PC Magazine has reviewed Apple’s new dual 2 GHz G5 PowerMac. They say that the performance of Apple’s new top of the line workstation is “generally as fast as the best Intel-based workstations currently available”. Read the review over at PC Magazine.
This was the kind of testing I was saying I wanted to see earlier when the G5 was announced and Apple was showing off it’s benchmarks. Overall, i’m very impressed with the G5 so far.
Just wait until the apps come out optimized for it.
arent adobe photoshop and the other software tested not g5 (& 64-bit) optimized???
The g4 and g5 architecture is close, but not exact… thus, this software is not properly optimized for testing, right???
so these results are not accurate because of lack of optimizations?
pantherppc beat me to it… 🙂
They are minimally optimized. If it took months, even years, to optimize software for the G4, imagine for G5. By optimize, I don’t mean a simple recompile plus a few fixes here and there for odd bugs that crop out.
I saw those benchmarks, from what I have seen is that their algorithm used on the G5 was a faster algorithm than the ones on the Dell PC’s, so of course they were shown to be faster. But seriously, who cares how fast something really is, faster than hell is really faster than hell 🙂 I personally don’t notice much of a difference between my old 1.8 ghz cpu and my new 2.5 ghz performance wise.
And besides, PC Magazine didn’t do that review to see which one is genuinely faster (that would be quite hard, by time you settle the variables, there is a hundred of other newer processors out there), rather what customers, specifically those coming from the PC world, get from the new G5.
And go on and compare the prices between the kind of specs used in machines from big OEMs (as oppose to small shops). Interesting…
Another question is, was HTT enabled on the Dell? It didn’t mention it so I would assume it wasn’t.
Yeah, but you probley aren’t doing processor intensive work. Graphics work (photoshop), video editing, 3D work, etc. For that kind of stuff the diffrence between a 1.8 and 2.5 Ghz chip could mean hours of render times.
I use the imac every now and then and it’s okay. I’m not particularly fanatical about it. It’s pretty, that I’ll give it. Now, who exactly is the G5 targeted at, it definately can’t be home users. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Optimizing the generated code for the G5 WILL greatly improve performance, but unless the application/system uses more than 2GB of memory, you aren’t going to see any noticeable improvement simply by going 64-bit. Going 64-bit will be important in professional markets (engineering/audio/video) as these areas can easily use +4GB.
rajan r: Most applications will be optimized for the G5 through compiler optimizations currently being done by both Apple and IBM. I doubt this will take years. I’d expect hand optimizations to be limited to very specific code (Adobe filters and stuff like that). In a couple years, they’ll be optimizing for the Power5 based G? processor anyway.
must be on the cards. Not one anti-Apple rant yet. Hmm, hopefully it will stay this way.
As for the compiler optimisations, it will be interesting to see if IBM’s C/C++ compilers are adopted once they’re released and stable. IMHO, it would give a real box and squeeze every last bit of performance out of the G5. Maybe Apple could offer a “Professional Edition” of XCode, which includes some XCode extras plus the IBM compilers.
A perfect opportunity for MAC to get switchers from PC world. Intel should hop in with AMDs instruction set, NOW.
I was hoping they would compare an Opteron, just to see how it stacked up. Guess I will have to wait awhile longer until someone can actually do that.
Can you clarify what you mean by boxing? Is this a specialized type of optimizing?
tested the 1,6 GHz model in their latest issue as well.
They had issues with the performance of the GBit and even Firewire as well as with audio quality, I think GBit only reached about the half of what’s possible on Intel today.
For the mac zealots always telling Mac is not expensive: Their finding is you will get an equally equipped Intel @2,6 GHz for half the money.
Nothing has changed in Apple-land with the new G5s — still overpriced, like it or not…
Jeff Goldblum has endorsed it, therefore, it is clearly the most superior platform on the consumer market today.
He really believes in that sort of thing, he doesn’t just do it for the money.
Can you clarify what you mean by boxing? Is this a specialized type of optimizing?
It is meant to be boost. I posted a correction but some prat removed it.
“The G5 also will bring 64-bit processing to the Mac platform, allowing an exponentially greater ability to handle integers than the previous 32-bit processors.”
Good article, but what does the author think “exponential” means?
“Now, who exactly is the G5 targeted at, it definitely can’t be home users. Correct me if I’m wrong.”
The model with twin CPUs is probably mainly targetted at professional users, who may of course work from home. The version with one, slower G5 CPU would be more likely to be bought for hobby uses such as editing videos.
But remember that in the US there are many people such as doctors who are on very high incomes compared to those in other countries, and can easily afford a $5000 computer.
“But remember that in the US there are many people such as doctors who are on very high incomes compared to those in other countries, and can easily afford a $5000 computer.”
Doctors are probably the LEAST likely to NEED and spend the money on a machine like this, i mean, what do they use their cpus for? Records? you can do that on a 386 with a text based interface fine.
A perfect opportunity for MAC to get switchers from PC world. Intel should hop in with AMDs instruction set, NOW.
Clearly, they want to transition out of x86 into IA64. First, with Itanium for high end servers and workstations. Now they are available for low end servers. Soon, I would expect middle end workstations to hop on, but it really depends on companies like Autodesk and Adobe.
Besides, why should they? Besides being to able to advertise that they are 64-bit, what real benefit is 64-bit to current and the forseable future customers? Little, if not nothing.
“Doctors are probably the LEAST likely to NEED and spend the money on a machine like this, i mean, what do they use their cpus for? ”
Editing their videos, restoring old family photos, writing books, creating web sites. Whatever any well off person with a range of interests might do on a computer.
Of course I was thinking of the computer a doctor, dentist, lawyer, or other professional on a good income might buy for home use. Some people can afford the best, and there is no doubt that a G5 Mac is a very classy computer.
What kind of person buys a Leica camera? Or a $20000 audio system?
Ahhhh. Even watching TV you could see that’s not all they do (keeping records). Sure, that’s probably just about how much the family physician would need, but what about people like plastic surgeons wanting to show how you would look with that new nose jobs, or neurologist figuring the best way to remove that bullet from the brain, or a infectologist trying to track down SARS?
There is a lot more to medicine to mere annual checkups.
The Itanium instruction set is not designed to extend functionality of existing x86 CPUs. It would be hard to add it to a regular x86 CPU. If Intel decides to produce x86-capable 64-bit CPUs, going with x86-64 would save a lot of silicon (and money) compared to IA64, since x86-64 was created with compatibility with x86 in mind.
The Itanium instruction set is not designed to extend functionality of existing x86 CPUs. It would be hard to add it to a regular x86 CPU. If Intel decides to produce x86-capable 64-bit CPUs, going with x86-64 would save a lot of silicon (and money) compared to IA64, since x86-64 was created with compatibility with x86 in mind.
The thing is that the IA64 was designed with something different in mind. For some reason Intel thought that the whole x86 ISA was old, crappy and thus required replacing, however, AMD looked at the situation from the other angle, in that, they realised the x86 ISA isn’t that bad, and with a few tweaks: removing the old crappy parts that are no longer used, spruce up 3dNow! and implement a flat memory model, what we end up with now is a cleaned up ISA whilst remaining compatible.
If all things worked perfectly, yes, the IA64 is a great idea on paper, however, due to a number of factors: lack of software availability, lack of IHV support and a lack of vendors who are willing to sell 1 way configurations that are competitive with what SUN now has to offer, both workstation and server, one really wonders whether IA64 will survive. Another problem is that IA64 is proprietary. Any tom, dick or harry can implement x86-64 if they so wish, however, Intel has the keys and by cricky, I don’t think they would allow AMD to create a cheaper IA64 compatible implementation.
Great! Will it run Half Life 2?
Oh.
Did no one actually read the review? Did you all just go right to the graph? The Dell DID NOT beat the G5 in Photoshop tests, it just looked that way because of the testing proceedure. Read the article, or, may I quote the article:
“Adobe Photoshop. Photoshop is a popular image editing program used extensively on both OSes. We tested using version 7.01, the latest available for both Windows and Macintosh, and we used Adobe’s G5 Processor plug-in update for Mac OS X, which lets the program take advantage of the system’s additional memory and special instructions. We started with a 59.5 MB test image, but many operations completed too quickly to time, so we quadrupled the size to 238MB.
At these larger image sizes, although the Wintel test times were quite good, both the G4 and G5 computers proved more adept at distort functions like wave and pinch. Moreover, on the Windows system, loading the controls often took a minute or more. If these times are added back to the actual test times, both Macintosh computers would have clearly outperformed the Windows-based computer”
Oh please, and people here trust PC magazine????
I remember PC magazine saying that a Compaq workstation running NT was not only faster but more stable running high-end graphics applications than a SGI workstation or a Sun, both dual processors.
PC Magazine has been known for really stupid and not independent benchmarks.
Here is what they say on their review:
“At these larger image sizes, although the Wintel test times were quite good, both the G4 and G5 computers proved more adept at distort functions like wave and pinch. Moreover, on the Windows system, loading the controls often took a minute or more. If these times are added back to the actual test times, both Macintosh computers would have clearly outperformed the Windows-based computer.”
So now you know who they sold the benchmark to (it wasn’t Apple)
It will be interesting in 6-12 months when the AthlonFX, pentium 5, AMD64-Windows etc are available. Hopefully there will be some blazingly fast affordable 64 bit machines
… that will be the time when the G5 aka PowerPC 970 will hit 3Ghz and his successor, the 980 will start ramping up.
It´s over, INTELost.
Just last week the CEO of Intel said it would be 2006 before they would have a 64-bit processor for desktop boxes. He downplayed their falling behind by saying that the current crop of Pentium processors were plenty fast enough, and their current customers will be happy with Pentium performance until then.
Sounds like all of a sudden Intel is the schmuck. AMD and IBM/Apple have the most powerful processors which are comptatable with current 32-bit applications. Pentium users will just have to be happy till 2006. Makes me sad….. NOT!
Just last week the CEO of Intel said it would be 2006 before they would have a 64-bit processor for desktop boxes. He downplayed their falling behind by saying that the current crop of Pentium processors were plenty fast enough, and their current customers will be happy with Pentium performance until then.
Actually – what he said was the Intels market research is telling them that currently home users don’t need a 64-bit processor which I would somewhat agree since all it gets you is the ability to address more memory. Nonetheless, I think Apple found the best processor combination since it both supports 32-bit and 64-bit natively.
Just last week the CEO of Intel said it would be 2006 before they would have a 64-bit processor for desktop boxes. He downplayed their falling behind by saying that the current crop of Pentium processors were plenty fast enough, and their current customers will be happy with Pentium performance until then.
Well, its the typical large company metality, “We know what is best for the customer so we’ll tell them what they want”. Microsoft has it, they create products to create a demand that never exists. SharePoint, could someone PLEASE give me a reason why someone would need to use THAT in an organisation. I’ve NEVER heard a manager say, “hmm, I would love to waste another several thousand dollars on something I don’t need”.
Sounds like all of a sudden Intel is the schmuck. AMD and IBM/Apple have the most powerful processors which are comptatable with current 32-bit applications. Pentium users will just have to be happy till 2006. Makes me sad….. NOT!
Well, nothing would please me more than AMD pulling themselves ahead of Intel in terms of units and sales. Intel needs to be taught that they’re there to supply the market according to demand, no what is cool, hip or in with it. Had they read the market, they would never had produced IA64, they would have continued developing an existing solution.
“Ahhhh. Even watching TV you could see that’s not all they do (keeping records). Sure, that’s probably just about how much the family physician would need, but what about people like plastic surgeons wanting to show how you would look with that new nose jobs, or neurologist figuring the best way to remove that bullet from the brain, or a infectologist trying to track down SARS?
There is a lot more to medicine to mere annual checkups.”
None of which individual doctors have any say over, heads of departments at major hospitals sure, the doctor’s don’t go online to http://www.apple.com and order mac’s, or dell.com and order brain scanning equipment, and I’m willing to bet they don’t use off the shelf software to do “what would my face look like if you stetched my nasty sun burnt 55 year old face” type things and they don’t run on the mac I bet, and an infectologist tracking sars doesn’t make his purchase, he’s eitehr doing research for a major firm or working at a univeristy, not shopping for the cool new super fast mac (unless he’s at that school that made that huge purchase).
Too bad I don’t have the money to buy me this machine… Oh well, my x86/1600mhz/512 sdram/ati radeon 9000 128ddr-ram is doing just fine for now.
But still, I’d love to have a Mac, it’s so stylish… Especially for someone who loves a clean and eyecandy interface…
Is it just me or does the phrase “generally as fast” make it sound is if the G5 is slightly slower than the Xeons? I ask because of the five applications they used as a bench mark the G5 did better in every one except LightWave. Perhaps the article should have said that “the G5 is generally faster” than the Xeons.
I also don’t understand how they can say “The Dell entry bested the G5 under Adobe Photoshop 7” on the front page when they admit latter “If these times are added back to the actual test times, both Macintosh computers would have clearly outperformed the Windows-based computer”.
OK, so maybe the number don’t add up to Steve Jobs’ hype but it seems to me that this PC Magazine review has a negative slant towards the Macs. Anyone agree with me — or am I just imagining things?
If you look at the chart even the G4 was a decent performer on some of the tests beating the Dual Xeon. By all accounts none of the computers are slow for these pro level tasks.
With Panther the numbers might even improve for both the G4 and G5. I think we can pretty much say that performance wise Apple is certainly not lacking in the high end but they need to put in dual G5s across the board. Even the low end machine like the 1.6 could be killer in a dual configuration.
So in 4 of 6 tests the G5 beats the Xeon soundly (by 30% or better), one test was a dead heat, and the Xeon beat the G5 soundly on a Photoshop test. And PC Mag sums it up with:
“Apple Power Mac G5: Neck-and-Neck with Intel PCs”
So much for the self-proclaimed objectivity of a group that usually accuses Apple of stacking the deck by using Photoshop tests that exploit the Apple vector processor. Makes one wonder if the Xeon had been tuned for Photoshop to counter that effect?
And my research says that I can get comparable G5 and Xeon packages for $3k and $4k (missing a superdrive), respectively.
So much for the much-vaunted price advantage of PCs.
Quad erat demonstratum!
Figures, I get modded down for posting PS info more extensive and detailed than what PC Mag posted and unfortuantely it showed the G5 in a favorable light, sorry.
I think the editors at PC Mag might have been surprised that the G5 performed so well.
As far as PS, the PSBench scores that I posted and that were modded down shows the G5 to be the current PSBench leader. The high end Xeon scores came from overclocked systems which are a no-go in a production environments.
The G5 is defintely more than generally fast. PS on G5 will get faster. The “plugin” is in no way an overall program optimization for PS. We will have to wait for PS8 and Panther to see the G5 really fly.
“The G5 architecture is much stronger in accessing memory and handling computing-intensive tasks ***without repeated, time-consuming trips to the hard drive***.”
No comment.
RE: Is it just me or does the phrase “generally as fast” make it sound is if the G5 is slightly slower than the Xeons?
To me it means the same speed in most task, but slower in a few.
RE: With Panther the numbers might even improve for both the G4 and G5. I think we can pretty much say that performance wise Apple is certainly not lacking in the high end but they need to put in dual G5s across the board. Even the low end machine like the 1.6 could be killer in a dual configuration.
There is no doubt that the G5 DP is a good value compared with the current PC offerings. But they don’t want to offer a 1.6 or 1.8 duely (not nearly as good of value) because they want you to buy the more expensive hardware. It’s not unlike going to the cinema and paying 3 bucks for a Dixie cup of soda, and for a quarter more you get whole keg. Same goes with supersizing at fast-food joints. That’s my biggest gripe with Apples pricing.
” There is no doubt that the G5 DP is a good value compared with the current PC offerings. But they don’t want to offer a 1.6 or 1.8 duely (not nearly as good of value) because they want you to buy the more expensive hardware. It’s not unlike going to the cinema and paying 3 bucks for a Dixie cup of soda, and for a quarter more you get whole keg. Same goes with supersizing at fast-food joints. That’s my biggest gripe with Apples pricing.”
Generally, Apple offers two DP models with only the lowest of the three having a single processor. I am guessing that with the release of brand new processors, that they didn’t want to run into the problem of not being able to deliver. They are having problems keeping up with the demand for the DP 2Ghz right now. I would be willing to bet that the next time they update the powermac line that there will be two DP models.
I agree.
2.4 DP
2.0 DP
1.8 Single.
Maybe a 2.0 single also, that’s my prediction.
You would think so, no? Being 64-bit doesn’t mean it is faster. Would people just stop thinking that 64-bit = 2 times the speed of 32-bit? Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way. Besides, you misquoted the CEO of Intel which said so such thing for 64-bit processors by Intel coming out in 2006.
“Being 64-bit doesn’t mean it is faster. Would people just stop thinking that 64-bit = 2 times the speed of 32-bit? ”
No, it’s not 2 times faster, but *more* than 2 times faster!!!
If you add 64-bit integers, a 64-bit CPU is actually more than 2 times faster.
And the much larger address space will allow no swapping.
Figures, I get modded down for posting PS info more extensive and detailed than what PC Mag posted and unfortuantely it showed the G5 in a favorable light, sorry.
That’s not why you were modded down. You were modded down becuase you post was absurdly long. If you just posted the link you would have been fine. You post was just way way to long to be posted as a comment.
well done apple very fast and efficient machine with great memory bandwith and speedy instruction execution. Sign me up for a new G5.
There are only 6 tests. 2 of which are Adobe products and 1 is an Apple product. All of them are multimedia applications, except maybe acrobat. Isn’t this a biased test? Where is the variety? The article states that these test are from a digital-content-creation suite. So shouldn’t the title of the article include this to reflect that this only tests this particular domain?
For anyone who is interested PSBench was ran on a G5 and currently holds the highest score.
http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&…
Where is APPLES mainly used. In desing and multimedia. So what kind of bench marks do you want? This gives people in that field (me) a bearing of what the speeds are.
FYI we just picked up a G5 1.6 for $1700. And we have 2 GIGs of ram on order. The machine is by far faster than the 800 G4 I am using. And so far not a hickup other than customer corrupted FONTS. If this is the way the Apple machines are. the PCs in our area might just be heading out.
My cost should have read $1770
In the PC world, Shuttle is making waves with barebone systems that are small enough to be carried around and powerful enough to rival desktop systems. Why can’t Apple build a G5 Cube ? Isn’t there any demand for it ? Is Apple unable to solve the problems that plagued the original one ?
Those who work with both PCs and Macs can buy two notebooks, I know. Yet, it would be quite a sight : a Shuttle SB61G2 and a Cube, side by side (two little but powerful toasters).