 |
Search |
|
|
|
|
Classic 2 Guys |
|
10 Random Stories:
|
|
|
|
Daily Dose of Mac Advocacy: The G5 Is Freakin Fast. |
|
 Remember back when Apple debuted the G5 and touted it as not only the world's first 64-bit supercomputer, but the world's fastest computer? Rememeber how all of us Mac users rejoiced, and how vitriolic the reaction from the PC camp was? PC users decried the fact that it wasn't the first 64-bit desktop, it wasn't the fastest, it smelled of raw tuna, it's fat, can't run very fast, and has to wear glasses. Wait, those last couple are some bad Junior High School memories - scratch those.
But whether or not the PowerMac G5 was the world's first 64-bit desktop computer, well that's sort of a gray area. Yes, there were technically some other 64-bit "desktops" but they weren't marketed to consumers as the PowerMac G5 is, and they were really called "workstations" anyway.
Anyway, that point is sort of moot: who cares who was first, let's talk about speed. So talk about speed we did, and the Mac and PC camps battled it out in huge, glorious, Lord of the Rings fashion. (I could go into more specifics here and talk about how the Eye of Bill was looking to reclaim The One iPod, and recount the travels of Steve the Hobbit and his faithful companion Schiller ... but that's a story for another day.) Well after the battle ceased and the smoke cleared, the G5 was generally regarded as very good by those in the Mac communinty, but a lot of the early benchmarks (especially Apple's own) were refuted by PC-types, and compared to the high-end Intel/AMD options the G5 was really not thought of as being anywhere close to the best.
Well now it's a different story, gentle readers, and we have proof that the G5 is all that and a bag of fishsticks! Proof from three very different walks of life (or walks of the Web ... not sure how that works) that the PowerMac G5 not only holds its own, but also beats a comparable Intel or AMD processor at many different tasks.
Here are the articles we'll be checking out:
Bare Feats: Dual G5 versus Dual Opteron
Architosh: Apple G5: Smokes Intel Competition
PC Magazine:Apple Power Mac G5: Neck-and-Neck with Intel PCs
Now I'm not going to get too much into specifics, I'll let the pages themselves lay out the really techie stuff if you want to read it. But I will get the gist of what each one says sprinkled with a technie note or two. (OK, on re-reading this, there's a lot of techie terminology, but it could've been much worse)
First up, Bare Feats, a Mac site, pits different G5's against a dual-processor 2.0 GHz AMD Opteron system. Bare Feats runs the dual-2GHz Opteron and four PowerMac G5's of different speeds (a single 1.6 GGHz, a 1.8, a dual 1.8 and a 2.0) through the paces.
The dual-2.0 GHz G5 wins 3 out of 5 tests - with 3 of the tests being fairly close. And as Bare Feats states, "The Power Mac G5 2.0 MP beat the Opteron 2.0 MP at everything but (SURPRISE!) Photoshop". Plus it's interesting to note that if you match prices of the computer setups, "The G5 is $600+ cheaper when both configs match."
But all in all, it's not a huge victory for the PowerMac G5, plus a skeptic might say that since the site is pro-Mac the results might be skewed in the Macs favor. (Which we all know isn't the case - but let's proceed to prove out point)
So next up, is an article at Architosh (a CAD site for the Mac) speaks with Nemetschek, a cross-platform CAD firm, about the G5's performance. Surely, Nemetschek has nothing to gain by favoring Macs, they just want the best performing computer for themselves and their clients, right?
Well in this instance, two Intel Xeon 32-bit Workstations (a 2.8 GHz and a 2.4 GHz) are compared to a dual-2.0 GHz G5, a single 1.8 GHz G5, and two G4's.
The test finds that, "the 1.8GHz G5 Power Mac is 51 percent faster than a 2.8GHz Intel Xeon workstation at 2D Redraw VectorWorks performance." On top of that, "both the dual 2.0GHz G5 and the single 1.8GHz G5 were substantially faster than the workstation-grade Intel Xeon machine at 2.8GHz. (respectively 47 percent and 27 percent faster)".
Granted, the Xeon isn't a 64-bit processor like the G5 is, but the point is made that the G5 is hella fast. And yes, that is the precise technical term for it. I think Apple actually makes reference to the Hella Fast EngineŽ - it's somewhere near the Dude That Is One Phat Pipe CacheŽ.
Anyway, if that's not enough for ya, next on the agenda is PC Magazine, a very originally named PC magazine. In the article, they test a G5 and admit (albeit reluctantly) that it does indeed, kick ass. As the article states:
"When Apple's Steve Jobs introduced the Apple Power Mac G5 this summer as the fastest personal computer any company had built to date, we took it with a grain of salt. After all, Apple had made that boast in the past, and those claims did not tend to hold up when independent third parties (such as ourselves) ran tests on current, real-world applications (not the synthetic benchmark tests Apple cited).
Well, we'll take that salt with a side of fries."
Seems that more and more PC sites are eating their words these days, doesn't it?
Anyhow, their test features a Dell Precision 650 (with dual-Xeon 3.06 GHz processors) against a dual-2.0 GHz PowerMac G5 (and a dual 1.4 PowerMac G4 thrown in the mix just for kicks).
The G5 won in all but two out of the six total tests. (There was a Final Cut Pro test, but there is no PC version of that, so the test really doesn't matter)
In the two tests the G5 lost at, it lost by :28 and :14 seconds (it was the 'Acrobat convert 9 images' and 'LightWave 3d render tests' respectively). In the tests the G5 won, it won big - like by as much as 3:22 in the case of the Sorenson encode video test. But don't take our word for it, check it out for yourself.
The article ends with:
"Apple has succeeded in boosting its Power Mac line, taking Apple users into high-performance computing. And by outperforming top-specked Windows machines on some tests, Apple has proved that megahertz isn't everything. The new flagship Mac will more than satisfy power-hungry graphics, video, and business users and may even win Apple some users from the Windows/Intel camp."
Which, incidentally I love how they downplay everything: the Mac "outperform[ed] top-specked Windows machines on some tests". Where 6 out of 8 tests is just "some". ;) But alas they are a PC magazine, and have to serve the PC crowd. They can't really tell people to go out and buy a Mac, they'll go out of business.
If all this wasn't enough to make Mac users feel good, as well as have a skeptic or three thinking again about the G5, consider this: According to the Mercury News, Microsoft will be using G5 processors in the next version of XBOX. That's right, Microsoft could choose from any processor in the world for the upcoming gaming box and they chose the PowerPC G5. Of course, Microsoft needs the absolute best for XBOX 2, as they have to battle the next version of Sony's Playstation. (There's some potential ammo for your Microsoft-loving gamer friends)
As the article states:
"Internally, Microsoft has begun developing game prototypes, and it is using G5 systems to do so".
The new XBOX will not have just one, but "Three IBM-designed 64-bit microprocessors. The combined power of these chips means the Xbox Next will have more computing power than most personal computers. Earlier versions of these PowerPC chips are used in Apple Computer's high-end G5 PowerMac machines now."
So there you have it - the next time some ... let's say uninformed ... PC user tries to talk trash about a G5 you know what to tell them!
The truth is that there is nothing noble in being superior to somebody else. The only real nobility is in being superior to your former self.
Whitney Young (1921-1971)
Civil rights leader
|
|
February 4 2004, 8:49 AM EDT, by
 |
Comments:
|
| MacSchlong |
2/4/04, 3:48 PM EDT |
I wait for the G5 PowerBook. The G4 is a dead CPU.
|
| iKen |
2/4/04, 6:00 PM EDT |
wow great article John!
|
| BETTY |
2/4/04, 6:06 PM EDT |
I HAVE HEARD A RUMOR THAT IBM HAVE MADE A DEAL WITH MS FOR LONGHORN TO RUN ON THE PPC. IF THE 980 IS AS GOOD AS ADVERTISED Microsoft cannot afford to have Linux and OSX run much faster than Wintel.
|
| rlhamon |
2/4/04, 7:52 PM EDT |
Great Article. It's hard for people to swallow the fact that Apple G5 is the best workstation computer on the market.
|
| sweetjimmyhugs |
2/7/04, 6:57 PM EDT |
I accidentally got some man-juice on my G5 just thinking about it...
|
| Matt |
2/8/04, 4:36 PM EDT |
http://www.imashination.com/bench.html
http://www.zoorender.com/html/benchmark_mental.htm
|
| Jonahan |
2/10/04, 7:39 PM EDT |
Hmm....no offense or anything Matt, but those articles seem to enforce my point more than anything else. We never said the the PowerMac G5 is the absolute fastest no matter what in any test, just that it more than holds it own.
The links you posted are interesting, although the results aren't really clear in the first link (the numbers in the last 3 columns aren't labeled)
Anyhow, if there's something better for a certain application or workplace (i.e. render farms) then cool! But the proof is in the pudding, the G5 is one fast mofo. :-D
|
| stickman67 |
2/11/04, 1:19 AM EDT |
Dear Matt
Thank you for visiting 2guysamadandawebsite to express your opinion.
Your input is very welcome, and will be taken into account.
Unfortunately, we are unable to respond to you in person, but please have a nice life.
Yours faithfully
etc. etc. etc.
|
| Matt |
2/12/04, 1:42 AM EDT |
What do you mean?
Those Last 3 Colums have labels for me.Its software rendering,OpenGl Rendering,and Transforming And Lighting(Direct3D).Graphics Card Intensive..
|
| Jonahan |
2/12/04, 9:08 AM EDT |
Yeah, I saw those, but what do the numbers in the column indicate? Seconds? What's faster: a smaller or bigger number?
|
| Matt |
2/12/04, 1:13 PM EDT |
A bigger number is faster...
|
| Jonahan |
2/13/04, 9:24 AM EDT |
Cool. The G5 appears to do fairly well in those tests. Granted you wouldn't pay $3000 a pop to buy a bunch of G5's for a render farm, but the PowerMac G5 isn't being marketed to people who are just looking for a cheap box to add to a render farm.
In case anyone still had doubts whether the G5 is any good, check out these h'yar links:
Apple, IBM new G5 'best desktop processor'
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_news_item.cfm?NewsID=7914
Apple Power Mac G5 REVIEW AT CNET
http://reviews.cnet.com/Apple_Power_Mac_G5/4505-3119_7-30586664.h tml?tag=cnetfd.ld
G5 chip award nomination (IBM's 64-bit PowerPC 970 processor (marketed as the G5 by Apple) is among the nominees for In-Stat/MDR's Fifth annual analysts' choice awards.)
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031218/101/ehefb.html
Microprocessor Report: new 90nm Apple G5 due, will 'outrun' Prescott, Athlon 64
http://www.macdailynews.com/comments.php?id=P2154_0_1_0
IBM debuts PowerPC 970FX; paves way for Apple PowerBook G5 with longer battery life, higher speed
http://www.macdailynews.com/comments.php?id=P2159_0_1_0
G5 wins PC Magazine Technical Excellence Award
http://www.macminute.com/2003/11/18/pcmag
Now, I'm not personally saying that the G5 is faster than anything else out there - I don't think that can be measured. But I don't think it can be argued that it's hella fast. I'm always willing to listen to any argument to the contrary tho.
Now, back to your regulary scheduled mirth and hilarity!
|
| Matt |
2/14/04, 12:58 PM EDT |
http://65.110.81.28/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6451-6410
|
This article is archived, so you may not comment on it.
(The good news is there's always the shoutbox, the forums or the contact form if you're socially-inclined at the moment!)
|
