 06:13 PM
 

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Busemann
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 07:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
There is no full-fledged G5 in any of them -- just take a look at the cooling systems.
Remember that they are either 6 months or one year away from release. By that time, Apple could very well fit a G5 in a laptop. The 360 uses a pretty hefty liquid cooling system, while the PS3 isn't finalized.

If you think a 2.7Ghz G5 is faster than a seven core CELL @ 3.2Ghz, I think you're sadly mistaken.

Not that Blu-Ray vs not Blu-Ray matters here, since you can be sure it wasn't playing off Blu-Ray.
Did you see the presentation? He said that this was specifically aimed at BluRay and broadband use.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 08:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Busemann
Remember that they are either 6 months or one year away from release. By that time, Apple could very well fit a G5 in a laptop. The 360 uses a pretty hefty liquid cooling system, while the PS3 isn't finalized.

If you think a 2.7Ghz G5 is faster than a seven core CELL @ 3.2Ghz, I think you're sadly mistaken.



Did you see the presentation? He said that this was specifically aimed at BluRay and broadband use.
And who, pray tell, has a seven core Cell?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 08:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by garypix
Different, but faster
the xbox 360 games are developed on PowerMac G5's
What sense would it make for console developers to develop games on machines which cannot run them? Although this was in fact the way console development used to be done, the XBox did away with that, and you're kidding yourself if you think developers will back away from this that easily.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
Interestingly (but not surprisingly), the Xbox 360 games at E3 were running on Power Macs. Probably 2.0 GHz. The main limitation seemed to be GPU, if this page is correct.

And yes, for most usage except games, a dual 2.7 GHz Power Mac will be significantly faster than an Xbox 360 (that is if you could run a general purpose OS on the Xbox 360).
I think people are missing a salient point here. According to that report from AnandTech, there were a bunch of dummy "Xbox360" demo kiosks, but they explicitly say that there were two G5s "powering the demos." Now if only two G5s were powering several demos, that illustrates the obvious fact that G5s are much more powerful than 360s, whether or not anti-aliasing is on. That article also stated that Apple should be quite happy.

Look, if you don't realize that the OP is out to lunch; if you seriously believe for a minute that a console system can outperform a G5 in anything other than specialized functions, you're one gullible person.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
SamuraiDL
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 09:53 PM
 
how much will it go for again?
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 10:01 PM
 
It didn't take long-about one day after the warranty on the first XBox sold expired-before people started experimenting with making the XBox do stuff other than gaming. They were quite successful, too. I'll be very interested to see what people do with the 360...if they actually can get Linux to load on it-or even OS X!-then the 360 does promise to be a real butt kicker. But since the product is NOT on shelves yet, it's all speculation.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
hayesk
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2005, 10:03 PM
 
This is silly. A XBox 360 is for playing games. It is a toy. A PowerMac G5 is a tool to get work done, hence it is more powerful.

Write a complete OS to do non-game activities on an XBox 360 at the same pace as a PowerMac G5 and then you may have a point. Until then, you are trolling.
     
Busemann
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2005, 04:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
What sense would it make for console developers to develop games on machines which cannot run them?
The final technology isn't available?

Developers use the best they got, and for the 360, that is the PowerMacs. As E3 has showed, however, they aren't quite fast enough.

This is silly. A XBox 360 is for playing games. It is a toy. A PowerMac G5 is a tool to get work done, hence it is more powerful.
     
xi_hyperon
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Behind the dryer, looking for a matching sock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2005, 04:54 AM
 
What's your favorite alcoholic beverage? Why?
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2005, 05:05 AM
 
I'm going to add some speculation here. Judging from the XBox 360 specs...the launch is going to be delayed to early next year (Feb/March). Thats just my opinion.
     
Cipher13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2005, 05:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by xi_hyperon
What's your favorite alcoholic beverage? Why?
A nice, cold beer. Damn I could go for a Stella right now.
     
tae667
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2005, 07:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
I'm going to add some speculation here. Judging from the XBox 360 specs...the launch is going to be delayed to early next year (Feb/March). Thats just my opinion.

My prediction: IBM will have yield problems, but Microsoft will launch it on paper and hype how it's sold out everywhere because it's so popular.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2005, 07:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by tae667
My prediction: IBM will have yield problems, but Microsoft will launch it on paper and hype how it's sold out everywhere because it's so popular.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2005, 04:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Busemann
Remember that they are either 6 months or one year away from release. By that time, Apple could very well fit a G5 in a laptop. The 360 uses a pretty hefty liquid cooling system, while the PS3 isn't finalized.

If you think a 2.7Ghz G5 is faster than a seven core CELL @ 3.2Ghz, I think you're sadly mistaken.
The PPE (that's the general purpose CPU of the Cell cpu) should be about half as fast (with optimized software) compared to a G5. It's hard to `measure' the performance of the SPEs, but you have the wrong idea of them. They are not aimed at general purpose tasks (like the PPE), but only very specific tasks like decoding media streams or so. Think of them more like a different kind of GPU or co processor. In the same sense that a GPU outruns every general-purpose CPU on its grounds, the same is true for the SPEs.

In this sense, I don't think Cell as you see it now will be seen in any Mac as main cpu in the near future. Maybe as a sort of DSP add-on or so. Also, IBM allows for CPU customization and maybe a quad-core PPE improved will make it into a mobile Mac one day ...
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:26 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,