PC Mag Compares G5 to Xeon

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by pudge on Sunday September 21, 2003 @05:48AM from the i-will-take-one-of-each dept.

zpok writes "PC Magazine did a comparison between a dual 2.0-GHz Power Mac G5 and an equally expensive Dell Precision 650 Workstation running dual 3.06-GHz Xeon processors. Their conclusion: 'we see that indeed the G5 is generally as fast as the best Intel-based workstations currently available.' But of course 'our cousin Ned can build you a better'un at half the dough.'"

6 of 196 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

objectivity by madbeaner · 2003-09-21 06:05 · Score: 5, Informative

according to PCMAG, the G5 cost $4349 as tested. Using the apple store, i can get that with the 2x1gb RAM modules, superdrive, no bluetooth/wifi, Radeon 9800, and a modem. now, let's configure a similar Dell Precision 650. the review doesn't mention that the Dell has a Radeon VE 32mb, no 56k modem, a 120gb ATA HD (compared with the G5 and its 160gb SATA), and uses DDR266 (compared to the G5 using DDR400, but that can't be blamed on Dell, but the mobo config). According to PCMAG, they were "comparing the results with a similarly configured (and priced) Dell Precision 650 Workstation". Funny how they give the exact price of the G5 and not of the "similarly priced" Dell.

as you can see, the Dell is $835 more. now, let's try and be objective, something PCMAG disavowed in their introduction saying they took Apple's claims about the speed of the G5 "with a grain of salt". in other words, the test was designed to debunk Apple, thus throwing objectivity out the window.

IF we were to buy the RAM by a third party, drop the 56k modem on the G5, and leave the default video card (which is still better than the Dell), the system would cost $3188 (RAM is DDR400, 512mb+1gb on pricewatch). The Dell would cost $4057 (again, with RAM from pricewatch). That would make it $869 more.

On top of that, PCMAG admits to not taking into account a certain loading time (for controls ... they don't explain what it is, but they make it obvious that said delay is not experienced on the Mac). According to the story, "on the Windows system, loading the controls often took a minute or more. If these times are added back to the actual test times, both Macintosh computers would have clearly outperformed the Windows-based computer." They don't make a note of it on the actual benchmarks, just the preface.

so if anything should be taken with a grain of salt, it's PCMAG.
1. Re:objectivity by madbeaner · 2003-09-21 07:47 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  you're right, the G5 doesn't support ECC (check the Virginia Tech Supercomputer threads for those complaints ...) and no, IF you buy the RAM from Apple, the price skyrockets and the Dell and Apple are pretty much evenly priced, but honestly, who the hell would pay those prices? Also, you're probably configuring the Dell for 4x512mb sticks when the G5 config uses 2x1gb, and again the Dell is more expensive. really though, scratch that and leave the default RAM in and just add aftermarket prices, and you'll see the Dell is still much more expensive (i know i sound like a broken record right about now)
Re:speed no longer matters by KH2002 · 2003-09-21 07:52 · Score: 5, Informative

"For most of the stuff that most people do most of the time, today's machines are hugely overpowered... ...most people don't run large simulations or edit video most of the time."
Many people do lots of video editing or 3D, or use virtual instruments & effects to do music. We can use every last bit of power we have- every day. Plus we're cranky and outspoken...
Re:Believe it or not.... by zpok · 2003-09-21 14:53 · Score: 5, Informative

It was objective alright, but most (intelligent) people objected on other grounds than -erm- objectivity.

They argued PC's should have run an optimized compiler, as the G5 should have. That way you'd have a subjective but real world benchmark. Because that's the thing most people would do with a machine like that, when programming. Only makes sense.

What Apple showed with that benchmark was that the G5 was faster at a bunch of tasks people wouldn't necessarily want to perform under that set of circumstances.

I personally only started drooling after that. When Stevie Wonder showed Photoshop, Mathematica, Logic/Cubase, rendering and FCP stuff. That's what this beast is made for, that's why you'd buy a G5 instead of a Dell. Not only good soft, but screaming hardware... etc etc

And that's why this PC Mag article is for most people more interesting than two high-end machines running an open source all-purpose compiler.

Apart from that it shows the G5 in a decent light to a mostly PC audience. Could have been worse.

Disclaimer: if I were Apple I would have done the same thing. It might not excite me personally, but it did show the G5 advantage in a levelled field, set up by the best and most impartial people they could have hired.

--
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Re:preach on, good brother, preach on by Quikah · 2003-09-21 16:58 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually the Xeon is a pretty crappy chip right now, not really comparable to a G5. The P4 is a much better comparison, but no dual support. Intel is really hurting for a good workstation chip right now, once they bring 800 MHz bus to the Xeon, they will be in better shape but they still are in trouble with the opteron/Athlon64.

--
Q.
Re:Do I hear a goalpost moving? by phillymjs · 2003-09-22 05:44 · Score: 3, Informative

...while you wait, component prices should drop an average of 3-5%, but you'll still pay the same amount for the Mac.

Did you even read my post?

The G5 still costs the same price it did in June, but the Dell costs $600 MORE than it did back then. I'd be interested to hear how little your theory on constantly-falling component prices explains that particular fact.

~Philly