Slashdot Mirror
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."
If they would have used a linux platform instead of Windows...
Jason Faulkner
Old Os Administrator
jason@oldos.org
oldos.
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.
Am I just an exception?
"You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo
same could be said for the G5, as OS X is not fully 64-bit yet, and neither are many of the programs (with the exception of a few high-level apps, like Photoshop, etc)
Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
the g5 isn't running a 64-bit Mac OS X. it's still running the regular 32 bit version. so in essence, the G5s 32-bit emulation is better than the Opteron's 32-bit emulation. we'll have to wait and see how 64-bit compares with 64-bit a little longer.
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.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I'm sorry, but doesn't everyone know by now that the opteron is tangibly faster in x86-64 mode due to a doubling of GPRs in a register-starved ISA? Besides, I suggested running 64-bit linux on both, just to be supremely fair, but I think that it wouldn't be much different from 64-bit amd64 and 32-bit darwin.
Those two processors are not compared. The video graphics cards, the motherboard speed, and other things are compared. It should be labeled how Apple G5 Platform compares to Athlon Based Platform.
The thing that's true now is that the Mac systems are competitive. They're close to the fastest Intel/Athlon systems -- close enough that there's not an OBVIOUS performance reason to choose one or another.
They're close in price, too (if you go PC white box then the PC is still less than half the price, but for a Xeon system or something from Dell it's fairly close).
I don't think this benchmark is going to make up ANYBODY's mind one way or another, though -- it's an emotional debate rather than a logical one.
The good thing is the Mac's numbers are no longer embarrasingly crappy, as they were in the latter G4 days.
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.
had feature called "The Race Is On" by Jonathan Seef. The comparison was between G5 and PC's with opteron. The PCs seemed to fare better in most of the tests (photoshop, word, quake, premiere, mp3-encoding, mpeg-2 encoding). Mac seemed to be better only with the DVD creation. By the way, I use Powerbook G4. Anyone's got a link for the article ?
Science as a way of life.
Except for nVidia cards, which have always had excellent OpenGL drivers, D3D renders faster than OGL on practically all current consumer level 3D hardware for Windows. Even on the nVidia hardware the speed difference is practically negligble.
First, lets examine the statement The G5 spanks the Opteron in many of the non-gaming tests, except for the Photoshop tests. I see five tests in this review, and there are two wins for G5, two wins for Opteron, and one tie. So I really don't see either chip spanking the other. On the second page Opteron wins two, G5 wins one.
Second, the configuration notes section was pathetic. It doesn't really give a very good description of the real configuration of the systems. Anyone that views benchmarks regularly knows that the devil is in the details. Still, this is equally a problem for Opteron and G5.
Third, I wonder what kind of comparison is really valid. Anyone familiar with the AMD/Intel world knows that you can't just grab two 2Ghz chips and run them head to head. The architectures are not the same, it wouldn't be a valid comparison. So with two entirely different ISAs, what chips should be run head to head? The only obvious comparison would be each manufacturer's fastest...in this case I believe the 2GHz G5 is Apple's current fastest, but AMD does have a 2.2Ghz part that is available (see pricewatch) and that wasn't tested.
Lastly, let me address the importance of compilation. I can't speak for G5, but you would get a substantial boost in performance on most applications just with a recompile for AMD64 chips. This is because Opterons have 32 GPRs instead of 16, which can make a big difference (especially in multimedia apps like photoshop). Obviously these products aren't commercially available, but people should be aware that a substantial performance boost for AMD64 could come just from optimized releases of software once it reaches a wide enough audience to make it worthwhile for software vendors.
I guess this has turned more into a "notes about AMD64 architecture" post than anything else. It looks to me like this review is interesting but doesn't really settle much. Both Opteron and G5 performed well.
The key difference is that the opteron is /faster/ in 64-bit mode. There are more registers. The same is not true of a G5. OSX doesn't "break up" instructions - instructions are instructions. OSes don't interpret each one. 32-bit windows on opteron just uses 32-bit instructions, just like 32-bit darwin on a G5. Photoshop is not a 64-bit app in the case of OS X IIRC - it uses a 64-bit math library as its G5 optimization. This is fine and works. As I mentioned in another post, darwin can't run "64-bit apps" yet, because there are no 64-bit interfaces to system calls (think about it - if the kernel expects a 32-bit FILE * and you send it a 64-bit one, you're going to have trouble doing I/O). I think I missed something with what you said there. The main 64-bit part of darwin is the math library since they can throw some 64-bit ASM in there plus code to convert back-and-forth to the 32-bit bindings.
Are the moderators on crack? That's not informative, it's wrong!
The only "piece" of OSX that is 64 bit is the memory access - to allow a G5 to use up to 8 GB of ram.
No, the math libraries and kernel support 64 bit goodness too. While the G5 chip is fully 64 bit, OSX is taking each 64 bit instruction (from 64 bit apps like Photoshop, for example) and breaking it into two 32 bit instructions which it sends one after the other to the CPU.
No, it runs as a single 64 bit instruction through the chip!IBM is working to provide Apple with a much optimized PPC970 compiler tailored for the G5 - this is expected to give a large performance gain for this platform.
This I agree with, in fact it should be pointed out that the compiler is available now as a beta on IBM's web site.
there is no emulation in either chip, it is all native.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
You're new around here, aren't you? If it doesn't say that Apple's price-performance ratio isn't complete dogshit, and anybody with two neurons to bang together would build their own computer from a pile of sand and Linux Torvalds' trash bin, and Apple is the devil,
Then it isn't Slashdot.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
On the latest Top500 list Virginia Tech's Mac cluster is number 3 with 2200 2GHz G5 processors, and Los Alamos National Laboratorys machine, with 2816 2 GHz Opteron processors is number 5.. I didn't look at the topology, or connection medium, but I am certain that the Mac cluster was cheaper, and is faster running the SAME benchmarks...
Well I dont trust the new (pro mac?) benchmarks either. But those first PC World benchmarks were a joke. Id spend time writing up an articulate reply but others have already done that the first time these benchmarks were posted. so here you go:
8 515
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=82342&cid=721
--aiee
There is no breaking down of instructions as you mention - there is an extended instruction set which is either available or not on the PPC (so PPC processors which support 64 bit instructions support the full instruction set, whilst the 32 bit processors throw an illegal instruction).
The measure of the processor 'bitness' is when addressing memory, whether you are limited to a 32 or 64 bit address space. In effect the size of a pointer will tell you. Now the impact of moving to a 64 bit address space is usually detrimental to the speed of the application (I would expect that the G5 will be slower in 64 bit mode) due to the increased memory bandwidth required (if pointers are wider, you need more stack/memory to store them, so you have, say, a 10% increase in memory requirement for an application). If I remember correctly, the HP PA RISC systems were slower running 64 bit code than 32 bit. I'm thinking back a couple of years here, so it may be different for the latest generation of their processors.
It isn't all bad for the Opteron though - the instruction set has been altered to provide more processor registers. This may mean the compiler can do a better job of optimising code, reducing the number of load/store instructions, so increasing the IPC.
So, just don't assume that if the Opteron gets a performance benefit from 64 bit code, so will the G5. As other people have mentioned, you need to test both with a 64 bit OS to really know the results - extrapolating won't get you the answers.
Your comment about the IBM compiler is spot on. With any luck the IBM changes will make it into the gcc code for other non-apple PPC platforms.
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.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
I don't know if the author of the article was just trying to make the mac look cheaper, or if they just weren't looking very hard (I suspect the latter), but they could have EASILY shaved $82 off the cost of the Opteron system and got 1394b support for free too boot!
For some reason they configured the Opteron with an add-in Serial ATA RAID controller, supposedly in order to better match the configuration of the Mac (which doesn't support RAID, but I digress). This added $117 to the price. However they completely ignored the motherboard upgrade option that added SATA support (no RAID) and 1394b support together for only $35.
They could also have shaved another $37 off the price by using a software modem instead of a hardware modem (though the HW modem might be a good idea for Linux users that need dial-up) or $72 off the price by not including a modem at all for those of us with broadband connections.
In the end though, the Mac is still a bit cheaper. Macs are not expensive for what you get, the problem is that you don't have much choice but to get top-end. To price out a dual-processor Opteron with similar specs to a dual-processor Mac, you'll be easily over $3000 and possibly up closer to the $3938 of the Xi computer system. However, if you don't need all those features you can easily configure yourself an Athlon64 system for SIGNIFICANTLY less.
I have absolutely no need for a modem (got an old external kicking around in case of emergancies) and have never owned any 1394b devices. Therefore, if I were configuring a PC for myself I would never bother adding either of those two options. I might also configure a cheaper video card and I probably wouldn't bother with a DVD-RW drive, though I would prefer to have two optical drives (one CD-RW and one DVD). These are all easy options on most PC configurations, but often they aren't on Mac configurations. Simply put, you have more choices on PC configurations than on Macs. If you desired setup matches that of a Mac closely, then they often offer good value for your money. If not, then they can be quite expensive for what you want.
As far as the pricing on the Apple machines, it may seem a bit steep at first but when you look at the total package (sexy aluminum case, sweet fan setup, SATA hard drives, Firewire 800, 64bit PCI (even as far back as the old B&W G3 I recently picked up) and especially the resale value you really aren't doing to poorly. I love the comparisons where people say "I can build an x86 box for half the price". Well, the problem is that the x86 box is worth crap 3 months after you build it while the Apple boxen seem to hold their values long after your half priced x86 box becomes a machine you cannot even give away except maybe to a buddy who wants an old machine to use as an IPCop firewall box.
The G5 definitely isn't a slow machine, you will be able to resell your G5 without taking a bath on your investment, and OSX is damned slick....I mean...REALLY slick.
All in all I would have to say that the G5 machines are holding their own. Slower on some things, faster on other things, but nevertheless holding their own. The price/performance thing really depends on what you want the machine to do for you. I personally play games on a Playstation 2, listen to music on a real live stereo system and use a computer for browsing the web and checking email. So for me, OSX is a really nice environment to work in and the price of admission for OSX dictates Apple hardware. For others that play games I guess x86 and Windows is the way to go, and for those that like a total lack of intergration of their various UI components and appreciate a plethora of different "widgets" and toolkits all crammed together in a hodgepodge of a UI with no unified look or feel from application to application (wanrning, run-on sentence) and an almost unrelenting requirement to be tweaked and fiddled with then I guess a Linux x86 desktop is the way to go.
I guess where my rant is going is that the hardware playing field seems to be fairly level these days and therefore your choices in systems would have almost entirely to do with how you plan on using your machine and/or which particular environment you prefer to work or play in.
"The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
-Thucydides