There appears to be no performance penalty for using dual-core processors instead of two single-core processors with the same clock speed, Macworld Lab has concluded after preliminary testing of the dual-core Power Mac G5s released by Apple a week ago.
Pointless headline.
Equal performance compared to two equally-clocked single cores is the least one would expect from a proper dual-core. If anything it should perform better due to shared cache and faster communication between the two cores.
Wrong.
There will always be a slight performance penalty for dual-core vs. dual-CPU, due to the memory bus being shared between two cores. Note that not even AMD’s X2s have independant buses for memory accesses.
And why the *f–k* did my reply get modded down? WTF is wrong with you people?
“Waaah, waaah, he doesn’t like Linux … let’s mod him down!”
GOOOOOOOSH
Unless the processors share the same memory buss. Then on some tests it should (or could) run slower. Granted it is not the perfect article, but it does at least show that the Apple architechure is sound.
I want a duel core iMac.
Question, are these new powermacs still water cooled?
thank, ken
I want a duel core iMac
Isn’t that a little bit overkill for a monitor with a built in computer?
[/sarcasm]
The 2.0GHz and 2.3GHz dual are air cooled, the Quad 2.5GHz is still water-cooled. I don’t expect they’ll ever be a dual-core G5 iMac. iMac will go dual core when it moves to Intel some time in 2006.
I want a duel core iMac
Okay, can’t resist, you are warned: I’d much prefer a du<u>a</u>l core iMac.
and i’d much prefer people preview their posts to check their tags, but we can’t all have what we prefer can we ?:-)
Some tests done using Luxolgy’s Moto
We had the opportunity to try one of the new quad G5s with modo 201 and I must say I was impressed with its speed. As an example, it rendered the global illumination test image shown above in 17 seconds flat. The scene includes 244,000 polygons with 8 sample antialiasing and 200 indirect rays. Brad’s dual 2.5 G5 takes 38 seconds to render the same scene, so it looks like the new machines can render over twice as fast.
I just tried this scene on my home Dell 530 workstation, and I’m afraid it was beaten by both Macs. Here are the results so far:
dual 2.8 Xeon: 49 seconds
dual 2.5 G5: 38 seconds
quad 2.5 G5: 17 seconds
Admittedly my PC is getting old, but still I don’t know if we have anything that can beat the quad G5. Obviously it has more improvements than just the number of cores since the speedup is greater than a factor of two.
http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=3717
I bet a top of the line quad Opteron would be pretty close. Probably more expensive though.
one don’t need quad AMD, Dual Opteron destroyed latest MAC.
and here why BOXX is more expensive:
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=3295…
in most benchmarks dual Opteron is 60-100% faster than Power Mac G5 dual 2.75
Opteron aslo is faster in Night Flight that favors some options in MAC
I’m thinking a quad mac would still beat out a dual opteron in most highly threaded tests. But you’re right, it probably would be close. I missed out on how slow that Xeon was (only 2.8GHz)
OMG it totally destroyed the MAC!!! ON PC OPTIMIZED APPLICATIONS!!
BUT, BUTT NIGHT FLIGHT FAVORS MAC!
The only problem dumbass is that Mac users don’t use After Affects for content creation. It’s a joke like Adobe. That sh*t isn’t even close to being optimized on the Apple platform as it is for WinTel. So all these test prove jack spit. Lets test this suck out with Final Cut Pro Motion…..OOOooppsss
Did you even read the article before posting? The BOXX is a dual Opteron 275. The Opteron 275 is a fricking dual-core CPU. You’ve basically posted a benchmark showing that a quad core Opteron is 60-100% faster than a dual CPU G5. Well *duh*! Indeed, the benchmarks suggest that a quad G5 would hang quite well with the quad Opteron, given apps that demonstrated 60%+ SMP scaling with twice the cores!
You’re an idiot. You’re looking at a benchmark comparing dual dual-core Opterons to plain dual G5 Macs. How about comparing to dual dual-core G5? Maybe then it would be a fair comparison. As it is, it’s comparing apples and oranges.
first post about QuadMacMan provided link
have you read it?
I bet you havent. So read it. this is the excerpt from third page:
“Excuse me, but the new Mac is not “pricey”. I did some research and this deserves a look:
I did some workstation pricing comparisons. For a “comparable” system to the Mac Quad with FX 4500 I got these approximate prices all configured with Dual AMD 280 (2.4Ghz, Dual Core) cpus, minimum system Ram (400Mhz DDR2 SDRAM), a 250GB SATA-150 system drive, a PC-style “Superdrive”, no wireless, no optical audio.
HP xW 9300 w/2GB ECC DDR-400 Ram $9249
BOXX 7400 w/1GB ECC DDR-400 Ram $6869
Alienware 7550a w/1GB ECC DDR-400 Ram $6420
Apple Quad w/1GB non-ECC DDR2-533 $5148 including shipping”
So “idiot” was some MAC user comparing machines and prices.
I only explained (providing link to the benchmark page)
That BOXX7400 is more expensive, but weay faster (including test Apple was using to show how dual core beats crap out single 3.6 intel (and this was obviously o.k.)
That BOXX7400 is more expensive, but weay faster
That benchmark wasn’t comparing the BOXX7400 to a Mac Quad. It was comparing it to a dual-processor Mac.
And according to this:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/10/25/dualcorebenchmarks/index.ph…
there is not much difference between dual-core and dual-procesor. Or Is it?
They are actually happy that dua-core perform as well as dual-processor.
Dual-core or dual-processor, G5 is still slower than Boxx7400
By the way MacWorld is using adobe products for testing too.
According to the benchmark the 2.3GHz outperforms the 2.5GHz in almost every test,so why should one buy a dual core 2.5GHZ instead off a dual core 2.3GHZ one might ask?
Evenso the 2.7GHz outperforms both the two dual cores,so what’s the benefit of the two?
Please tell me where a 2.5GHz dual core is mentioned in the test. The don’t exist – so read carefully before you write.
only the dual dual-core is
What the hell are you talking about? Apple will never switch to Intel.
They are much slower than the G4s & G5s.