# G5 Speed Tests



## mindbend (Sep 14, 2003)

Here's a couple of links of early speed tests:

http://www.macworld.com/2003/09/reviews/macworldlabfirstg5testresults/

http://www.macaddict.com/news/news_007.html

I'm sure there are others starting to trickle in and I'd love to see them.

*Cynical View:* 
After doing some quick math, it looks like the G5 is only providing about a 10% advantage in terms of architecture relative to CPU clock speed. In other words, if you prorate the G4 to the 2 Gig clock speed, you're only about 10% behind the G5 at 2 Gig (give or take depending on the test, etc.)

This indicates that, so far, the G5 versus G4 benefit is around 10%. For a machine that claims to be the fastest in the world, my bet is that a top model PC could easily match these test results.

*Optimistic View:* 
Panther isn't here yet. Optimized apps aren't here yet. 64-bit hasn't been ironed out yet. It can only get better.

-----

Does anyone have other speed test links? Any thoughts on just how good the G5 will REALLY be (if you can pull yourself out of the reality distortion field for one moment).  Any reactions to these and other speed tests?


----------



## RacerX (Sep 14, 2003)

In the two years you've been posting have you ever had a non-cynical view?  

And what type of math are you doing that can prorate a G4 with on chip 256k L2 and off chip 2 MB L3 cache? And then to think you can compare those results with a G5 with on chip 512k L2 and (currently, though the POWER4 can access up to 32 MB) no L3 cache. You have way too many factors that are outside a simple cycle-for-cycle calculation.

Apple has known for quite some time that software that is Altivec enabled and dual processor aware runs faster on a dual G4/1.42 then the same software would on the fastest Pentium 4 system. But not everything is Altivec enabled and dual processor aware. Mac OS X does a good job of helping with the multiple processors, but nothing matches code written to use all of a system's advantages. But the problem has been getting Motorola to deliver. Motorola had the hardest time just getting past 500 MHz, what makes you think they are going to reach 2 GHz any time soon?

Cycle-for-cycle calculations are interesting though, specially for seeing the progress of chip design. If we had a G4 with on chip 512k L2 and no L3 cache to work with do you think you would end up with just 10%? The thing is, the PowerPC line has been increasing with cycle-for-cycle performance with each new line. I think that is a good thing. Try doing a cycle-for-cycle calculation with the Pentium II, Pentium III and Pentium 4 processors. I think you'll find that the Pentium II is still the speed champ that way. Intel knows this and has been trying to find a way out of their MHz trap for quite some time. They give up performance in a rush to over clock their processors. Had they been able to keep equal performance with cycle-for-cycle with the Pentium II and still made it to 3.0 GHz, they would have had an incredibly fast chip on their hands, but they needed the cycles more.

For the best benchmarks I've seen so far, I suggest Craig Hunter's Page. He has since provided the following benchmarks

dual G4-1GHz Xserve (single CPU only): 105 
dual G4-1GHz Xserve (both CPUs): 207 
dual G4-1.25GHz PowerMac (single CPU only): 129 
dual G4-1.25GHz PowerMac (both CPUs): 256 
dual G5-2GHz PowerMac (single CPU only): 254 
dual G5-2GHz PowerMac (both CPUs): 498 
single P4 2GHz: 192 
single P4 2.66GHz: 255 
single P4 3.2GHz (extrapolated): 307

By the way, in Craig's cycle-for-cycle comparison between the G4 and G5, he came up with a 22% increase in performance for the G5 over the G4.


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 14, 2003)

I'm not cynical or optimistic about the G5... I believe that we all have to wait a bit more to clearly see what this beast can really do! I just hope that we will not have to wait more than 2-3 months 

I for one, I will not be able to use my Dual G5/2GHz until perhaps the end of October when they will deliver it to me here in Greece 

I also believe that the RAM thing that Mac Addict posted is closer to the truth about the G5 than any other site or person out there so far


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *In the two years you've been posting have you ever had a non-cynical view?
> *



LOL


----------



## chevy (Sep 14, 2003)

The G5 is much more revolutionary than just a speed bump for 32-bit apps. Yes it runs 32-bit apps faster, but that's not the point. It's built for 64-bit, it's built for multi-processor, it's build for high speed memory,...


----------



## chevy (Sep 14, 2003)

French readers will like to check
http://forum.macbidouille.com/viewtopic.php?t=43952&highlight=cpuclass
and
http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-09-14#6623
It shows that there is an internal file in Final Cut Pro 4 that compares the different CPU speed (for the current version of the software of course).


----------



## mindbend (Sep 14, 2003)

Well, you can have your laughs at my expense, that is fine. I can take it. 

But here's the deal. The reality is soon upon us and it will be irefutable. It will be undeniable. It will be factual.

And that reality is the simple fact that the G5 either will or will not match or beat the best PCs (or G4 Macs for that matter) at a given task. You can rationalize it all you want. You can talk Cache, you can talk megahertz myth. You can talk architecture. You can talk 64-bit. You can talk optimized. You can talk whatever you want. In the end, it either is faster or it isn't. (Of course the G5 is faster across the board than the G4, but is it faster relative to other speed gains in the industry...).

As for optimizing as we go. I'm not holding my breath. Yeah, Apple will optimize their OS and their Apps, but Altivec proved that developers are in no rush to take optimizing for Apple hardware seriously. Several years of Altivec netted virtually no gains from thrid party developers. Same for DP aware apps. Apps like Media Cleaner are a freaking joke. Same goes for Lightwave. And the Photoshop plugin for Altivec. Nice try. Thanks for nothing. Shall I go on? Nah...

Here's a nugget. Altivec didn't help help Apple one bit to catch up with the speed gap.

RacerX:
Yes, I am highly cynical after dumping thousands of dollars into woefully inadequate G4 chips and sluggish GUIs. I make a living off performance and the G4 didn't cut it. The only reason I stuck around (aside from untold investments in software) was because of that classic Apple dream, the hope for something better, lots better. The G5 may in fact be it, but it's got a ways to go to really knock my socks off. That's all I'm saying.

As for the prorate example. Yeah, it's not the best approach, but it's just an example. Just something to work with for conversation. I think it's very safe to say that a 2 Gig DP G4, were it to exist, would compare admirably to the current DP 2 Gig G5. That concerns me. I was expecting a wider gap in my theoretical model. In a few more months or a year or two, if the 64-bit dream and other optimizations don't kick in, then I'll really be concerned.

Craig Hunter's Specs:
Cool. Thanks for the link. Too bad I have no concept of what to do with that information. Where's the Photoshop, Lightwave, Quake, etc. tests? Also, Craig himself helps prove my point :" Thus, the increased raw vector performance of the G5 is largely due to its higher clock speed.", regarding vector performance.

And really, Jet3D? I hate to be a jerk, but that test does not qualify for anything that the average G5 will be used for. That is a completely obscure test that obviously highlights the G5's stronger points. C'mon!  Craig's tests actually made me even more concerned. He flat out says that the best G5 still lags the best PCs. And you better believe 3.2 gig PCs will be replaced very soon.

I'd be curious to see truly comparative charts using all processors from all manufacturers and OS's. I've always wanted to start a site that allowed people to submit their own data using files provided by the site (Photoshop files, 3D models for rendering, 2D animations for AE, demo games for Frame Rates tests, etc.) Too lazy to do it I guess. Yeah, the G5 is faster. Great. But how does is compare to the best PCs today and how will it compare in six months or two years when the G5 has had time to mature and unfortunately the Intels have had time to grow yet again.

Macbidouille:
Thanks for the graph and link. That chart (after having translated its supporting text through Sherlock) again reaffirms my prorate theory. That chart is indicating how efficiently FCP performs its RT functions relative to other machines. Result? 30% benefit of DP G5 2 gig versus DP G4 1.42. Exactly in line with my prorate example.

Footnote: I alway sending up feeling the need to defend my position. I'm a huge Mac fan. I have all the Mac history books and have read them multiple times. I have distant conenctions to Stevo (he has no idea I exist, however). Apple changed my life with the Apple II and the fist Mac. Literally changed my life. I love Apple. I'm just not blind anymore. Stats are stats. I'll probably continue to use my beloved Macs until I die, but I'm definitely going to complain if they don't deliver every step along the way.


----------



## RacerX (Sep 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *I'm just not blind anymore. Stats are stats. I'll probably continue to use my beloved Macs until I die, but I'm definitely going to complain if they don't deliver every step along the way. *



And exactly who are you going to complain to? Apple can't force people to optimize for their systems. Most Mac software ends up being an after thought, so it is not using the environment even close to it's best abilities. How is this Apple's fault?

The reason the test done by Hunter are the best I've seen is that they are not stacked for or against any processor.



> *That is a completely obscure test that obviously highlights the G5's stronger points.*



Actually it is a test that doesn't play to any processors strong points. It doesn't play to any bias on the part of software makers. It is only looking at raw performance. It is actually even better than Apple's test as Hunter didn't limit himself to any given compiler. 



> *Also, Craig himself helps prove my point :" Thus, the increased raw vector performance of the G5 is largely due to its higher clock speed.", regarding vector performance. *



I would hope that would be true, otherwise (as can be seen from the data) the G5 is only 22% faster in a cycle-for-cycle comparison. His data showed an increase of 71% in raw performance while comparing the 1.25 GHz G4 with a 2 GHz G5.

What was your point? ::sleepy::

You sure didn't seem to have one that I saw (that had anything to do with your quote from Hunter). A 20%+ performance gain per cycle in a platform is nearly unheard of in the computing industry. Compounded with the actual increase in over all clock speed, it is simply incredible.

By any measure, this was beyond what any other processor platform has had in the way of improvements in years (decades actually). The only way to not be amazed at the jump from the G4 to the G5 is by knowing that the G5 is actually following the POWER3, POWER3-II and POWER4 lines and is not just the next processor developed after the G4 (even then, it still shines).



> *Where's the Photoshop, Lightwave, Quake, etc. tests? *



No where, where they should be when benchmarking a processor. Those are proprietary software that can be weighted by the makers (Adobe crippled Premier for the Mac to prove their "PC Preferred" argument). The Jet3D test is using a program developed for NASA that can be optimized to run on any processor... without bias.

If all you wanted was a Photoshop test, MacAddict's test with 2 GB of RAM was fine. It doesn't tell you about the processor. I'm sure that with 4 GB of allocated memory Photoshop is going to run even faster.



> *He flat out says that the best G5 still lags the best PCs. And you better believe 3.2 gig PCs will be replaced very soon. *



His test were normalized to a single processor. Yes, a single Pentium 4 at 3.2 GHz (307) beat the single G5 at 2 GHz (254). Lucky for us Apple sells the 2 GHz system with two processors (which scored 498 when both processors were used).

I'm sure that the 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 is going to be replaced _very_ soon, but until it reaches *5.2 GHz*, single Pentium 4 processor systems are going to be slower than the current dual processor G5s at 2 GHz.

But this is raw performance, how willing a software company is to making their products take advantage of a system is outside what Apple or IBM can do with their processors and systems.

The only thing I see as sad in all this is Apple's policy of not making the mid-range models out pace the former high end models. They really could have made the 1.8 GHz G5 faster (by adding a second processor) if they wanted, but that would have made the dual 1.42 GHz G4 systems seem completely out of date. At least in the current configuration, apps that are dual processor aware are going to be faster on the dual G4 than on the single G5.

You need to spend a little more time studying the data if you plan on making your cynical spin stick. Best of luck though. ::ha::


----------



## Arden (Sep 15, 2003)

It's too bad (for Windows users) that Intel doesn't allow dual Pentium-based processors, since those would probably kill.  But since they're to Microsoftian to allow multiple processors, Apple's dual machines are still here.


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 15, 2003)

Mindbend:
If you really are THAT concerned of Apple acting stupid then you should really switch sides...

There I'm sure you will find performance, quality, EVERYTHING actually that you are dreaming or wishing of Apple delivering... ::ha::

In the beginning it will be tough and maybe costly but in the long run you will have the best thing in the world:
Peace of mind(bend) that only the Wintel/Amd side can offer you


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *It's too bad (for Windows users) that Intel doesn't allow dual Pentium-based processors, since those would probably kill.  But since they're to Microsoftian to allow multiple processors, Apple's dual machines are still here. *



Actually, Intel allows dual Pentium4 based computers... They called XEON! 

You know, like the Dull one running @3GHz that Steve, Phil, et al trashed with the Dual G5 in WWDC 2003 

Intel promotes XEON for Workstations and Servers and P4 for PCs ::ha::


----------



## mindbend (Sep 15, 2003)

Thanks for the responses and clarifications. I really do appreciate the information. What threw me off on the Jet3D charts was that I now see he's only factoring in one CPU. That 's good info. Congrats to the millions of Jet3D users everywhere! [end sarcasm] (Just having some fun).

My main point of this thread was to find as many speed tests for the G5 as possible. We got a few here, so that's good.

I still, personally, find the Spec and Jet3D tests completely useless for the simple reason that they don't show us any real world usage information. For that matter, the Final Cut chart is poor as well, I just happen to like it since I use FCP a lot. 

As for going to the dark side. I'm already there. We have multiple PCs in our shop. I don't like them. I'm a Mac user. But I'm also a businessman. As I've said a million times, I've run multiple tests of PCs against our Macs and the Macs get destroyed every time. That is a fact. It's not up for debate [using my tests and machines anyway]. These tests obviously don't factor in things like usability, stability, enjoyment factor, interface, GUI, etc. Just pure render, I/O tests.

We do not have any G5s yet, nor do we have the latest PCs, so I can't run any modern tests now. My business partner will be getting a top end PC in January and I will be getting a top end G5. We'll be running the old battery of tests and I'll post them here.

My prediction is simply that the two machines will basically be even, give or take a test here and there. And that's good place to be for a Mac user. Better place than we've been in ages. I'm going to hesitate from further speculation since I don't have access to those machines.

Please, feel free to post any other speed tests. I'd love to see them.


----------



## tsizKEIK (Sep 15, 2003)

dear mindbend.
go read THE ECONOMIST or somethin and let us worry bout the G5.

or maybe u can open a business and sell DELLS.. im sure ud convince any loser to by one... buh bye


----------



## mindbend (Sep 15, 2003)

Yawn.


----------



## Ripcord (Sep 15, 2003)

Don't worry, MB, we know where you're coming from =)


----------



## tsizKEIK (Sep 15, 2003)

mindbend is it only ur mind thats bending ?


----------



## Arden (Sep 15, 2003)

I know only one speed test in which Macs and PC's score equally well, no matter what conditions you use or how many times you test them.


----------



## jhawk28 (Sep 15, 2003)

tsizKeik,

Attacking the person does not nullify their claims I have not seen the G5 to be faster, but I do not have a G5. I can see where mindbend is coming from because this is NOT a mac world. The majority is the PC, and despite how Apple and AMD try to make out that mhz doesn't matter, it does. Depending on the architecture, and other limitations, it matters less, but it still matters. I love my mac, but until Apple can come out with some serious ERP software, you will be living in a Windows world.


----------



## ex2bot (Sep 15, 2003)

G5 optimizations are very, very important, because some relatively common PPC instructions choke the G5.

I believe most of the benchmarks we're seeing are using unoptimized code. G5 performance will increase with time. 

It's an amazing chip. A miracle, really, for Apple. 

(Really, weren't you all afraid Apple was doomed, as poorly as Motorola was performing? I was. Before Apple pulled this rabbit out of its hat.)

Doug


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 16, 2003)

Relax people! Relax!

Mindbend if you use Final Cut Pro here is something that you will like:
http://www.apple.com/uk/hotnews/articles/ibc/gallery/gallery5.html

The piece that may interest you:
"...Highlights included a sneak preview of a pre-release version of Final Cut Pro 4 which had been optimised for the Power Mac G5..."

If anyone thinks that the G5 is *ONLY* 10% faster than the G4, or even slower, he/she is pessimistic and NOT realistic or factual because EVERYTHING that the G5 based Macs brought us is A LOT faster than the G4 based Macs but it will take us some months before we will understand the real benefits let alone experience them...

dktrickey I totally agree with you! Also, does anyone here remembers how "bad" OS X 10.0 (or even 10.1) was performing compared to 10.2? Expect at least the same things with the same G5 hardware when optimized apps will arrive...

-Are Desktop Wintel/Amd faster than the Dual G5? NOPE but still, WE SHOULD NOT CARE!
-Are Workstation/Server Wintel/Amd faster than the Dual G5? Some YES, some NO!
-Is the G5 an amazing future proof architecture for the Mac platform? Heck YES! 

Some people judge also Steve Jobs for spreading BS for the G5... The same goes for Apple in general  Then I bet that Adobe, Mathematica, et al people that CLEARLY supported Apple/Steve Jobs claims in WWDC 2003 are spreading BS too! 

I bet that others are full of BS and Reality Distortion Fields... 

Let me get this straight:
Moto G3 = the Past
IBM G3 = the Past and the Present (perhaps the future too )
Moto G4 = the Present
IBM G5 = the Present and the Future

On the Wintel world I think that Apple must start worrying about Amd and not Intel... Intel in the months ahead offers only marketing while Amd offers Weapons of Choice  like Amd64 and Opteron... Still, those things for at least 2 years down the road will have to use Windows XP + SP1/2  What a wonderful computing the Dark Side offers


----------



## mindbend (Sep 16, 2003)

Thanks for the link. I also have other another source that has some yet-to-be-substantiated data for Final Cut Pro:

http://www.2-pop.com/ubbthreads/sho...0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1#Post627519

If that info is close to be true, that is truly impressive. The Photoshop and FCP enhancements alone will be worth my upgrade price to the G5.


----------



## tsizKEIK (Sep 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jhawk28 _
> *
> The majority is the PC, and despite how Apple and AMD try to make out that mhz doesn't matter, it does. *



yes..yes...
tell that to centrinos


----------



## elspif (Sep 17, 2003)

[offtopic]
Why do I always have the idea that some people wish Apple was immune to critique. Mindbends post expresses his concerns, mentioning 2 sources that confirm his concerns in his post. Perfectly valid. The reactions here to his post make want to not come back to this forum because of the occusing vibes.

Posts like some of those from Hulkaros, RacerX and tsizKEIK seem to me to be slightly immature. I agree with jhawk28 that these people just nullify their own argument, which is a shame because Hulkaros and RacerX do have good things to say.

I think we should embrace the critique and remain open to improvement. If Apple can't deliver then we shouldn't act as if it's not an issue...
[/offtopic]

Even though it's early and it really is hard to judge how the G5 will  perform I think it definitely has potential to soar in speed but we'll just have to wait for real world benchmarks to know.

I say real world benchmarks because it's there that it will make a difference in productivity, the whole platform not just the processor. I think I agree with Mindbend that that's the sort of benchmarks we need, that's also the sort of BM's that will build a business case for managers and other decision makers to purchase the G5.


----------



## fryke (Sep 17, 2003)

Hmm... Just trying to stay in my track here. I've been using Macs ever since I've been using computers (or almost). The Mac was always the computer of a smaller group, but I've been attracted to it in 1987 as much as I was in the nineties and in this new century. There was a time when the Mac _clearly_ was a slower performer than a PC. My main argument for the Mac back then (not too long ago...) was that I still get my work done faster. I'll stick to that. Bring me the fastest available Windows machine in a nice package (and that won't be cheap, either), and I'll still get my work done faster on any old G4. In fact, I'm still using my iBook as my main machine for design purposes. It does its job well, and although I know I could have a faster machine (1.25 GHz G4 15" PowerBook sounds just swell to me), the iBook/800 is still too young to be replaced - for several reasons.

Now, Apple has released the G5. The Dual 2 GHz G5 is a fast machine, no doubt about that. Does it score better or worse than an expensive Wintel PC? What do I care? I get my work done faster on a Mac, anyway, so even if this or that bench tells me a PC would be faster, it wouldn't really matter to me. The _IMPORTANT_ thing is: The G5 _can_ keep up with the fastest PCs out there in benchmarks, whether they are real world tests or just raw processing tests. This wasn't possible a few months ago.

The only computer that is a competition to the Dual 2 GHz G5 right now - for me - is the Single 1.8 GHz G5. And I guess we _can_ compare those and we _can_ name a winner.


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by elspif _
> *[offtopic]
> Why do I always have the idea that some people wish Apple was immune to critique. Mindbends post expresses his concerns, mentioning 2 sources that confirm his concerns in his post. Perfectly valid. The reactions here to his post make want to not come back to this forum because of the occusing vibes.
> 
> ...



The problem is that there are NO valid benchmarks for G5... NOT YET! Of course we get some signs of what the performance *MAY BE* as of now but not in the not so distant future!

That's why I keep repeating:
"EVERYTHING that the G5 based Macs brought us is A LOT faster than the G4 based Macs but it will take us some months before we will understand the real benefits let alone experience them... "

The problem with the logic of people who are trying TOO HARD to be "open minded", "realistic", whatever regarding the G4, G5 and Apple in general, is that if we were listening to them we would switch to the Dark Side no questions asked... You know what? Some times you onle need to have faith! 

PS. Personally, I would not even dare to call RacerX's postings here immature or something... RacerX is one of the most knowledgeable people here in www.macosx.com not only for Apple stuff but computing in general... What I believe about him also is that he too sometimes see people here blasting off Apple without not even understanding what they are writing about 

As for tsizKEIK, like me, he is from Greece too! And I think we all know that we, greeks, are passionate about the things we love LOADS MORE than the next guy and YES we ::love:: our favorite company which is  of course!


----------



## toast (Sep 17, 2003)

Strange... the MacWorld journalist I met today (and then spent most of my time with when at the presss room) told me they didn't receive the 2.2GHz on time to publish tests...


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Sep 17, 2003)

Nice post, fryke! Perfect hit..


----------



## mindbend (Sep 17, 2003)

Fryke,

I agree for the most part. That is the mantra I have been running with for years and still believe.

However (there's always a "but", isn't there?), when you render After Effects composites, Lightwave renders, Final Cut renders and Photoshop processing all day, every day, I'd be stupid to ignore the (previously true) simple fact that to some extent I'm pissing money away waiting for that stuff to finish. There's a reason why virtually all render farms are non-Mac. Looks like that's about to change thanks to Pixar, at least, but still, my point stands.

I have no interest in disspelling the G5 magic. I am only interested in facts. What I'm actually hoping for is that we can find conclusive proof that the G5 really does match or beat the competition across the board and not just in obscure tests.

Some early indications (Photoshop loaded with RAM, Final Cut optimized for G5), look quite impressive. Others are not quite so impressive (one second gain in iMovie render).

Can't wait for the data to start trickling in.


----------



## RacerX (Sep 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *There's a reason why virtually all render farms are non-Mac. Looks like that's about to change thanks to Pixar, at least, but still, my point stands. *



Just FYI...

Pixar is replacing their workstations (a combination of SGI and IBM workstations) with Macs and their render farm (originally Sun servers) with Xeon based servers running Linux.

This is not as much an affirmation of the superiority of any given platform as it is an affirmation of Pixar's confidence in their software on any given platform. 

They may put out movies every so often, but they are still a software company. 

I wouldn't be surprised to see them change again in a year or two so they can show their software running on something else. Like Apple with WebObjects and Shake, when you have cross-platform software, it helps to show it running on some other platform in mission critical situations.


----------



## mindbend (Sep 17, 2003)

Racer, thanks for the Pixar info.

Since I would like this thread to become a repository for G5 speed data, here is another link (G5 info at bottom):

http://www.barefeats.com/al15.html

I just wish they would post more detailed info as to exactly what is being tested as well as provide PC comparisons.

I have to say, the key areas in which I work just happen to work (Final Cut, Photoshop, After Effects) have gained the most speed in these early speed charts. Assuming they are somewhat accurate, I'm a happy camper.


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 18, 2003)

Mindbend here are 2 more pages with G5 tests in PS7:
http://www.chaosmint.com/benchmarks/powermac-g5-ps7bench/
http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=1150967585
http://www.geocities.com/sw_perf/PSBench.html
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G5/Dual_g5_9600_9800_tests.html#bench

Hope you will find them interesting!


----------



## mindbend (Sep 18, 2003)

Hulk, much thanks for the links.

Now THOSE are some links I can relate to. I'm officially convinced the G5 is king of Photoshop, which is a very good thing. Other sources indicate it may be the king of video processing as well. Another very good thing. The darned chip even plays demanding games at high frame rates. Bonus.

Audio processing was already shown as impressive at the G5 announcement show (MacWorld?). I can't max out CuBase as it is, so a G5 will only make it better.

Now for 3D. I still want to see what the G5 can do with Lightwave. I suspect it will be crippled by LW's garbage optimization for the Mac. Apple should buy out Maya (or LW) or similar.

Good info.


----------



## RacerX (Sep 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *Now for 3D. I still want to see what the G5 can do with Lightwave. I suspect it will be crippled by LW's garbage optimization for the Mac. Apple should buy out Maya (or LW) or similar. *



The very reason that you would have Apple buy Maya is the reason it is owned buy SGI (Alias is a subsidiary of Silicon Graphics Inc.), to make sure that Maya is optimized for their hardware.

I don't think SGI would be willing to give up the premier 3D graphics software as long as they are a hardware company whose sales revolve around selling hardware for 3D visualization.

As it stands, Apple is in a good position in this area (with the high end software that is) by owning Shake, by having a version of Maya that is feature equivalent with Maya for other platforms and now having RenderMan. The fact that they also have Final Cut Pro, and can run software like After Effects and Photoshop makes them that much more of a complete solution (the Mac is the only platform which can run all the software titles I listed). And on top of the performance of the G5s, Apple has thrown in the Pixlet codec (in 10.3).

As far as high end 3D and video production is concerned, Apple is in the best position of any company out there today (not that this area is going to make a difference in market share or anything like that).


----------



## MacFeel (Sep 18, 2003)

You say that you cant max out Cubase SX,would you like to explane that?
What if you want to use say,16 midichannels of software instruments,64 voices each and as many fx on every channel for those instruments,can you do that?
I hope you can try this


----------



## mindbend (Sep 18, 2003)

Macfeel,

I should have clarified. I meant to say "I don't max out CuBase as it is" instead of "I can't...".

My CuBase needs are pretty modest. Mostly MIDI tracks with a few audio tracks and not loads of effects. G4 has no trouble at all with that.

I'm quite sure CB would bog down real quick if I tried your suggestion.


----------



## tsizKEIK (Sep 18, 2003)

who cares which ones the king...
...over the years intels might be faster 1 year, the next AMDs or Powermacs might be faster.
what i consider more imporant is which one lasts more, and which one is generally easier to use.


----------



## mindbend (Sep 18, 2003)

Cinebench
http://www.barefeats.com/g5sum02.html


----------



## Arden (Sep 19, 2003)

Apple should buy 3D Studio Max.  Why has this software giant still not come to the Mac?

I agree with Fryke in that it's not about benchmarks but about getting your work done that counts.  Remember, Mindbend, you can always go online while your waiting for your Photoshop filters to complete, your Lightwave scenes to render, etc. all at the same time.


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 20, 2003)

Here from the PC Magazine:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1274138,00.asp


Enjoy!


----------



## mindbend (Sep 20, 2003)

Hulk. You the man.

That was the best, most informative, comparison yet. That was preciesly what I was looking for as well as what I optimistically expected.

There is no longer any reason for a Mac owner to feel as though they are being leapfrogged (which is how I have felt for the last couple of years).

One thing that they didn't even overtly point out (even though you can figure it out by reading the specs) is the simple fact that the G5 is running at 2/3 the Xeon "speed". Any PC user who reads that and puts two and two together should realize that this is only the beginning. If the G5 is performing like that without 64-bit optimized code, without optimized applications, without an optimized OS and at 2/3 the CPU rate. Holy crap is that thing gonna fly over the coming months/years.

All my G5 concerns are officially over. I will purchase the next speed-bumped model as soon as it's available (January?).


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Sep 20, 2003)

impressive article from a PC (!!) magazine


----------



## jhawk28 (Sep 20, 2003)

Not too suprised about PC Mag, they are pretty decent mag. They are not afraid to say when the mac is better than the Windows world.

Joshua


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *Hulk. You the man.
> 
> That was the best, most informative, comparison yet. That was preciesly what I was looking for as well as what I optimistically expected.
> ...



Apple has you!?


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 23, 2003)

Me too, thought at first that PC Magazine did a great job in this VS article until... I read here:
http://discuss.pcmag.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=pcmag&msg=28784.1&maxT=3

PC Mag after all is full of BS 

Here are some for those that are too bored to read the whole discussion that goes over there:
_"I thought the article was well-balanced overall, but comments about pricing were misleading.  

It seems Mr. Dreier has selected BTO options in such a way as to make the prices as close as possible. Although Mr. Dreier claimed the G5 and Dell Precision 650 were "similarly configured (and priced)", the G5 can actually be had for much less than the Dell.  

First, when I configured a Dell with options similar to those Mr. Dreier chose for the G5, the Dell priced out at $4,934 vs. $4,349 for the G5. These prices are not "similar." Second, the stock G5 is also much cheaper than a similarly configured Dell. Whereas the stock G5 costs $2,999, a base configuration of the Dell costs $3,855, and that's with a 32MB graphics card, 120GB hard drive, and 266MHz DDR RAM versus the 64MB graphics card, 160GB hard drive, and 400MHz DDR RAM equipped on the stock G5. Third, the decision to buy 2GB of RAM from Apple as a BTO option was something of a red herring and one most consumers would not make. RAM can be purchased much more cheaply elsewhere. Inclusion of this option makes the G5 seem much less price-competitive than it actually is.  

The real fact is that, not only does the G5 outperform the Dell, but it does so for hundreds of dollars less."_

Another one:
_"2)  "You can load the G5 with up to"... "new 160GB Serial ATA hard drives".  That's misleading.. you can put dual 250 GB SATA drives in the G5, from Apple. 
3)  It was mentioned elsewhere that they messed up the count of fw/usb2 ports"_

Some more:
_"1. You give Avid Xpress's results in the pop-up, but not in the final numbers on the last page.  Avid was much faster on the G5 and should be included on the final page of the review. 
2. The Lightwave benchmarks you did were flawed.  Lightwave requires that you manually set the threads above 1 if you have dual processors.  Clearly, PCMag didn't do this because their results aren't close to what these systems get with those same benchmark scenes.  The Lightwave results should be ignored."_

And one last question which comes from something that PC Mag said in Photoshop part:
_"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."_

What are these Photoshop controls? And why one should not insert them into benchmarking times? 

Not only G5 IS faster than a Dual XEON 3GHz but cheaper too! 

I CANNOT WAIT FOR MY DUAL G5! 

Apple rulez! Dull sux!


----------



## mindbend (Sep 23, 2003)

Even better!

The only thing I might add to defray some of that is that Lightwave is historically slow on the Mac for whatever reason. Especially in raytracing. The G5 will help, but LW needs a serious bit of reprogramming to run as well as it should on the Mac. This is prime opprtunity for competitors to pull ahead. Carrara is a nice mid-level program that could shine if it runs fast on the G5s.

I don't know what they are talking about with the Photoshop "controls". They can't mean the palettes or the filter option windows. How could you function if they took a minute or more to open? Does anyone know what the heck they are talking about?


----------



## hulkaros (Oct 12, 2003)

Nothing THAT important but a good read anyways...

http://www.macosxhints.com/g5/

I like the movie where he shows that in 10 secs he loads 10 apps (including heavy ones like iPhoto, iMovie, etc.)!!!



2-3 days left for my Dual G5! I cannot wait!  My heart will fail from the excitement!!!


----------



## Arden (Oct 12, 2003)

Interesting reviews, thanks for the link.

I'll send a defribrilator(sp?) to help resuscitate you.


----------



## mindbend (Oct 12, 2003)

Two Words: Holy and crap.

A real OS X machine is finally here. I have never considered G4s suitable for OS X (not trolling, just my opinion). The only reason I hung on the last three years is because I knew the hardware would finally catch up. The G5 is it. Once again, brilliant of Apple to anticipate the needs of their customers by risking it all and putting the cart (OS X) before the horse (G5). Nice job.


----------



## hulkaros (Oct 13, 2003)

Thanks arden but hurry up! My heart is going to explode from the excitement 

And mindbend, I wish you the best in your going-to-buy-the-new-Dual G5 

BTW did you see that video of 10 apps opening in 10 secs tops? WOW!

And this is with 10.2.8... Can you imagine the Dual G5 coupled with Panther in a few weeks?  Crazy stuff!


----------



## Arden (Oct 13, 2003)

'Tis a very good time to be a Mac user... now, to be a PC user I don't know about.  They probably don't have it so good, considering all the crap that's been trying to eat their computers recently.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Oct 13, 2003)

lol! Those apps must have been precached, right? Please! Tell me they were. Otherwise I will lose 3000$ on that monster. When I see such stuff, I tend to turn to hulk in terms of spending money! 
Don't let this happen! Please... tell me there was a trick... please...


----------



## hulkaros (Oct 13, 2003)

LOL

In a few days I will find out for sure if it is a trick or something 

Also, I think that you will turn into something green for sure! Green 3000


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Oct 13, 2003)

lol


----------



## mindbend (Oct 13, 2003)

Just a couple of observations. Not trying to be negative, but just noticing some things.

1. Those fast loading apps are mostly Apple's. This is not a criticism of the test, just an observation. It shows that proper programming can yield wicked results. However, Adobe Elements and Safari show no evidence of actually launching. They may very well be hidden in the background somwhere, but I could find no evidence that they actually launched (other than the dock indicator, which is enough I guess).

2. Elsewhere on his site, he has the launch time of Elements as 6 seconds, which is nice, very nice, but not as instant as the other "Applets". I suspect full blown Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator will still take several seconds each. Currently, Photoshop takes 18 seconds to launch for me on a DP 1 gig, so if I can get down around six seconds, that's quite a speed bump. I can live with waiting for Photoshop for a few seconds. What has always been really annoying is waiting for the little application-wanna-bes to load in multiple bounces. I mean, waiting more than one second for System Prefs/iTunes/Terminal/Calculator to open is a slap in the face. Not anymore.

3. I did a quick, super-lame, app launch test similar to his movie. I didn't bother to do a screen movie cap, so you'll just have to go with my info. My apps are mail/isync/safari/explorer/dvd player/itunes/iphoto/ical/omnigraffle/fetch/termianl/sysprefs. They appeared to launch in fifteen seconds, but actually they were still loading even though the dock bounce effect had stopped. Actual launch times were closer to 25-30 seconds. With the apps cached and relaunched, it took no more than 25 seconds to fully launch them all. I suspect this is why we don't see Adobe Elements and Safari fully loaded in the osxhints movie. Still, the G5 should launch apps very fast, I'm sure. To be fair, my understanding is that Panther is a big help in this area as well, it's possible that a DP G4 could launch those sames apps almost as fast.

4. MP3 rip. Rob states that he can rip MP3s on the G5 at up to 16.4 speed. My G4 DP 1 gig can easily match that. It easily breaks 20x speeds and has peaked at 25x. Average is around 15-17x. I presume he was ripping right from the CD, which means the SuperDrive is a bottleneck, so I can't fault the G5 for that. I'd be curious to see how fast it would rip aiffs from the hard drive (not that anybody would pull aiffs from the CD and THEN rip them, but often times I create AAC files from AIFs created in CuBase).

These are about as harsh of criticisms as I can muster, which means the G5 appears to be a monster.


----------



## hulkaros (Oct 13, 2003)

He loads Mail, iChat, iMovie, iTunes, iPhoto, iCal, OmniGraffle, Transmit, Terminal and System Preferences. Safari and Elements are already open. The fun part is that they appear on screen in 10 secs tops and NOT that the icons stopped bouncing! Plus he is grabbing the video at the same time 

Anyways, I think that the guy stated many times that he just "tried" to benchmark his G5 so any possible mistakes are fine with me! 

I will let you know what I will find in the days ahead because my G5 is almost here!


----------



## jhawk28 (Oct 13, 2003)

Another issue with the loading of programs is the number of fonts. How many fonts does he have on the system? I cleaned some extra fonts out and my computer is much snappier.


----------



## Arden (Oct 15, 2003)

8 out of those 10 applications are from Apple, and the other 2 are from Mac-loving companies.  So it's no wonder that they load über-quickly.  Now, if he tried to launch Photoshop, Lightwave, Final Cut Pro, Dreamweaver, etc. all at the same time...

Mindbend, you may get really quick rip speeds, but what quality settings are you using?  Rob Griffiths used "MP3 format at 192kbps with VBR set to high" which is quite a high rate, and may also account for the slower rip speed.

Overall, I think this is a better test than any of those "official" tests.  This is a real-world, out-of-the-box, day-to-day test of the system.  He just puts it together, throws a couple programs onto it, and times it with a stopwatch.  He doesn't optimize it for anything, set the processor to this or that, etc., much like a normal user wouldn't do.  Considering what this machine can do without all that crap, now that is power.


----------



## mindbend (Oct 15, 2003)

DP 1 Gig G4 (original) 1 gig RAM

iTunes MP3 rip: 192KBS/High VBR

72 minutes of music took 6 minutes or exactly 12x with a 17x peak

-----------

The DP G5 peaked at 16x and averaged 11.6x

His SP G4 peaked at 8.5 and averaged 5.5x speed

This tells me, as I suspected, that the G5 is bottlenecked by the Superdrive. That's the only logical explanation. 4-5 minutes per average CD is still pretty quick though.

As for app launching, Photoshop has gotten slower and slower the last couple of versions at launching and general interface performance. Shame on Adobe. Final Cut takes longer than ever to launch, but runs better overall than previous versions. On a clean system, Lightwave launches instantly (less than a second). Fully ready to go. Amazing. I wish all apps could do that.

At a glance, I didn't see what OS he was using. I presume not Panther yet, but I could be wrong. As we all know, Panther alone will increase app launch speed on ALL machines, so in the end, the G5 app launch movie doesn't exactly blow me away, nice though it may be.

What does blow me away is the RAM-loaded Photoshop results, the initial Final Cut Pro feedback results (9 DV25 streams at once, holy lord!) and general "it just feels fast" reports. My G4 just feels sluggish all around.


----------



## hulkaros (Oct 16, 2003)

Got my Dual G5/2GHz... Review will come, soon


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Oct 16, 2003)

Su**er!  
just jealous...


----------



## Arden (Oct 17, 2003)

Mindbend, try ripping the music files to AIFF and then ripping them to MP3 or AAC from the hard drive and see how well you do.

Grr, I want a G5... hopefully I will be able to get one at >2.5 Ghz.


----------

