[krux`]

What 64 bit processor is faster? Lots of people claim G5 however test results are often quite different. Even though we have the advantage of having 64-bit processor right out of the box working on OSX, while AMD doesnt have its flagship OS behind it, microsoft to make a windows version yet, the quesiton is still there on which is faster. ive looked around the web fairly extensivly and have yet to find a test result of the G5 being faster overall.

[phantomac]

Umm... who cares? Just get *any* machine that is fast enough for the task you need it for.

[solitere]

Originally posted by krux`:
What 64 bit processor is faster? Lots of people claim G5 however test results are often quite different. Even though we have the advantage of having 64-bit processor right out of the box working on OSX, while AMD doesnt have its flagship OS behind it, microsoft to make a windows version yet, the quesiton is still there on which is faster. ive looked around the web fairly extensivly and have yet to find a test result of the G5 being faster overall.

The PM G5 is fast enough in its current form, Bus speed and memory architecture is great on the PM. And as soon as IBM is pumping out faster clockrates on their 970 chips we have a great optimized machine to put them on.

The only thing that are better today on the win/amd-windows side, is the graphics card options available. They have more graphics cards and perhaps better drivers for their cards.

But don�t worry if you get a Dual G5 you will have a machine that will last many many years.. Your wintel friends will have switched machines 2-3 times during this period just to keep up with the hardware demands for Windows Longhorn...

[MindFad]

Dual 3GHz G5 (90nm), FireGL, plzthx. Oh, I sure hope so.

[devmage]

Originally posted by krux`:
What 64 bit processor is faster? Lots of people claim G5 however test results are often quite different. Even though we have the advantage of having 64-bit processor right out of the box working on OSX, while AMD doesnt have its flagship OS behind it, microsoft to make a windows version yet, the quesiton is still there on which is faster. ive looked around the web fairly extensivly and have yet to find a test result of the G5 being faster overall.

When you are talking about 64bit computers I think you should be asking yourself what operating system do I want to run. While the numbers have varied greatly I own a Dual G5 and can honestly say the thing is a beast, and I couldn't imagine it being slower than say the Operton. It is at least equal if not better. The thing to ask yourself is what OS Do you want to run. You can run 64Bit Linux, which will be limiting in quite a few areas depending on what your doing with it. You can wait a little and get 64Bit Windows XP when it comes out which is going to be a hack job from all I've read about so far. Or you can get a G5 and run probably the best operating system to date.

[Eug]

Originally posted by krux`:
What 64 bit processor is faster? Lots of people claim G5 however test results are often quite different. Even though we have the advantage of having 64-bit processor right out of the box working on OSX, while AMD doesnt have its flagship OS behind it, microsoft to make a windows version yet, the quesiton is still there on which is faster. ive looked around the web fairly extensivly and have yet to find a test result of the G5 being faster overall.

For what purpose?

If 64-bit, it will be Opteron/Athlon64, but that's really only with Linux, unless you're willing to wait until Mac OS X 64 or Win 64 is out.

If 32-bit and a half, it could be Mac OS X.

If 32-bit, it could be Linux, Mac OS X, Windows.

And it depends on the software. A lot of software runs better on the Opteron, but a lot of software doesn't.

In other words, if your only question is which is faster, then the answer is "I don't know".

One interesting point though. The G5 2.0 in real benchmarking can run Linpack faster (4.5 Gflops/s) than the max theoretical speed of the Athlon64 2.0 (4 Gigaflops/s). See here.

[Agasthya]

Yeah, I have the same problem. I'm having trouble deciding what my next machine will be (I have a Dual 450 right now).

I think if I build a PC next year with an Athlon 64 it will probably be priced at around $1500 and if I buy a Dual G5 from Apple at the same time the prices will hover around $3000. I guess it all depends on how much you value the Mac OS X experience, and in my opinion, I don't think its worth $1500 (especially for someone that is on a very tight budget - like I will be.).

[Eug]

Originally posted by Agasthya:
Yeah, I have the same problem. I'm having trouble deciding what my next machine will be (I have a Dual 450 right now).

I think if I build a PC next year with an Athlon 64 it will probably be priced at around $1500 and if I buy a Dual G5 from Apple at the same time the prices will hover around $3000. I guess it all depends on how much you value the Mac OS X experience, and in my opinion, I don't think its worth $1500 (especially for someone that is on a very tight budget - like I will be.).

Well, you should probably compare an Athlon64 to a single G5, not a dual G5. However, the Athlon64 will still be cheaper esp. if you down spec some of the features.

[Commodus]

The Athlon 64 is generally faster, but it depends on what you're doing. Keep in mind that anyone who tells you that the G5 is twice as expensive isn't really telling the truth. If you're just interested in a fast CPU and video card, you can undercut it (and that is a point that Apple needs to address); that's not what Apple is doing though.

I went to RB Computing (shoprbc.com) and priced something that matches the dual G5 as closely as possible:

- Athlon 64 3200+ processor
- MSI K8T mainboard
- 2x256 MB Crucial PC3200 memory sticks
- 160 GB Seagate Serial ATA hard disk
- Pioneer A06 DVD-RW/DVD+RW drive
- Radeon 9600 Pro
- AOpen 56K v.92 modem
- Audigy 2 sound card, OEM
- CoolerMaster Centurion aluminum case
- 550W Antec True Power supply (G5 has a 600W supply, I believe)
- Win XP Professional
- and the usual bits (keyboard, mouse, assembly)

Price tag: $2432 US

So if you literally wanted a G5-beater, you'd only be about $500 off. At that price range you might be willing to pay extra for the G5, especially if you want the features of the software (including the iApps). Apple's main obstacle is that not everyone wants a workstation-of-death at home.

The next revision (February is the latest rumour) could improve speeds by as much as 25% - and you could actually see a lineup which starts at 2.0 (or even 2.2) GHz and finishes as high as 2.6. We don't know if AMD will be able to meet that increase, and whether their chips will scale as well as IBM's.

[Cadaver]

Hey, a *nix workstation (8GB of RAM for Mathematica, plus standards like LaTex) that also runs desktop productivity and creativity apps (Word, EndNote, PhotoShop, iPhoto-type apps, Final Cut Express)... doesn't matter how fast an Athlon64/Opteron/Itanium is, it's OS X for me all the way. And no one doubts that a dual 2.0GHz G5 doesn't at least run with the big boys.

[Agasthya]

Originally posted by Commodus:
The Athlon 64 is generally faster, but it depends on what you're doing. Keep in mind that anyone who tells you that the G5 is twice as expensive isn't really telling the truth. If you're just interested in a fast CPU and video card, you can undercut it (and that is a point that Apple needs to address); that's not what Apple is doing though.

I went to RB Computing (shoprbc.com) and priced something that matches the dual G5 as closely as possible:

- Athlon 64 3200+ processor
- MSI K8T mainboard
- 2x256 MB Crucial PC3200 memory sticks
- 160 GB Seagate Serial ATA hard disk
- Pioneer A06 DVD-RW/DVD+RW drive
- Radeon 9600 Pro
- AOpen 56K v.92 modem
- Audigy 2 sound card, OEM
- CoolerMaster Centurion aluminum case
- 550W Antec True Power supply (G5 has a 600W supply, I believe)
- Win XP Professional
- and the usual bits (keyboard, mouse, assembly)

Price tag: $2432 US

So if you literally wanted a G5-beater, you'd only be about $500 off. At that price range you might be willing to pay extra for the G5, especially if you want the features of the software (including the iApps). Apple's main obstacle is that not everyone wants a workstation-of-death at home.

The next revision (February is the latest rumour) could improve speeds by as much as 25% - and you could actually see a lineup which starts at 2.0 (or even 2.2) GHz and finishes as high as 2.6. We don't know if AMD will be able to meet that increase, and whether their chips will scale as well as IBM's.

You hit the nail on the head when you said "Apple's main obstacle is that not everyone wants a workstation-of-death at home."

I'll be content with a fast CPU, great graphics card (both OEM), lots of HD room (you could have gotten a 160GB drive at Staples for like $60 last week - and at that price, might as well buy two and put them in RAID-0 ), and a decent amount of RAM. I also don't need DVD burning (I like how Apple allows you to deselect that option.)

Keep in mind, if I choose to got the Athlon 64 route, every time I upgrade my system its just a matter of swapping out the chip (or if its a totally new revision, new motherboard too). It's less of a hassle than selling your whole machine and buying a new one from Apple.

[reader50]

Originally posted by Commodus:
...
I went to RB Computing (shoprbc.com) and priced something that matches the dual G5 as closely as possible:

- Athlon 64 3200+ processor
- MSI K8T mainboard
- 2x256 MB Crucial PC3200 memory sticks
- 160 GB Seagate Serial ATA hard disk
- Pioneer A06 DVD-RW/DVD+RW drive
- Radeon 9600 Pro
- AOpen 56K v.92 modem
- Audigy 2 sound card, OEM
- CoolerMaster Centurion aluminum case
- 550W Antec True Power supply (G5 has a 600W supply, I believe)
- Win XP Professional
- and the usual bits (keyboard, mouse, assembly)

Price tag: $2432 US
...

You are pricing a single CPU Athlon64 system against a dual CPU G5. I went to the Apple store, chose the single 1.8 and added the Radeon 9600 Pro to make the system otherwise identical to the dual 2.0 ... $2,449 US.

Hmm ... so the upgrade to dual G5 2.0 really costs US$550 plus a mandatory video card upgrade at Apple's upgrade prices. Apparently, the dual 2.0 is the better deal just like many people say, and the only thing holding us back from lower prices than an AMD64 system is Apple's legendary RAM and vid card upgrade prices.

edit: fixed vid card snafu

[Socially Awkward Solo]

First I want to know what a dude in Iraq needs a supercomputer for

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
First I want to know what a dude in Iraq needs a supercomputer for

LOL, well I guess the US' efforts there are yielding some impressive gains for the Iraqs!

[BobK]

Have you ever tried to Multi-task on a windows machine?
We had a set up here where a co-worker rendered a 3d file that file took 2 days to render, (This is on a dual 800 G4) While the file rendered he worked on the machine normally for the 2 days. Photoshop, power point itunes, looked at a dvd (dont tell the boss) WOW!
On the windows machine a Dual 2.33 athlon machine( not sure of the exact clock speed w/o walking down there to look) you could do nothing but render the file. Granted it took 6 hours less to render, but the machine was tied up for 42 hours.
Mac OSX blows windows away for multi-tasking.