Apple G5 faster than all competition - According to Apple.

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#1
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

We should all buy G5's NOW apparently.







Excellent. Now Apple has demonstrated what none of us knew before. A64's are miraculously SLOWER than p4's in tasks and G5's are 200% faster.

:cool:

There is a reason I despise Apple's PR. And I think its plain to see.

Their test suite

  1. Testing conducted by Apple in April 2005 using preproduction dual 2.0GHz, 2.3GHz and 2.7GHz Power Mac G5 units; all other systems were shipping units.
  2. File size = 600MB. For PC systems, cache sizes were: Dell Dimension XPS Gen4 = 2048K L2; Dell Precision 670 = 2048K L2; Alienware Aurora 5500 = 1024K L2; Boxx Tech Series 7300 = 1024K L2.
  3. The Power Mac G5 systems were testing with a prerelease version of Final Cut Pro 5. The PC systems were tested with Adobe Premier Pro version 1.5.1. For PC systems, cache sizes were: Dell Dimension XPS Gen4 = 2048KB L2; Dell Precision 670 = 2048KB L2; Alienware Aurora 5500 = 1024KB L2; Boxx Tech Series 7300 = 1024KB L2.
  4. Benchmark scene = Skull_Head_Newest. For PC systems, cache sizes were: Dell Dimension XPS Gen4 = 2048K L2; Dell Precision 670 = 2048K L2; Alienware Aurora 5500 = 1024K L2; Boxx Tech Series 7300 = 1024K L2.
  5. For PC systems, cache sizes were: Dell Dimension XPS Gen4 = 2048K L2; Dell Precision 670 = 2048K L2; Alienware Aurora 5500 = 1024K L2; Boxx Tech Series 7300 = 1024K L2.
  6. All Power Mac systems were tested using Logic Pro 7.0. The Dell Dimension XPS Gen4, Dell Precision 670, Alienware Aurora 5500 and Boxx Tech Series 7300 were tested using Steinberg Cubase SX 3.01. For PC systems, cache sizes were: Dell Dimension XPS Gen4 = 2048K L2; Dell Precision 670 = 2048K L2; Alienware Aurora 5500 = 1024K L2; Boxx Tech Series 7300 = 1024K L2.
 

Kush

High On Life!
#3
well anyways those are dual xeons, and the amd 64 are single cpu's i would like to see a dual processor amd 64 setup 3500+ i bet it would rape the intels
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#7
SPeedY_B said:
Oh joy. Raw flame bait. Who gives a ****e if it's the fastest, so long as it does what you want it to?
Apparently Apple gives lots of *'s bout it :D

They conducted, published and host the results init?
 

Xie

- geek -
#8
Sazar said:
Apparently Apple gives lots of *'s bout it :D

They conducted, published and host the results init?
No different then when MS, Intel, AMD, ATi, nVidia, ect. do comparisons - they have a product to sell and are all going to come out on top. ;)
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#9
Xie said:
No different then when MS, Intel, AMD, ATi, nVidia, ect. do comparisons - they have a product to sell and are all going to come out on top. ;)
Yes but they all compete on the SAME playing field.
 
#10
Sazar said:
Yes but they all compete on the SAME playing field.
Agreed. I'm just saying when you have a company do it's own testing it's rare they come in anything but 1st, yet they all do them.
 
#11
thing is we know for a fact that if you're not goting to play games you use an intel, if you want to play games youo use an amd if you want to be different and pay the price you use apple.

If apple didnt cahrge a ridiculous premium on simpler, inferior, proprietary hardware then they would have a much greater chance of increasing their market share and thus what you can get for pcs you could get just as easily for macs and vice versa.

Apple is just dumb, until they realise that its pointless owning a mac.

We know the powerpc architecture is powerfull - look what IBM did for the playstation3, but by the same token look at the performane from Sun's Ultrasparc processors you're average pc couldn't hold a torch to them nor could your average g5.

At the end of the day if its not an independant real-world test its useless to base your judgement on it.
 
#12
Sazar said:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

Excellent. Now Apple has demonstrated what none of us knew before. A64's are miraculously SLOWER than p4's in tasks and G5's are 200% faster.
In video editing and encoding tasks Pentium 4's are generally a bit faster than equivalent AMD64's, however, i fail to see how Apple's G5 can be that much faster than a Dual Xeon 3.6. Just wait till the P4EE Dual-cores with HT come out - then Apple will have to go back to the drawing board:p
 
#13
LordOfLA said:
If apple didnt cahrge a ridiculous premium on simpler, inferior, proprietary hardware then they would have a much greater chance of increasing their market share and thus what you can get for pcs you could get just as easily for macs and vice versa.
They seem to be picking up some steam lately. :p
 

Snowknight26

OSNN Junior Addict
#14
They should have tested the G4s and G5s vs the latest AMD/Intel DCs or the AMD 64 FX 57, and see how well they score against them in gaming benchmarks... you'll be surprised at how porely the Apples score.
 

Scooter

Random Apple Dude
#15
This topic is bent. Wooooo lets all debate over silly things... like OMG OMG OMG I LOVE THE GREEN JELLY BABIES! LIKE OMG OMG OMG RED ONES SUCK! because in the end, debating Jelly Babies is much more productive than what seems to be debating over computer specs, when a few years down the line, computer companies will have out new soft/hardware and will be comparing them.

Who cares.
 
#16
Apple has done it before, and will do it again as far as marketing. I highly doubt the Apple processor performs THAT much better if at all better then Dual Opterons, or Dual P4 Xeons.

But hey, as stated above, "Oh joy. Raw flame bait. Who gives a ****e if it's the fastest, so long as it does what you want it to?"
 

Tuffgong4

The Donger Need Food!!!!
Political User
#17
You don't choose between a mac and a pc based on performance. It's preference and what suits you best. Whenever I have a few years of work in me I will end up having a pc and a mac in my house but they will be used for completely different things.

I won't be comparing whether one does things faster than the other. They are just suited for different segments of the computer market.
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#18
champ2005 said:
In video editing and encoding tasks Pentium 4's are generally a bit faster than equivalent AMD64's, however, i fail to see how Apple's G5 can be that much faster than a Dual Xeon 3.6. Just wait till the P4EE Dual-cores with HT come out - then Apple will have to go back to the drawing board:p
It's a flip-flop between amd and intel wrt encoding and other tasks. Pre a64 I would not have brought it up but there is a much smaller gap than before now.
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#20
Wow, the opteron owneth them all. :eek:

Nice results across the board.

The intel and apple procs seem to be pretty close in performance but even the dual core setup from intel seems to be nosing ahead.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Perris Calderon wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Ep, glad to see you come back and tidy up...did want to ask a one day favor, I want to enhance my resume , was hoping you could make me administrator for a day, if so, take me right off since I won't be here to do anything, and don't know the slightest about the board, but it would be nice putting "served administrator osnn", if can do, THANKS

Been running around Quora lately, luv it there https://tinyurl.com/ycpxl
Electronic Punk wrote on Perris Calderon's profile.
All good still mate?
Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me ...
Xie
What a long strange trip it's been. =)

Forum statistics

Threads
61,971
Messages
673,300
Members
89,016
Latest member
Poseeut