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 > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > G5 and 64Bit AMD Article

G5 and 64Bit AMD Article
Thread Tools
devmage
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 10:35 AM
 
Hey guys there was a post on /. about a review of G5 vs AMDs 64bit processors. The post titled "PC World: Apple G5 Gets Trounced By Athlon 64" is exaggerating I think.

The bnechmarks can be found here and the review starts here.

The /. post was just more Apple bashing. I don't know if the AMD is better than the G5 or not. I think the G5 design is awsome, and you can't get OSX for it so thats its fault I have not read the entire article yet and did not see if they were using pather or not which should make a speed difference anyways.
     
Renderdog
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 10:50 AM
 
The slashdot posts I read were mostly fair, pointing out the many problems with this "benchmark."
     
AngryAngel
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 10:53 AM
 
The review comments that Photoshop is the only significant 64-bit enabled application.

I don't think this is true. I don't think the G5 plugins for Photoshop 7.01 have anything to do with 64-bitness. I thought they just replaced the heavily G4-orientated Altivec commands for ones which the G5's VMX does better.

Premier is not a good benchmark for the Mac, as Adobe has abandoned it (they must have stopped really putting effort into it a while ago)

The Quake results are not that important. Even the PC which was fastest in many of the tests was one of the slowest (slower than the G5) at Quake III.
     
devmage  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 11:00 AM
 
Originally posted by Renderdog:
The slashdot posts I read were mostly fair, pointing out the many problems with this "benchmark."
Ya some are, it just bugs when people bash Apple for no apparent reason. After reading the article completely I would agree the way they did the comparison was done poorly.

I like how they noted how the 64Bit XP was a step backwards in a lot of ways and you can't even get it yet. They also felt the need to point out that Apples OS was not "Fully 64bit". Which has been mentioned several times that is a really stupid thing to say. The OS will never be Fully 64bit there isn't any need for it to be.

So in conclusion, even if the raw horse power of the thing was slightly better(Which isn't proven), we have a better OS :b
     
RevEvs
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sitting in front of computer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 11:16 AM
 
Its a joke, not a benchmark. Some of the PC's had RAID, faster, higher spec'd video cards. And then they are testing 32bit, un optimized apps, and testing on Word etc.

Whats the test they used on the VT Computer? they need to test that on them, you cant compare PC Word VS Office v.X Word end such.

revs
I free'd my mind... now it won't come back.
     
Mr Scruff
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 12:50 PM
 
What I think this test demonstrates is that Mac Office is extremely unoptimised compared to the Windows version (something I already knew).
     
Hydra
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 12:52 PM
 
The AMD is a very nice chip but those benchmarks leave much to be desired. I get 339fps Quake at those settings on my dual G5 and the Premiere test only goes to show why Premiere will not be made for OSX in the future. I did the same test with my dual G5 and FCP 4.0.2(as best I could form their poor documentation of their benchmark procedures) and got a very low 20 seconds for the same test of outputting a 959 frame movie. I was also surfing the web and had a bunch of other things running at the same time too.

-Jerry C.
     
haharich
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 02:07 PM
 
Sorry, missed this thread--I was ticked. Check out the RAM configuration. I wonder if I could get Word to OPEN on 128 Megs!
     
devmage  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 02:21 PM
 
Originally posted by haharich:
Sorry, missed this thread--I was ticked. Check out the RAM configuration. I wonder if I could get Word to OPEN on 128 Megs!
You can barely boot a modern operating system in 128megs of ram :b

I know before I got my extra gig into my G5 I pretty much using the 512MB doing regular tasks, all beit I'm a big multitasker
     
CPU
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 02:39 PM
 
Originally posted by devmage:
You can barely boot a modern operating system in 128megs of ram :b

I know before I got my extra gig into my G5 I pretty much using the 512MB doing regular tasks, all beit I'm a big multitasker
Actually, all systems had a gig of ram. See the note at the bottom of the chart:

How We Test: In Adobe Premiere we timed the rendering of our workspace and timed the export of a 959-frame movie at 720 by 480 resolution and 30 frames per second into the QuickTime format. In Adobe Photoshop we timed the operation of ten filters on a 50MB image file and a 150MB file. In Microsoft Word we timed a search-and-replace of one word in a 1437-page document, and the execution of the auto summarize function on a 210-page document. We ran Quake III version 1.32's included "timedemo four" using high quality settings at two resolutions, and recorded the average frame rate. All machines were tested with 1GB of RAM and the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro graphics card; the Mac version of the graphics card has a maximum of 128MB of RAM, while the high end for PCs is 256MB. Most of the PCs used dual, RAID-striped hard drives; the Apple systems did not. We retested the Alienware Aurora with the 128MB Radeon 9800 Pro card and without RAID for more-direct comparison with the G5 systems. Tests on PCs performed by the PC World Test Center; tests on Apple systems performed by the Macworld Test Center. All rights reserved. Chart Notes: In Quake III, higher is better; elsewhere, lower is better. Best scores in bold.
     
devmage  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 03:01 PM
 
Originally posted by CPU:
Actually, all systems had a gig of ram. See the note at the bottom of the chart:

How We Test: In Adobe Premiere we timed the rendering of our workspace and timed the export of a 959-frame movie at 720 by 480 resolution and 30 frames per second into the QuickTime format. In Adobe Photoshop we timed the operation of ten filters on a 50MB image file and a 150MB file. In Microsoft Word we timed a search-and-replace of one word in a 1437-page document, and the execution of the auto summarize function on a 210-page document. We ran Quake III version 1.32's included "timedemo four" using high quality settings at two resolutions, and recorded the average frame rate. All machines were tested with 1GB of RAM and the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro graphics card; the Mac version of the graphics card has a maximum of 128MB of RAM, while the high end for PCs is 256MB. Most of the PCs used dual, RAID-striped hard drives; the Apple systems did not. We retested the Alienware Aurora with the 128MB Radeon 9800 Pro card and without RAID for more-direct comparison with the G5 systems. Tests on PCs performed by the PC World Test Center; tests on Apple systems performed by the Macworld Test Center. All rights reserved. Chart Notes: In Quake III, higher is better; elsewhere, lower is better. Best scores in bold.
Hey I didn't say it only had 128MB of ram haharich did, I was just commenting on the 128MB of ram

Being the article is poorly writen, and thier conclusions iffy, I dismiss everything including what they were actually using in the test.
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 03:30 PM
 
The big problem with this test...

All but the G5 run Windows!
     
Rickag
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Arlington, Texas, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 04:07 PM
 
Just asking, some one elsewhere posted that Adobe Premiere 6.0 runs in classic mode. Is this true or rubbish?

Anyway, Kudos to AMD, these are exciting cpu's and should create some issues for Intel.

As far as whether the G5 or AMD 64 is faster, these tests seem somewhat lacking. We'll see, as more and more comparisons are made. But I do think the G5's will hold their own against them.
Just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
     
RyanG3
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 04:38 PM
 
Originally posted by Cadaver:
The big problem with this test...

All but the G5 run Windows!
That pretty much says it all!!!
     
rhogue islander
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: rodeo island
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 04:41 PM
 
It does state that the tests were performed by PCWorld's sister publication, Macworld.

Not that they necessarily know what they are doing, lol.
     
TC
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Milan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 06:01 PM
 
"Even Apple's 2-GHz dual-CPU G5 unit had a hard time keeping up with a single-chip FX-51 PC in most tests."

In applications which aren't optimized for multiple processors? No sht sherlock.

Premiere is a poor test and wording it to to say Quicktime tries to add credibility to it.

The only downer in all that is the Word test, we're stuck with whatever sht Microsoft produce no matter how fast Apple's machines are.
Nothing to see, move along.
     
allformac
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 06:38 PM
 
After I read the article, I began thinking to myself...

So what if the AMD is a little faster.

The things that we all have to realize are

1) The G5 didn't perform that badly. If followed pretty close to in all those tests.

2) I couldn't tell or not, but I don't think that the G5 was running Panther. This will speed up the Mac scores.

3) Only the G5 runs Mac OS X. If you love Mac OS X and not Windows, you shouldn't even be bothered by these scores.

That's just my opinion.
     
ZildjianKX
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 06:58 PM
 
They made a mistake... the 1.8 GHz G5 couldn't have had a Radeon 9800 Pro in it.

The specs they pulled were from macworld, and almost identical to those that macworld published... and they stated there that only the DP 2.0 had the 9800 Pro...

A 1.8 GHz G5 wouldn't have 1/2 the FPS of a DP 2.0 GHz in Quake III...

A DP 1.25 GHz G4 is almost as fast as a DP 2.0 GHz G5 if they both have Radeon 9800 Pros... its heavily graphics and not CPU dependent.
     
rlane
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 07:32 PM
 
All of us who us Mac O/S know about its inherent strengths and superiority as an operating system over Windows.

But the primal point is that Apple has TRADITIONALLY been losing the processor war for several years now - at least from a mass consumer standpoint.

If a certain product or company continues to lose a race time after time, then that certain product or company beings to wear that label.....often unfairly.

I think we all wished for a G5 with a higher Ghz rating....those who say no are only fooling themselves. On the other hand, we all know that the G5 coooks and smokes anyway.

Customers GERNALLY believe that Apple processors are what Wintel threw away yesterday - i.e. Ghz ratings. Ah, the uninformed.....Wintels best customers.

If you want to be Steve Jobs and annouce the fastest computer, you make something to trounce the compeition....not get trounced a few months later - just after you unveiled your latest and best technology. But we all know, this is industry practice anyway.

Those of us who use Macs have been asking the same question for years: Why can't we have a processor that matches or beats the Wintels....? Bragging rights are used for more than just bragging. . .they open pocket books and corporate coffers for those who demand the latest in technology. And, more often than not, a faster processor is viewed as just that. Case in point = Apple desktop sales were in the tank - the new G5 has changed that, thanks to a new processor.

I can care less about the processor wars because I use Macs and understand the strengths of the overall system.

Unfortunately for Apple, Wintel systems successfully hype their technology via processor speed.

Wouldn't it be great if Apple could have the processor as a bragging right too?

Let the attacks begin....
     
i am yujin
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 08:40 PM
 
Originally posted by ZildjianKX:
They made a mistake... the 1.8 GHz G5 couldn't have had a Radeon 9800 Pro in it.

The specs they pulled were from macworld, and almost identical to those that macworld published... and they stated there that only the DP 2.0 had the 9800 Pro...

A 1.8 GHz G5 wouldn't have 1/2 the FPS of a DP 2.0 GHz in Quake III...

A DP 1.25 GHz G4 is almost as fast as a DP 2.0 GHz G5 if they both have Radeon 9800 Pros... its heavily graphics and not CPU dependent.
You actually think a Mac will win over a PC in terms of gaming?

-edit-
I would seriously doubt it but it would be nice to be surprised.
( Last edited by i am yujin; Oct 15, 2003 at 09:30 PM. )
     
yoyoman
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cali
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2003, 11:36 PM
 
Originally posted by AngryAngel:
The review comments that Photoshop is the only significant 64-bit enabled application.

I don't think this is true. I don't think the G5 plugins for Photoshop 7.01 have anything to do with 64-bitness. I thought they just replaced the heavily G4-orientated Altivec commands for ones which the G5's VMX does better.

Premier is not a good benchmark for the Mac, as Adobe has abandoned it (they must have stopped really putting effort into it a while ago)

The Quake results are not that important. Even the PC which was fastest in many of the tests was one of the slowest (slower than the G5) at Quake III.
xp is not a 64 bit os eather. It was a fair match. Is photoshop for xp a 64bit app. Even if its faster the windows os just sux. And they didn't even use panther yet witch should increase the speeds big time.
     
smitty825
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2003, 12:12 AM
 
Here are my thoughts on the benchmarks...

1. The tests were supposed to feature "Off the Shelf" type machines. (I know some of you people waiting for the Dual-2GHz machines for months on end would disagree with the "off the shelf" tag, though ) That is why the Apple machines didn't have hardware RAID, etc.

2. I recall reading in the article that the MacWorld people helped setup the Mac systems, and made them run as fast as they could get them. I don't think it was an honest attempt to "insult" the macs...

3. Microsoft Office for the Mac is a pretty good product, IMHO. However, it is my understanding that it is from a completely different codebase than the Windows version. I also understand that there is a delay function in the Mac version, which limits the scrolling speed. (I've almost never had scrolling speed issues with Word on my 450MHz Sawtooth, I can't imagine a G5 would be slower!)

4. All of the Apps tested were 32bit apps. It will be awhile before you begin seeing native 64 bit apps appear on a non-linux platform for these machines!

Conclusions:

1. Even if the G5 loses...it still isn't bad! In 6 months or so, the G5 has significantly narrowed the gap between PC and Macs...In the G4 vs. P4 wars, the P4 was faster than the G4 in just about every test you could throw at it. If the G5 keeps improving at a rapid pace, Apple may pop back out in front!

2. I have a feeling that still, to this day, the fastest DEC Alpha Chip (64 bits) would be significantly faster than either of these chips...and it hasn't been actively developed for 5 years or so
     
ZildjianKX
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2003, 02:16 AM
 
Originally posted by i am yujin:
You actually think a Mac will win over a PC in terms of gaming?

-edit-
I would seriously doubt it but it would be nice to be surprised.
I wasn't referring to mac vs PC, I was referring to mac vs mac... and they screwed that up.
     
   
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 09:27 PM.
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.,