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

Re:I wonder what the results would have been...

[jasonfncsu]

OK. I wonder what the results would have been if they used OSS. (read: linux and OSS apps) Better now?

Linux SuSE on Opteron vs. OS X on Mac?

[revcorrupt]

Personally, I would love to see the same tests performed under a standard install of Linux SuSE (SMP) for AMD, and Mac OS X standard install. There should be several cross-platform *nix benchmark utilities out there that will run on both. Anyone up to doing this and then posting on Slashdot?? :-P

it there was a G5 ATX board

[keeboo]

Really, G5 is such a nice processor... But you're locked to Apple hardware (which, outside USA, is expensive at the point of being unviable).

An ATX MB with G5, now we're talking...
With Linux being CPU-independant, and now Windows Itanium and going to x86-64 (thus breaking binary compatibility) i see no reason for x86 compatibility relevance.

Re:Lack of tier 1 vendor support

[paitre]

One important consideration in the G5 versus Opteron comparison is who is standing behind the product. The only tier 1 vendor who has announced Opteron systems is Sun, and those are currently vaporwar

This is -semi-correct-.
IBM has also announced (and is apparently also -shipping-) Opteron based cluster systems. I can also say, with authority, that Sun's efforts in getting Opty machines out the door aren't vapor, either. I'm not at liberty be any more specific that that, though (gotta love NDAs...).

In the past at my job we have always purchased systems from tier 1 vendors, first IBM and then Sun. Recently we experimented in cost savings by purchaseing a HPC cluster from a vendor found through the bids system, and it has been nothing but a nightmare. We've decided in the future to purchase only from tier 1 vendors because of this experience, and will probably end up building our next cluster from G5s (we are an educational institution and thus receive a very generous educational discount from Apple), especially with the recent release of IBM's XL Fortran compiler for OS X.
Apple's discount isn't -THAT- great, unless you get better than what I'm getting at a major East Coast research school. At the institutional level, we primarily go with Dell and Sun. The -current- HPC system that I run is from a "third party" vendor, and it's been pretty solid for us. No real problems, etc. But then, I don't need much hand-holding from a vendor to get done what needs to be done ;)

Problem with current benchmarks...

[evilviper]

The problem with all benchmarks I see these days, is that nobody thinks to bother with comparing heat output, and electrical usage.

They have the gall to tell you which processor gives you "more bang for the buck", but only consider up-front costs, and don't bother worrying about the fact that one often uses massively less power than the other.

Not directly aimed at the article, just a general-subject rant.