i think this guy is a liar
and he is not a mac user
go there
http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/
and he is not a mac user
go there
http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
PowerMac G5: World's Fastest Desktop Computer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
rjstanford... just put him/her in the same bucket as those people that were screaming after the Macs lost the 5th and 6th PCI slot. Or the ones that screamed again after they lost the 4th PCI slot.
I'm sure that there will be people at WWDC that are chomping at the bit for the customary (used to be Thursday) hosting at the Apple Campus where they can corner a poor defenseless Apple employee and ask him why they took the 4th PCI slot out. Thats getting to be a standard sport for these people.
I think Apples going to pull a quickey and we'll be at 2.5GHz this fall say October late September. By IBMs plans the 3GHz PPC970 at 90nm should be ready by January. By this time next year if Apple doesn't have 980s in there computer at near 4GHz they either haven't gotten it together yet or something happened to IBMs plans. I think Steve specifically gave out underestimated information on the 3GHz in a year thing so that when they hit that early it's good press.
Pro tools users can not use this computer... You need a scsi card or fibre card for your storage, and you have 3+ farm cards (if you have a REAL protools system)
the audio industry has something to loose with this setup
but thats why they make pci expansion cards
To tell you the truth, the PIV doesn't worry me as much as the Athlon 64. One simple reason: The PIV can't SMP and it's not 64bits. In contrast, the Athlon 64 and the Operton are 64bits and can work in dual setups, and the competition only gets tougher with other multiprocessor systems. A single PIV is no competition for a dual 970 box. Also, many PC benchmarking sites reported that the new 3.2 GHZ PIV is only 3-5% faster than the previous PIV, but the Dual 970 beats the PIV with a lager margin. The DUAL 970 smokes the PIV in SPEC, and in real life circumstances as well. Perhaps a single to single match will show different results, but like I said, a single PIV is no competition for a Dual 970. Although it's unfair to compare singles to duals, the fact remains the same. A single PIV will not come close to a dual 970 period.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,111270,00.asp
Re: PB G5 15" thoughts...
Actually, if you think about it, Apple has already been beat. Transmeta's Crusoe chip is 128-bit VLIW chip. But then again, its not about the 'bitness' of a processor, its the work the computer can do.
For a desktop, its mainly about performance, I/O features and expandability.
For a notebook, its mainly about performance, I/O features and power duration.
Actually, if you think about it, Apple has already been beat. Transmeta's Crusoe chip is 128-bit VLIW chip. But then again, its not about the 'bitness' of a processor, its the work the computer can do.
For a desktop, its mainly about performance, I/O features and expandability.
For a notebook, its mainly about performance, I/O features and power duration.
Re: Re: PB G5 15" thoughts...
Tadpole's been selling Alpha and SPARC 64-bit notebooks for quite a few years.... 64-bit, 4 GiB RAM, 160 GB disk.
http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/exec.php?p=prod-note-sparc
Tadpole's been selling Alpha and SPARC 64-bit notebooks for quite a few years.... 64-bit, 4 GiB RAM, 160 GB disk.
http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/exec.php?p=prod-note-sparc
Re: i think this guy is a liar
blah blah blah, I'm babbling....
Not sure what to think about this... The facts to me are this... We all use Macs primarily because of the operating system, no? Even if this crap is true, does it really make any difference? PC users have always bagged on Mac hardware for, well, I have no idea. It certainly isn't a threat to their gaming or whatever... YES, we readily bag on PC's (at least I do), because I'm always in a defensive posture when it comes to most of these people... I get sick and tired of some freakin 10 year old saying how great dells are, and how much Macs suck, with absolutely no reasoning... I mean, at least I understand windoze, have used it extensively, and truly know it really sucks! I don't care how fast their hardware is... I like Linux, but, IMHO, Mac is a better and just as stable Unix variant.
blah blah blah, I'm babbling....
Funny, I've used 'real' world class ProTools systems that only used a single G4..... Which begs the question, if a 'real' ProTools system doesn't use a Mac with only 3 available pci slots, then, what the heck kind of system do you use? As I'm pretty confident that recent versions of ProTools won't run on a 9600, or a beige G3 for that matter... R U using a PC for ProTools? Even Digidesign would laugh at you for that... I certainly hope not, wouldn't want to record in that studio...
DISCLAIMER - Just a debate - not intended to offend anyone...
Originally posted by hacurio1
That's becasue of the HD, not the Proc. Most Desktop HD are alot faster than Portable's HDs. [
As a fair test, I played the trailer from the network, and its definitely choppier on the laptop. Both the laptop and the desktop are hooked up to the same ethernet switch/hub.
Is there a way to show the FPS rate when a Quicktime movie is running?
That's becasue of the HD, not the Proc. Most Desktop HD are alot faster than Portable's HDs. [
As a fair test, I played the trailer from the network, and its definitely choppier on the laptop. Both the laptop and the desktop are hooked up to the same ethernet switch/hub.
Is there a way to show the FPS rate when a Quicktime movie is running?
Originally posted by VIREBEL661
Funny, I've used 'real' world class ProTools systems that only used a single G4..... Which begs the question, if a 'real' ProTools system doesn't use a Mac with only 3 available pci slots, then, what the heck kind of system do you use? As I'm pretty confident that recent versions of ProTools won't run on a 9600, or a beige G3 for that matter... R U using a PC for ProTools? Even Digidesign would laugh at you for that... I certainly hope not, wouldn't want to record in that studio...
DISCLAIMER - Just a debate - not intended to offend anyone...
I think you are confused about his statement. He was saying that 3 PCI slots is innadequate for a full blown ProTools system. The PowerMacs that the G5 is replacing has 4 PCI slots.
Re: Re: i think this guy is a liar
Dont worry. I'm not going to get into details, but this is not the first time it has happened. This guy doesn't have a clue. Do some google searches on compilers. He is just complaining because apple didn't use an Intel optimized compiler; on the other hand, imagine how unfair would've been if apple used an optimized compiler for the G5. Photoshop was optimized, but that was about it.
Dont worry. I'm not going to get into details, but this is not the first time it has happened. This guy doesn't have a clue. Do some google searches on compilers. He is just complaining because apple didn't use an Intel optimized compiler; on the other hand, imagine how unfair would've been if apple used an optimized compiler for the G5. Photoshop was optimized, but that was about it.
YES! I stand totally corrected.... I STILL think you could do a blown system with only 3 slots though.... I DO AGREE that more pci slots are better, I'm just such a damn zealot, forgive me
! For some reason I was thinking previous Macs only had 3 usable PCI slots... I'm a dork...
Re: i think this guy is a liar
Doesn't really matter now does it. All you have to do is watch the keynote and see the Dual G5 not just beat but completely pulverize a Dual/Xeon. So in the real world the Mac is king. In the hypothetical world of optimized benchmarking and theoretical dick pulling the PC is still a wanker because it runs windoze.
Doesn't really matter now does it. All you have to do is watch the keynote and see the Dual G5 not just beat but completely pulverize a Dual/Xeon. So in the real world the Mac is king. In the hypothetical world of optimized benchmarking and theoretical dick pulling the PC is still a wanker because it runs windoze.
Hmmm .thats weird. OK, do this: first, plug in the laptop and make sure that in the system preferences energy saver panel the Proc is set to full performance. Second, after you open the movie in QT, press Command J, and select info on video track. Then select general and frame rate; those numbers will tell you the FPS and the rate in Mb/s. An old G3 with a fast enough HD can play the Matrix trailer no prob. I cant see why your PB cant. The only possible explanation is the HD. I could be wrong though.
I think the SPEC tests are valid
I don't understand why people are criticizing. The SPEC test looks pretty valid. It's true that P4 and dual Xeon did not get the same high score as the published ones in SPEC website, but same as APPLE's G5 CPU (PowerPC 970). According to IBM, PowerPC 970 @ 1.8 GHz(prototype) should have 937 for SPECint2000 and 1051 for SPECfp2000 AT LEAST; a 2.0 GHz should be higher than that (SPECint2000: 1041 and SPECfp2000:1167 by scaling). However, the test conducted by apple only shows 800 for SPECint2000 and 840 for SPECfp2000, a lot lower than IBM tested. How come no one notice that all 3 machine(P4, Xeon 2.0GHz G5) get lower score than they are supposed to be, not just P4 and Xeon? Therefore, I don't think apple cheated (they can get sued for this); they just do it differently. And, please don't tell me that gcc 3.3 is optimized for G5 and not for P4. They just add support for Power 4 cpu (father of G5) in mid march. G5 just arrived. How can the code be optimized in such a short period? Also, AMD's operton is no that fast; it's has a high SPEC mark, but in real world test, it lags behind P4 3Ghz in most of the test. You can find this in some websites.
Apple's test
P4 3.0GHz SPECint2000: 889 SPECfp2000:693
Xeon 3.0GHz SPECint2000: 836 SPECfp2000:646
G5 2.0GHz SPECint2000: 800 SPECfp2000:840
Published SPEC:
P4 3.0GHz SPECint2000: 1014 SPECfp2000:1056
Xeon 3.0GHz SPECint2000: 1089 SPECfp2000:1138
G5 2.0GHz(by IBM) SPECint2000: 1041 SPECfp2000:1167
discrepency ratio (Apple's result / published result)
P4 3.0GHz SPECint2000: 0.877 SPECfp2000: 0.656
Xeon 3.0GHz SPECint2000: 0.767 SPECfp2000: 0.568
G5 2.0GHz(by IBM) SPECint2000: 0.768 SPECfp2000: 0.719
I don't understand why people are criticizing. The SPEC test looks pretty valid. It's true that P4 and dual Xeon did not get the same high score as the published ones in SPEC website, but same as APPLE's G5 CPU (PowerPC 970). According to IBM, PowerPC 970 @ 1.8 GHz(prototype) should have 937 for SPECint2000 and 1051 for SPECfp2000 AT LEAST; a 2.0 GHz should be higher than that (SPECint2000: 1041 and SPECfp2000:1167 by scaling). However, the test conducted by apple only shows 800 for SPECint2000 and 840 for SPECfp2000, a lot lower than IBM tested. How come no one notice that all 3 machine(P4, Xeon 2.0GHz G5) get lower score than they are supposed to be, not just P4 and Xeon? Therefore, I don't think apple cheated (they can get sued for this); they just do it differently. And, please don't tell me that gcc 3.3 is optimized for G5 and not for P4. They just add support for Power 4 cpu (father of G5) in mid march. G5 just arrived. How can the code be optimized in such a short period? Also, AMD's operton is no that fast; it's has a high SPEC mark, but in real world test, it lags behind P4 3Ghz in most of the test. You can find this in some websites.
Apple's test
P4 3.0GHz SPECint2000: 889 SPECfp2000:693
Xeon 3.0GHz SPECint2000: 836 SPECfp2000:646
G5 2.0GHz SPECint2000: 800 SPECfp2000:840
Published SPEC:
P4 3.0GHz SPECint2000: 1014 SPECfp2000:1056
Xeon 3.0GHz SPECint2000: 1089 SPECfp2000:1138
G5 2.0GHz(by IBM) SPECint2000: 1041 SPECfp2000:1167
discrepency ratio (Apple's result / published result)
P4 3.0GHz SPECint2000: 0.877 SPECfp2000: 0.656
Xeon 3.0GHz SPECint2000: 0.767 SPECfp2000: 0.568
G5 2.0GHz(by IBM) SPECint2000: 0.768 SPECfp2000: 0.719
Re: I think the SPEC tests are valid
GCC as I have read isn't optimized specifically for any particular cpu and that is why it makes the perfect compiler for and equal benchmark. Screw benchmarks though. how many of us make money running benchmarks all day? Not many I would guess. Most people buying the G5 will make money rendering or photoediting or something like that. In the real world the G5 spanks everything we saw the tests.
GCC as I have read isn't optimized specifically for any particular cpu and that is why it makes the perfect compiler for and equal benchmark. Screw benchmarks though. how many of us make money running benchmarks all day? Not many I would guess. Most people buying the G5 will make money rendering or photoediting or something like that. In the real world the G5 spanks everything we saw the tests.
How about this for some real world benchmarks: When the new G5's get into the stores (August from what we're told), I'll just go in there (Micro Center) and bring my copy of Bryce 5 with me and Render some 3D still images and record the times for the single processor models. (since Bryce is strictly Raw CPU dependant, it is a fair test of Brute Processor strength..........no Altivec Photoshop Bake-offs here)
I've already done that with all the current G4 models, Pentium 4's and the AMD Athlon model PC's. I have all the times already written down in my notebook comparing Raw CPU Speeds rendering the same 3D still picture.
So, then I can compare the times of the new G5's with my records of the Athlon and Pentium PC's rendering times.
At that point, I'll log on to Macrumors and post a thread with the times. Although Bryce is not a high end program, it's still a good test of Raw Processor strength.
Leak was a plant-confirmation
Well, we now know for sure that the leak was intentional, the graphic is distinctly different from the one Apple is using now, and left out some of the things that Steve would like to save for himself, the "leak" didn't have any mention of the case, and if you look now, they have the G4 specs up in its place. definitely intentional messing with us
Well, we now know for sure that the leak was intentional, the graphic is distinctly different from the one Apple is using now, and left out some of the things that Steve would like to save for himself, the "leak" didn't have any mention of the case, and if you look now, they have the G4 specs up in its place. definitely intentional messing with us
As previously noted, the single G5 was paired up fairly against a single Intel Pentium 4 3.06 Ghz processor on an 800mhz bus. It was the dual Xeon 3.06 Ghz processor (for the real-world app comparisons), that used a 533mhz bus.
Two things you should note. 1) Pentium 4 CPUs cannot do SMP so there's no dual CPU benchmarks using their 800 Mhz FSB. 2) The fastest Xeon processors available can only do 533 Mhz FSB (according to Intel's website).
From what I understand, the SPEC test was pretty fair if you believe in those kind of benchmarks (the compiler wasn't optimized for one system or the other). Even Steve Jobs was quick to note that the single G5 lost to the single Pentium 4 on the integer SPEC results (although it was pretty close from what I remember).
10.2.7
Just a quick note.
After downloading the SPEC tests from VeriTest I noticed the G5 was loaded with OS 10.2.7. I would say this is an indication of a soon to be released and possibly final update to Jaguar. Also, both Intel boxes were equipped with 512megs of extra RAM, would this alter the findings at all?
Just a quick note.
After downloading the SPEC tests from VeriTest I noticed the G5 was loaded with OS 10.2.7. I would say this is an indication of a soon to be released and possibly final update to Jaguar. Also, both Intel boxes were equipped with 512megs of extra RAM, would this alter the findings at all?
- Status