Slashdot Mirror
G5 Benchmark Roundup
An anonymous reader writes "In an ironic twist to the recent benchmark wars, Intel referred the Mac site MacFixIt to an analyst at Gartner Group who actually backed the PowerPC G5 platform with this assertion: 'These models certainly equal Intel's advanced 875 platform and should allow Apple to go until 2005 without a major platform refresh.'"
Another anonymous user writes, "While browsing the Xbench benchmark comparison site, I discovered some G5 benchmarks! The 'G5 Lab Machine at WWDC' got an overall score of 164.78, but much higher scores in certain areas. All of the tests are calibrated to give 100 on an 800MHz DP Quicksilver G4."
vitaboy writes "Sound Technology, one of the "leading UK distributors specialising in musical instruments, music software and pro-audio equipment," seems to have some data regarding the real-world performance of the G5 compared to the high-end PC. They state, 'The dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 with Logic Platinum 6.1 can play 115 tracks, compared with a maximum of 35 tracks on the Dell Dimension 8300 and 81 tracks on the Dell Precision 650 each with Cubase SX 1.051 ... More impressively, the 1.6GHz single-processor Power Mac G5 played 50 percent more tracks than the 3GHz Pentium 4-based system.'"
Why aren't there any SPEC numbers from Apple submitted to SPEC? Usually this means that a company knows they will show poor results. And I suppose in Apple's case they aren't reliant upon fast CPUs since they have those sexy designs and OS X now. But to win converts from the x86 camp they really should have some results submitted soon.
http://tinyurl.com/3t236
Right! He obtained them.
It's a biased opinion piece. Now I'm aware that Apple kick-started the G5 with lots of smoke, which is the nature of the business in the computer hardware world, but to discount these numbers just because of some hype during WWDC presentation is silly.
How about we wait for the REAL benchmars from Anandtech and put away some speculation from webmasters who can't even hire anyone older than 14y/olds to design their websites?
I'll wait til the systems are actually shipping and I've seen some independent real-world benchmarks before making any judgements. Xlr8yourmac.com should have some good information once they ship, and maybe barefeats.com
People obviously shouldn't form an opinion on a new platform in the first week following its much hyped anouncement. I think the only thing this first week proves is that at least Apple was able to put itself back on the map and be worthy of performance comparison with high-end systems. Or else, why would these PC-centric doofus post early benchmarks and make asses out of themselves if not to try to defuse an apparent threat? What I want are options. I think Apple just gave me another one. But I won't base my judgement on the number of times Steve Jobs says the word 'awesome' in a keynote address or on shady benchmarks done on an apparently non-existing model (single 2ghz cpu)... I think people should let their emotions settle down and wait to get their hands on a real machine and try it out themselves...
I'm surprised that slashdot is still stuck on benchmarks as an indication of processor speed. Hasn't it already been pointed out over and again that it is incredibly difficult to compare across platforms?
I think it is best leave the pointless statistics to hardware fanatics, and use whatever platform makes one most productive. As such, if any benchmark is even minimally admissible, it is `real world' benchmarks. Yet they do not complete the picture, since productivity is a function of other things, such as user experience, planning required (for the type of job), ease of use-- the list goes on, but you get the idea.
After a point, increasing the number of FPS you get in Quake 3 is not going to make it any more fun for you; likewise, beyond a certain threshold, it becomes pointless trying to get those pro tools to run faster.
Never trust a company that is trying to sell you something. The test should have been done by him rather than being provided by the companies themselves. This guy has zero credibility and I for one don't put much stock on what he says.
Oh, and that last line about AMD having more credibility is just one of the most stupidest things I have ever heard. I don't buy Macs because of the $$$ and I pack a AMD chip but to say something like AMD has more credibility is very silly.
It is good to see that the old adage of "like assholes, everyone has an opinion" hold true.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
Losing 32-bit compatibility shouldn't be a problem at all. That's the great thing about the Mach-O Executable format (used by OS X) - you can stick binaries for as many different architectures as you want in there. Hell, if windows supported the format, you could stick an X86 and a PPC binary in there and run exactly the same file on both platforms. Ditto for Solaris, Linux, IBM's zOS - you get the point.
My guess is that Apple will make the 64-bit versions of the Mach-O binary loader look in a different place (I don't know how the Mach-O format is organized - the next slot? a different directory tree?) for a 64-bit native version, and fall back to the 32-bit version if one can't be found. The existing loaders will just keep looking in the same place they always have, and see the 32-bit version.
Every cloud has a silver lining (except for the mushroom shaped ones, which have a lining of Iridium & Strontium 90)
At this point, does it really matter if Intel, AMD, or Apple is the slightly faster computer?
They're all extremely fast and all run one or more UNIX-like Operating Systems (Linux or BSD or OSX). For the Slashdot crowd, Windows is an afterthought, but I'll mention it as well.
What a person decides to buy is not going to be based on speed anymore. All of the fastest current machines will blaze playing Quake 3 or UT2003.
People who buy Macs may enjoy the speed, but that's not why they buy them. They buy them because they're cool, the have a really nice, easy-to-use, elegant OS that allows them to be productive. Also, they can use the commercial applications (Photoshop, Office, Filemaker, etc) they need on a stable, reliable UNIX platform.
Linux/BSD users have a very different set of criteria. They're looking for cheap, super-secure, stable, configurable or some other particular criteria, but are not particularly concerned with the UI experience or with running commercial desktop applications.
Windows users are a different group too. They want to run their commercial and vertical applications. They are not looking at Linux or Mac because their apps are not there.
That's why there's not a lot of crossover right now between Mac and Intel/AMD. The audience is just different. Thanks to things like Lindows, there may be some Windows->Linux crossover, but this too is pretty small.
- Vincit qui patitur.
I can build a comparable PC based system for far less money than what these things will be going for.
Comparable is in the eye of the beholder. I, like many other Mac users I know, wouldn't trade an OS X box for a Windows or Linux machine no matter how much faster it is. To me, paying the extra money for an Apple machine is worth it as it allows me to use the OS where I can be most productive. It doesn't matter how fast your processor is if you don't like working on your machine.
If you compare the price of a G5 (or pretty much any Apple system), with an equivalently-specced PC from a reputable supplier (such as Dell) -- if you can in fact find an equivalent (and frequently you can't, Apple now out-perform PCs, and often you get standard features on an Apple that you can't get on a PC) -- then you will find the Dell system to be more expensive than the Apple.
Granted, you will probably be able to build your own system, or buy from a local PC shop, a PC with a decent spec that is cheaper than an Apple system. However, I have had a couple of very bad experiences with small/mid-size PC builders, and a horrible experience building my own system (I'm a qualified electronics engineer, but I was let down by some dodgy components and very poor aftersales service). Others may have better experiences, but I think it's a matter of luck over judgement. So, ever since, I've vowed to only buy from the big boys.
Next we come to software. On an Apple system, OS X is included in the price of the system -- you often have to pay extra on the PC system for Windows (OK, Linux etc. are often cost-free if you want to go that route). Sometimes Apple software is more expensive or unavailable on the Mac -- but in my line of work (statistical modelling), all the software I need is available. For Word document monkeys, you also have MS Office on the Mac (I'm told it's better than the PC version). Games are slower to appear on the Mac -- that's a potential drawback.
I spend almost every working day in front of a computer. If you had to drive around for a living, you'd want a decent vehicle: any extra cost of an Apple system over a PC system, amortised over the time spent using the system, is almost zero. Oftentimes, the Apple system is cheaper anyway.
But here's the real reason to buy a Mac: The integration between the hardware (some of the best-engineered in the industry) and the OS (OS X is probably the best OS around at the moment). "It just works" is something I hear from people who make the 'switch' from PC to Mac, and it's true.
That's my opinion. Maybe I'm an asshole, though.
"The noble art of losing face will one day save the human race"---Hans Blix
The idea that Macs are more expensive is false at the high end of the product line and true at the low end.
But here's the thing. Apple doesn't make a low-end computer. They just don't. So comparing a $1200 iMac to a $600 Dell is apples-to-oranges.
"The best benchmark is the app you want to use"
Wisest advice I've ever heard--it was in my machine org and assembly textbook.
*Any* cross-platform benchmark should be taken with a shaker full of salt--they simply do not represent real world performance.
SPEC, for all of its nice points, also falls into this same category. In the end, when all is said and done, people prefer to confuse the model with reality--they think that real world performance follows SPEC scores.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
No, they didn't. Independent would mean that they weren't getting paid by anyone who has anything to gain by the results one way or another. As it turns out, apple hired them and they're not independent at all. M$ hires 'independent' think tanks to issue reports and lobby the government all the time.
Liberty.
Apple hired an independant benchmarking firm
No, they didn't. Independent would mean that they weren't getting paid by anyone who has anything to gain by the results one way or another. As it turns out, apple hired them and they're not independent at all. M$ hires 'independent' think tanks to issue reports and lobby the government all the time.
MS creates "independent" thinktanks whose only income comes from MS and pays them to find the results they want. Veritest is a company that specializes in benchmarks and has done testing for dozens of major companies (see here).
The mythical oraganizations MS quotes usually only have one customer, MS. While it is true that Apple paid Veritest for their services, it's pretty hard to find someone who benchmarks for free and is willing to sign an NDA to keep quiet until the announcement. Veritest, at least, has a reputation to uphold as a fair, independant, tester.
Intel (and others) could dispute every benchmark out there, but no matter how fast a P4 or Xeon is, it has one major problem which prevents me from buying one...
It still can't run OS X.
And no...rumors about an Intel based Mac running OS X deep inside Apple HQ doesn't count.
I stopped reading the article when I got to the subtitle where it refers to Apple as a "Cupertino Fruit Company." Look, Mr. White, if you aren't even going to show any respect at all and even mock one of the companies in your so called comparison, how do you expect anyone to take you're evaluation seriously?
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
A lot of people seem to be making a big deal out of benchmarks, but at the end of the day, I'm still going to buy the thing because it's the fastest Mac on the planet, and I don't care HOW it compares to other chips/boxes.
The only comparison I'm interested in is how it does against the G4... and it ROCKS.
Now I'm just waiting for a dual proc G5 XServe to be released...
*drool*
$0.02 (CDN)
If everything was always about cost then we'd all be driving Yugos.
Spin doctoring Apple's spin doctoring...classy.
Charlie White is quick to rattle off about Apple's marketing practices, but he seems to forget how, oh, the rest of the industry does this too. It's standard practice.
AMD would have you believe their chips are 3200+ fast...whatever that means. As if Quantispeed isn't the current biggest marketing annoyance on the planet...I mean how can AMD sit around trying to convince people of the MHz Myth when they can't even convince themselves...forcing themselves to use Pseudo-Hertz...
And lovable Intel...with their NetBurst Architecture...it makes the internet zippier! Or HyperPipeline Technology. It must be good...
If Charlie White really wants to convince people the G5 sucks, he should be a little more candid about his bias.
<>
Sorry but that argument doesn't hold true. If PC prices increase so will Apple's prices. Apple likes the exclusivity of their products and will continue to market to its wealthy/fanboy demographics.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
Perhaps not much, but I bill out for a couple of hundred bucks/hr, so the time I'd spend assembling a box myself makes the 'build your own' approach rather silly.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Total=$800
All quality products at super low cost.
uh-huh, so where's your 17" lcd, DVD-R drive, operating system, and
-sam
I was just here, where did I go?
You're right, actually. Macs aren't PC at all. It's much more PC to get a Windows PC...oh, wait...
You know, when you don't define what an acronym stands for, you can say a lot about what it does or does not apply to, and none of it means anything. Around here, PC usually stands for Personal Computer, a category which clearly includes Macs.
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
The "but it's cheaper than a Dell PC" mantra is a nice one. Too bad it ain't true.
The flawed part is that you assume I'd actually need all those features. E.g.,:
- Do I need a DVD writer? Dunno about you, but I don't. (And if I did, I could get a better performing and cheaper model for the PC.)
- Do I need dual _Xeons_? That's already funny. For the casual PC user a normal P4 is more than enough.
So let's do an actual comparison between a high end Dell PC and a Mac, shall we?
Dell: 3 GHz P4, 512 MB DDR400, Radeon 9800 Pro, SoundBlaster Audigy 2, 200 GB hard drive (7200 RPM), 16x DVD drive, 48x/24x/48x CD/RW drive, 17" flat panel display, no speakers, Windows XP Professional
It costs... $2,738
Mac: 1800 MHz G5, 512 MB DDR 400, Radeon 9800 Pro, 160 GB hard drive (7200 RPM), Apple 17" flat panel, no modem, CD-RW/DVD combo
It costs... $3,219
So please, gimme a break. The Apple configuration there is both under-performing and over-priced, compared to Dell's offering. In fact, about 500$ overpriced.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against buying expensive designer stuff. I'm not against conspicuous consumption, either. But please do check the actual prices before claiming stuff like "but a Mac is actually cheaper than a Dell". That's simply not true, in any shape or form.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
However, I don't agree with your assertion that the PC you specced is "high-end", or that compared to the PC, the G5 system is 'under-performing'.
This is a matter of opinion, but a high-end system in my mind would have more processing power than just a single P4 (we're talking a dual-Xeon system really, in PC-speak), would have more than 512MB RAM and would have a DVD burner.
As for performance, check out these graphics from Apple: DNA sequence matching performance and Hidden Markov Model performance. The work that I do is *very* similar to these scientific applications -- and the difference in performance is extreme. This is probably due to the 64-bit architecture and high CPU-RAM bandwidth (about 4 times that of a PC).
So, for these systems, which you consider "high spec", the Apple is about £200 more expensive than the PC, but is likely to perform about 5 times better on the type of scientific computation that I do. The £200 doesn't seem so expensive now.
I just specced out two high-spec (my definition) systems, one Apple (dual G5), one PC (dual 3GHz Xeon). The Apple system costs £3,000 and the Dell system costs £3,234 (both include the manufacturers' best warranties). Again, looking at Apple's benchmarks, the G5 system out-performs the dual Xeons by far.
But let's be realistic. A computer is just a tool. Some people will need a PC because of corporate policy, because they need to run Windows-specific software, or one of a hundred other reasons. One just needs to work out what one needs, and then buy the system. Me: I'd go for the Mac at the moment for three main reasons: performance, price and the integration between hardware and software.
"The noble art of losing face will one day save the human race"---Hans Blix
I'm waiting till people can actually test the G5 and see if they feel that their "hard earned cash" was well spent or not.
I'm not interested whether the Dual Opteron is faster in benchmarks. I want to know whether the new G5 can do the job better or not. This obviously includes such things as MacOSX, available applications, stability (reboot and redoing work), maintanence (virus checking and security updates), etc.
If Opteron based systems ran MacOSX or an equivalently supported OS, then benchmarks would be one of many deciding factors.
The rest is just tripe.