[axlepin]

I am reading what looks like contradictory data about G5 vs intel-mac performance...

according to some, *any* intel-based mac (including minis and iMacs) is said to be able to spank the buns off *any* G5 PowerMac, even when Rosetta is used to run apps not yet coded for MacIntel.

Other folks claim BS, saying that, until apps ARE coded for MacIntel, those macs lag behind the G5, especially the G5 DP, or Quads.

I've seen benchmarks supporting each contention, and it's not resoundingly clear that either platform is clearly better.

Even on Apple's own website, there are tests showing their Mac Pro (not sure quad or octo-core) as being about 1.8 times as fast as a Quad G5. In my book, that ain't no buns-spanking. That's more like "nice graph...I think I'll keep my $4K."

Any thoughts? Any data? Are most people wait-and-seeing?

axle

[OreoCookie]

Unless you are talking of very, very specific situations, even Mac minis will be a lot, lot faster in terms of cpu performance. These days, pretty much all apps are available as Universal Binary, so whenever you compare native performance, the G5 will be a lot slower. Not because it's a bad computer, it's just sheer age and Moore's law.

Only under certain, rather special situations, a G5 will be about as fast:
If you compare it to a low-end Intel-based Mac, say a MacBook (Pro) or a Mac mini, and you're forcing the Intel-based Mac to use PowerPC binaries and you are using a function that has seen a lot of code optimization and tweaking for the G5. Remove any of that and an Intel-based Mac will be (with emulation) about as fast or (if native binaries are available) a lot faster.

[axlepin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Unless you are talking of very, very specific situations, even Mac minis will be a lot, lot faster in terms of cpu performance.

Would you mind giving some examples of the specific situations you're talking about?

thank you!

axle

[OreoCookie]

How about the other way around, what software do you use?

But really, there is no need for a big discussion, as soon as there is an Intel binary (which there is for 99.99 % for all of the relevant software packages, from Office to all Adobe apps to Aperture to all browsers to audio apps), the Intel-based Mac will be a lot, lot faster.

[axlepin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

How about the other way around, what software do you use?

Fair enough... I use Lightwave (3D) and Final Cut Studio, Adobe Creative Suite, and a handful of apps that ship with OS X are important, like iTunes and iPhoto..mail...Safari..

But really, there is no need for a big discussion, as soon as there is an Intel binary (which there is for 99.99 % for all of the relevant software packages, from Office to all Adobe apps to Aperture to all browsers to audio apps), the Intel-based Mac will be a lot, lot faster.

That makes it sound like it's dumb to buy anything now, really...I don't need theoretical speed...I need *actual* speed in return for my bucks.

Nothing against apple, but I'm tired of hearing/reading things like "Well, the Mac would be faster if only 10 things nobody controls would happen...

such as, apps being written to take advantage of [insert name of processor or Apple technology].

We all read that about the G4, the G5...and now, Intel-based macs seem to be also much faster on paper (or on pixels).

axle

[Simon]

It's not on paper. It's real.

Unless you are using Rosetta apps, any Intel Mac will on average be faster than a G5. Obviously if you use a Rosetta app you need a beefier Intel to make up for the emulation. Likewise if a UB task is already instantaneous on a quad-core G5 it will not be faster on an Intel mini. But those are special cases. In general the Intel Mac will be faster than the PPC Mac.

Your sig says you have a PPC Mac mini. Rest assured, any Intel Mac you buy now will knock its pants off. It's a huge difference. No ifs, no buts.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by axlepin 

Fair enough... I use Lightwave (3D) and Final Cut Studio, Adobe Creative Suite, and a handful of apps that ship with OS X are important, like iTunes and iPhoto..mail...Safari..

Regarding the apps that came with OS X, all of them are native. For all the other apps you've listed Intel binaries are available. Perhaps you already own the versions that come with Intel binaries (depends on the version, obviously).

Originally Posted by axlepin 

That makes it sound like it's dumb to buy anything now, really...I don't need theoretical speed...I need *actual* speed in return for my bucks.

What do you want to know?
Even in early tests that compares two iMacs that are rather similarly specced. Keep in mind that was 2006 when Intel binaries have not see a lot of optimizations. You can see how Adobe has improved performance on Intel-based Macs substantially. Ditto for Final Cut Pro. Again, note that most of these benchmarks are from 2006.

Handbrake, a DVD encoder, is at least twice as fast. Lastly, the most respected cpu benchmark, specint and specfp show consistently that Core Duos and Core 2 Duos are about two to two-and-a-half times as fast as the G5 per core. All Intel Macs (with the exception of very rare first-gen Core Solo Mac minis) have at least two cores.

Originally Posted by axlepin 

Nothing against apple, but I'm tired of hearing/reading things like "Well, the Mac would be faster if only 10 things nobody controls would happen...

I wrote quite explicitly that unless you have to/want to use legacy applications, Intel-based Macs will be a lot faster. The only complicated part is to construct a situation when a G5 would be faster today.

This speed difference between Intel-based Macs and PowerPC-based Macs is real, most of us here have experience both and OS X finally feels zippy and smooth on my first-gen ProBook.

[Big Mac]

When was this post written? 2006?

[Amorya]

Originally Posted by axlepin 

I am reading what looks like contradictory data about G5 vs intel-mac performance...

according to some, *any* intel-based mac (including minis and iMacs) is said to be able to spank the buns off *any* G5 PowerMac, even when Rosetta is used to run apps not yet coded for MacIntel.

Other folks claim BS, saying that, until apps ARE coded for MacIntel, those macs lag behind the G5, especially the G5 DP, or Quads.

I've seen benchmarks supporting each contention, and it's not resoundingly clear that either platform is clearly better.

Even on Apple's own website, there are tests showing their Mac Pro (not sure quad or octo-core) as being about 1.8 times as fast as a Quad G5. In my book, that ain't no buns-spanking. That's more like "nice graph...I think I'll keep my $4K."

Any thoughts? Any data? Are most people wait-and-seeing?

axle

I have a G5 dual core 2ghz, 5GB RAM, and a Mac Mini core2duo 1.8ghz, 1GB RAM.

The G5 is many orders of magnitude faster than the mini. This could be to do with it being RAM-starved, but even if I'm only running Safari on the mini then it stutters and pauses much more than the G5. Trying to multitask is not fun.

This is all using native software. Rosetta on the mini is so unusable it's not worth bothering with.

(Actually, 10.5.6 did bring a pretty nice improvement to the responsiveness of the mini. It's still nowhere near the G5, but at least it doesn't make me bang my head against the desk quite as much.)

Just my experience.

Amorya

[OreoCookie]

Indeed, you don't have enough RAM, Intel binaries are slightly larger and Rosetta likes to eat RAM for breakfast. That doesn't measure cpu performance.

[Simon]

1 GB RAM in an Intel Mac -> bad performance

As Oreo said, instead of benchmarking CPU performance you have documented the effects of RAM starvation.

[SierraDragon]

2 GB should be considered minimum for MacIntel boxes (more for towers) because MacIntels do seem to need RAM more than earlier Macs. Such increasing RAM need is a good thing, because hardware/software designers should logically be building in more RAM usage as RAM prices continue to fall.

-Allen Wicks

[P]

Intel Macs need more RAM because they load double copies of many system libraries into RAM - one x86 copy for the native apps and one PPC copy for the apps running under Rosetta.

Also note that CPU is not the entire equation when calculating the performance of a computer. The mini is held back by its slow 2.5" HD - a G5 tower with a good quality 3.5" HD will have vastly superior disk performance - and let's not get started on what the GPU can do. Oreo's answers seem to be correct for pure CPU performance though.

[0157988944]

Does the poster realize that Intel Macs have been the norm now for 3 years, and that a PowerPC Mac is pretty darn old in computer years, and that this isn't some big shift that we're in the middle of, all [still updated] software is made for Intel now?

[Catfish_Man]

Going from my 1GHz G4 to a dual 2GHz Core 2 Duo was about a 6x speedup for compiling, which is the main task I do that's slow.

[Todd Madson]

Part of it is more efficient microcode in new Intel processors as well
as the fact that the G5 is several years old in terms of microcode.

I'll use some examples....

My several year old Athlon 3800 overclocked to 2.5 ghz, Windows XP
and using Alex Kan's Seti at Home client gets about 1100 RAC.
That's a 90 nanometer processor but overclocked to 2.5 produces
better RAC than the G5 2.5... That's with 2 gigs of ram.

My G5 2.5 with 7 gigs of ram and Mac OS X 10.5 gets around 940 rac,
with Alex Kan's G5 Seti at home Optimized client it used to do considerably
better until the complexity of the algorithms with Seti show it losing ground.

My Windows Vista Laptop with 65nm Core2Duo (Merom cpu) does
considerably better, over 1500 rac and sometimes higher. That's a
2.2 ghz laptop beating the pants off of bigger desktop towers.

The G5 is still great for music and video production, but there are
many issues where the signs are on the wall: you can't really get
modern faster AGP video cards for it, it's all four year old stuff...AGP
is functionally obsolete. The things are known to leak too (mine did)
and my Applecare is done so I'm sunk if it dies.

You can put more ram into it, it is fast with most things but is only
dual processor, the towers have four cores which is two more than
the 2.5 G5 has and some have eight cores which totally overwhelms
it - fast MacPros with 8 cores get 10,000 RAC. Much better.

Eventually ppc powermac will not have support so wake up sooner
rather than later.

[striderdm1]

I've got to forward this very interesting thread onto my wife. This should get my upgrade from the G5!

I work on my Power Mac G5 - dual 2ghz & 3.5GB ram - each day running various apps to photo and video edit along with web design and other general stuff. Play lots of (old'ish) games too! The performance does seem to leave me wondering sometimes, i've recently reinstalled Leopard from clean and that helps, but I cannot help wonder how a decent Intel Mac would compare.

iMovie often struggles as does Aperture 2 sometimes, plus I'm not able to play the latest fps games as it's usually a case of Intel only

I don't know whether or not we could ever afford a Mac Pro (!) but no doubt I'll enjoy the shopping late 2009

[william604]

I will be replacing my PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 Ghz in the next year and expect that I will gain a considerable boost of cpu power from the intel architecture. But I have to say that I find my current computer to be extremely useful and enjoyable to use. But I agree with some of the above comments that as far as the powermac is concerned the writing is on the wall.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Amorya 

This is all using native software. Rosetta on the mini is so unusable it's not worth bothering with.

It's the RAM. Intel Mac OS X (and Rosetta alone) use more RAM. 1 gig is not enough on a Mini except for basic work.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by axlepin 

Even on Apple's own website, there are tests showing their Mac Pro (not sure quad or octo-core) as being about 1.8 times as fast as a Quad G5. In my book, that ain't no buns-spanking. That's more like "nice graph...I think I'll keep my $4K."

Apple doesn't have benchmarks against the G5 on their site. Where are you getting those?

Here's a bench of the current Mac Pros against the G5:
http://www.barefeats.com/harper.html

At 3-4 times faster, the Mac Pro absolutely spanks the G5.

[Westfoto]

http://www.apple.com/macpro/technology/processor.html

Toward the bottom of the page. They are comparing the new computer to a Quad 2.66

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Westfoto 

http://www.apple.com/macpro/technology/processor.html

Toward the bottom of the page. They are comparing the new computer to a Quad 2.66

Yes, they're benching against a Quad 2.66 Intel Mac Pro, not a G5.

[polendo]

Originally Posted by striderdm1 

I've got to forward this very interesting thread onto my wife. This should get my upgrade from the G5!

Don´t bet on it! If she´s an average wify she will just say "but its the same computer! its the same color! why do you want to but the same computer again?" LOL! j/k its worth a shot though! g luck.

[striderdm1]

lol yeah i know what you mean. My Mom was always like that years ago, "so this computer is faster? why not just type faster instead?"
though there was a little wink in there also! But still...

[Luca Rescigno]

1 GB of RAM was a nice amount back in 2005.

[MarkLT1]

Originally Posted by Amorya 

The G5 is many orders of magnitude faster than the mini.

Me thinks someone doesn't know what an "order of magnitude" is. I don't doubt that the G5 is faster than the mini, but "many orders of magnitude?" How many orders of magnitude? One order of magnitude would be 10x faster.. 2 would be 100x faster, 3 would be 1000x faster.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by MarkLT1 

Me thinks someone doesn't know what an "order of magnitude" is. I don't doubt that the G5 is faster than the mini, but "many orders of magnitude?" How many orders of magnitude? One order of magnitude would be 10x faster.. 2 would be 100x faster, 3 would be 1000x faster.

LOL, that reminds me of this Dinosaur Comics strip discussing the dictionary definition of the word "Decimate."

http://www.qwantz.com/archive/001025.html

[calverson]

This is a pretty decent dissertation on the subject.

[Eriamjh]

What irks me is how Jobs was all about how fast the G5 was, Apple had benchmarks comparing it to Intel processors and then when they switched, suddenly reality hit and the Intel Macs were truly faster in every (non-rosetta) way when it came to "normal" use (snappier? ).

Every year, there were excuses about optimization, but truth be told, the PPC really didn't live up to Apple's own hype. I'm happy with my Intel Macs and like being able to run windows when I want to. Macs are way faster machines now with Intel processors.

[sek929]

Back with the G3 PPC really did have the advantage over much higher-clocked Pentiums. Once the G4 faltered at 500mhz for over a year the myth of the faster PPC processor started going out the window.

Once a liquid-cooled G5 came out it was obvious the old PPC way of less-power more-work was right the hell out the window.

I'm glad I didn't buy a G5 (I was tempted) and waited for the slick Core 2 Duos which, if you think about it, are more like the PPC chips of old. Slower clock speeds than most P4s yet they do three times the work.

[P]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

What irks me is how Jobs was all about how fast the G5 was, Apple had benchmarks comparing it to Intel processors and then when they switched, suddenly reality hit and the Intel Macs were truly faster in every (non-rosetta) way when it came to "normal" use (snappier? ).

Apples to oranges. When Apple compared the G5 to Intel, it compared them to the then-current Pentium 4. The Core 2 wasn't around then - could hardly compare against that. The G5 does crush the Pentium 4 on floating point (which is what Jobs usually tested) and does OK on integer even if the high RAM latency is a killer. (Check any review from the launch of the Core 2 to see what Core 2 does with the old Pentium 4s). Jobs was careful not comparing to the Opteron, which would have given the G5 a sweat. A PPC980 (presumably called G6) based on the Power5 would have been a good competitor to Core 2 - Power5 had the memory controller on the chip years before Nehalem, and with some obvious improvements to the vector unit paired with the awesome floating point power of the G5, it would have been a powerhouse.

Apple went with Intel for one big reason: IBM wanted money to develop a laptop version of the G5, and Apple didn't want to pay. Intel could supply a platform (Centrino) which is what Apple wanted rather than a CPU paired with a chipset it had to design itself, and they did so at a very good price. Intel made a good price because Otellini wanted a big win in the beginning of his term as CEO, and because it fit well with Intel's long term strategy of enhancing its brand and moving beyond the desktop.

If you want to accuse Jobs of odd tests, look at the old G4 versus Pentium 4 tests - that's the really weird stuff.

[calverson]

Originally Posted by P 

If you want to accuse Jobs of odd tests, look at the old G4 versus Pentium 4 tests - that's the really weird stuff.

Link?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

What irks me is how Jobs was all about how fast the G5 was, Apple had benchmarks comparing it to Intel processors and then when they switched, suddenly reality hit and the Intel Macs were truly faster in every (non-rosetta) way when it came to "normal" use (snappier? ).

When the G5 was released, it was competitive. However, back then it was competing against the Pentium 4 -- not the Core (2) Duo. The comparisons of a Core 2 Duo to an Intel-based pc of similar age than a G5 will give you similar results.

IBM didn't want to put energy into developing a mobile version of the G5 and I think even if they did, it wouldn't be as good a processor for the job (mainly because it is derived from a workstation-class cpu that had little regard to power consumption). Perhaps if IBM did have a chip like Sun's Niagra in their portfolio (say, something like an 4- or 8-core G3 + AltiVec), it'd be competitive. But then again, it wouldn't have been competitive with most apps (single thread performance), but very competitive in multi thread performance.

I do believe that Apple has really taken off after switching to Intel: people are afraid of switching to something incompatible and switchers could (can and do) switch back to their favorite flavor of Windows on the same hardware. Machines `feel' more compatible -- people like my sister (who replied `Do you have to switch to Mac format?' when I proposed to migrate her thesis from Word to OpenOffice (on Windows, of course!)).

[Todd Madson]

Originally Posted by P 

(trenchant bits deleted so I can show the point I want to make...)

Apple went with Intel for one big reason: IBM wanted money to develop a laptop version of the G5, and Apple didn't want to pay.

(more bits deleted)

Not so.

What it came down to is the fact that a 2.5 ghz G5 chip will run at 180 degrees
fahrenheit. That kind of temperature can melt a casing and hurt you worse than
a spilled cut of coffee. The backside of the memory controller of my G5 2.5 dual
has hit temperatures as high as 212 degrees fahrenheit. It's not that they didn't
want to pay to make one, it's that it was (in the words of one Apple engineer)
"The mother of all engineering challenges". You think Pentium 4 chips get hot?
They do, but not like this.

My G5, in a basement, in the winter, in Minnesota where the temperatures are in
the fifty degree fahrenheit range, the machine still ramps up around 185 degrees
on each CPU and the memory controller backside gets above 210 sometimes.

It's not money, it's plain physics. Core2duo is a better chip for several reasons:
-Less temperature involved under load.
-Less power consumption involved (my G5 2.5 hits 250 watts or more at IDLE)
-No need for liquid cooling.
-No spilling of liquid cooling systems.

Each processor cycle gives you more "ooomph" on a Core2 chip and the Corei7
even moreso and others of the 45 nanometer ilk just shows that the G5 PPC745
chips date from another time and another era of computer design - not bad, just
not up to date.

With the new eight core Corei7 Xeons we're talking a quantum leap in computer
performance - a theoretical future 16 Core Mac pro leaves the G5 so far behind it's
not even funny.

Face it, the G5 was half a decade ago, a lifetime in computer design. I love mine,
it's great for what it does and it was the best Mac you could at the time it was released
but I know its days are numbered.

It's like any other appliance/tool - eventually someone builds a better toaster...
Although the G5 ran hot enough to literally cook an egg.

[Simon]

180F is not that big a deal. My MBP's C2D reaches 203F regularly during h264 encoding. That's in a 1" thin notebook, not a huge tower.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Simon 

180F is not that big a deal. My MBP's C2D reaches 203F regularly during h264 encoding. That's in a 1" thin notebook, not a huge tower.

Sure, a laptop is going to get a little hotter because they can't cram monster cooling in there.

The G5 was water cooled and it still got that hot.

[Simon]

Sure, but the point is that the CPU an easily handle that kind of heat. Nothing to be worried about. The water cooling on the other hand...

[darcybaston]

When I went from Dual Core G5 2GHz to MacBook C2D 2.16GHz, all my media conversion tasks took less than half the time. I couldn't believe how a year or so later, my $2400 machine was being bested by a $1200 one, and a laptop at that! All my Logic/Live songs could have their tracks unfrozen, file compression was zippy, and so on.

Now, I can't wait to get into a chair in front of an 8 core Mac Pro. Bring it on! I'll put it to good use, and I'm sure I'll get more than a year of use out of it before a laptop kicks it to the side.