G5 vs Opteron, Finally

metfoo writes "It's been months since the G5 and Opterons have been available for purchase. When the G5 systems were first released, many Mac bashers and AMD nuts discredited the G5's performance. They always ended their comments with 'Wait until its compared to an Opteron, then we'll talk.' Well, it's finally time to talk. Barefeats has posted an article comparing the two systems. The G5 line was compared to a Dual 2GHz Opteron and the results are impressive. In gaming, the Opteron system proved to be superior, which is partly due to the superior 9800XT over the base Radeon 9800. The G5 spanks the Opteron in many of the non-gaming tests, except for the Photoshop tests."

Comments

I wonder what the results would have been...

[jasonfncsu]

If they would have used a linux platform instead of Windows...

Old Tests... one issue

[Rosyna]

One main issue with the UT 2003 tests. It doesn't say if they are running UT 2k3 2225.1 or 2225. 2225.1 brings MASSIVE performance increases. From the notes:

It's much, much faster. Several optimizations have been made, lots of Altivec code has been added, and the entire sound subsystem has been rewritten. Performance improvements of 25% or more over the original retail version are typical, with single CPU systems achieving a more noticible gain.

Price?

[BWJones]

O.K., hopefully this will put to bed all those folks who cry about Apple computers being so damned expensive. Feature for feature, the G5 is about $600 cheaper than the Opteron. I certainly found this out when I was pricing workstations from Dell and other Wintel manufacturers and the G5's from Apple. I went with a fully loaded G5 and the price delta was $1200 cheaper going with the G5. Plus, OS X is soooooo nice.

Remarks

[internet-redstar]

Price comparisation:
- comparisation of artificially low memory systems as Apples prices are where Apple makes the most on. On the one hand claiming 'we don't want to build ourselves as Apples can't be build, and then going to another store to add memory, just isn't fair when comparing prices.
- Boot-testing the Mac for performance difference with other the HD is a good thing, but the test in the other direction (booting the PC with the other HD might reveal that the bottleneck is in the other direction).
- MacOS X is certainly better in 64bit environments than not wanting to run beta software on a system bought for performance.
- The problem with the Mac is also that the graphics subsystem is already dated. The release cycle of Macs is just too long. When they're first released they -arguably- beat most of the fastest PC's. But the next version is only released at quickest 6 months later, if you compare at that time with latest hardware. Macs just can cope up.
- I also assume that near the end of the cycle, Apple's profit margins are incredible high. It's a very good marketing tactic to keep hardware and software tied to each other, keeping it all under control.
- As I'm typing this on my top-equipped 12" PowerBook, I must admit that MacOS X is a good OS and the hardware is very good (this laptop was cheaper than any comparable hardware at the time I ordered it - not any more at the time when it got delivered)
- And as a rule of thumb, I always say it's better to buy a less expensive system and upgrade it quicker than to go for the fastest and be stuck with it for an extra year.
- Macs also have a better second hand value, and that shouldn't be forgotten when taking the price into account.
- But most performance comparisations clearly SUCK because they tend to be optimised for a certain system (because of lack of knowledge of the party), or highly dependent on release schedules of involved hardware or software.

Re:This may sound like flamebait or a troll...

[grahams]

Or: if you're a gamer, own a console. While we aren't quite at the point where all games are "better" and "first" on the console, that day seems to be growing closer. Game stores are stocking fewer and fewer PC games, and signs point to stores like Game Stop eliminating them completely.

Its not the hardware its the software

[ducomputergeek]

I guess I've worked in the video production industry too long, but most of the people I have been working with are switching to Macs or upgrading to G5's not because of hardware, but software and the total package.

Answer this question: will final cut pro run on an x86 based machine?

To me, and most Mac users, gaming is irrelvant. Most people that use Macs are in a profession such as desktop publishing, video production, or graphic arts. Sure they may play a game or two, but their machine is used for work.

I do a little bit of everything with my G3 700Mhz 14.1" iBook, but mostly its MS Office, Mail, Safari, and Quark that I use. Along with Final Cut Pro and Photoshop when need be.

Our office is 95% Mac and 5% FreeBSD, which we run on Althon white boxes, and we have beat out competition because of productivty. We are not spending loads of time with viruses and patching security issues on a weekly basis. Our machines rarely lock up, none have crashed (knock on wood), and that helps with the bottom line.

Does it help in video rendering to have the extra speed and power of the 64-bit G5? Yeah, the faster a project is rendered, the quicker we move on to the next. But for everyday business use, our older G4 500's, 867's, and Dual 1.25gz will serve us for years to come and even though Apples cost more up front, we know we have saved time and money by using macs for our desktops.