G5 1.6 vs AMD 2000+
Ken-Masters
In your backyard!!!
Well I don't even know why would anyone post something that is so invalid,
How could anyone determine how fast the G5 really is if only one benchmark was done comparing the entry level G5 vs. AMD 2000+.
This benchmark is already flawed in so many ways,
One, the G5 is 64bits, even though it is capable of 32bits for backwards compatibility,
any 32bit application ran as a benchmark is already a restrictive factor towards optimal performance for the G5 chip.
Even though AMD is part RISC and CISC, G5 is a true RISC architecture, thus being another restrictive factor towards true comparison between the two chips.
AND last but not least, ALTI-VEC was not tested in any benchmarks yet seen; most power application on the Mac utilizes Alti-vec, which can dramatically improve processing power by 3 to 4 fold.
So unless you can compare real world benchmark such as Photoshop renders, and movie rendering,
These geeky benchmarks that probably tells us swat about its true performance instead of artificial numbers never to be really used in the real world.
How could anyone determine how fast the G5 really is if only one benchmark was done comparing the entry level G5 vs. AMD 2000+.
This benchmark is already flawed in so many ways,
One, the G5 is 64bits, even though it is capable of 32bits for backwards compatibility,
any 32bit application ran as a benchmark is already a restrictive factor towards optimal performance for the G5 chip.
Even though AMD is part RISC and CISC, G5 is a true RISC architecture, thus being another restrictive factor towards true comparison between the two chips.
AND last but not least, ALTI-VEC was not tested in any benchmarks yet seen; most power application on the Mac utilizes Alti-vec, which can dramatically improve processing power by 3 to 4 fold.
So unless you can compare real world benchmark such as Photoshop renders, and movie rendering,
These geeky benchmarks that probably tells us swat about its true performance instead of artificial numbers never to be really used in the real world.
0
Comments
Agree about benchies, in general... flawed to say the least, and not usually indicative of price/performance, the most important ratio of them all.
It doesn't matter if a CPU is RISC or CISC - 64bit or 32bit. All that matters is how fast the CPU processes the apllication you want to run.
The Simple Truth is that in this ONE Benchmark (Cinebench) the Athlon 2000+ (1.66ghz) with it's 4yr old architecure is Faster than a G5 1.6ghz.
As for 64bit benchmarks feel free to name one....
Go to This Thread to see a REAL (& Shipping) 64bit Workstation!
Yeah cause people who get work done do it with cinebenchmark???
fact is RISC differs from CISC because RISC is software dependant, meaning that if a benchmark was written crapply then of course it going to run crapply!
Alti-Vec (128bit+ processing) also requires software to handle it.
64bit memory addressing and processing is Software activated in Panther (coming soon)
So basically there is nothing out there that will prove or disprove the G5's power.
Run a pentiem 4 3Gigs and a prentium 800Mhz celeron on windows 3.1 and see how fast one compares to each other. The fact is, they don't.
Ok, here he's laughing. Not showing any flaws or ignorance here, just that he's laughing probably because he finds it humorous.
Again, no flaws or ignorance. If we're testing to see which chip is fastest then all that matters is speed. RISC, CISC, 32-bit, 64-bit, is all irrelevant when all we're trying to find is speed. No flaws nor ignorance shown there.
Only flaw I see here is his omission of the word "showing" between "(Cinebench)" and "the Athlon." Other than that, I don't see any flaws or ignorance.
No flaws here. Perhaps ignorance because he appears to be ignorant of any 64-bit benchmarks available for the Mac. That's not ignorance on the issue, though.
Flaws? Ignorance?
Maybe. I do believe the G5 is shipping so if Omega was implying it wasn't then that's ignorance . . . unless I'm ignorant and the G5 actually isn't shipping.
I don't know what set you off about Omega's post. Perhaps you're a Mac fan, perhaps you just read it while in a bad mood. Who knows. I do know that I don't see his post as ignorant and flawed. He may have flaws and be ignorant on a thing or two, but definitely not ignorant in general about the issue.
Staff can have Opinions (and laughing is permited also). Ken Stated his opinion and I stated mine. I'd appreciate it if you backed up your claim of my "ignorance on this matter"
I'm not aware of any 64bit benchmarks so if you know of one please enlighten me. Since except for Linux, there aren't any Apple or x86 64bit OSes available the only way to test the machine is using a 32bit benchmark or application.
And As I said "It's One Benchmark and the Athlon is faster".
RISC or Reduced Instruction Set Computing is a CPU design methodology where as instead of the CPU having to deal with different instructions of varying length and complexity, you (can) simplify the CPU design with standard size (32 or now 64bit) Registers. The CPU is now able to execute more instructions per clock which theoretically gives you greater performance.
HOWEVER, because the CPU design is simpler, Compiler design is now more complex and typically the resultant code is larger. Thus even though the CPU can process instructions faster, it has more work to do which minimizes the speed gain.
Ever since SUN started the RISC revolution 15 or so years ago, RISC CPUs and CISC CPUs have stolen the best ideas from each camp and are pretty similar (except for the Itanium)
Neither method is the end all be all of CPU design and in the FINAL Analysis all that matters is how fast the CPU runs your application.
As for the laugh and the shipping statement....a Dual CPU computer is by definiton a Workstaion. Apple tried to claim that their Dual CPU computer is a PC while the (shipping since Apr) AMD Dual Opteron PC is a Workstaion. And according to reports I've read (And I could be wrong) currently the Dual G5 2.0 isn't shipping yet.
BTW (correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't Q3 ( a well known high-bandwidth loving application/benchmark) available for PowerMac. Why haven't any Q3 benchmarks been published?!?
I think the G5 PowerMac is a great Design. (and I love that Widescreen Flatpanel)
I just don't believe it's claims as the "Worlds Most Powerful PC"
I think in the final analysis the G5 will still be slower than the fastest x86 offerings in both the 32bit and 64bit arena
after reading your last post, i now respect you a bit more, than my first impression.
I don't care if you cared, but i just wanted to express that, because from your first post, my first thoughts were that you knew nothing about computers, but i guess i was wronge.
Workstation or PC ????
Well, since the PC is short for Personal Computer, and workstation is just that, a work station!
Apple brought the power of a workstation to the consumer market, by stripping all the expensive features and reducing the core by (i think half) and to make up for it, Alti-Vec (something borrowed from MOTO (evil by the way) was introduced.
There, now the average joe, running a (kinda mainstream system) can now aquire the power of a workstation. (G4 have been Dual since the early 450Mhz days which is a machine that i'm running today) It's not a workstation, its the PC i use to render all my images in, because our pentium just didn't cut it at the time.
AMD and APPLE and IBM and MOTOROLA are all in bed with each other, sharing technology as they see fit. (the alliance that allowed AMD clock speed to be as high as it is today) has signed a clause, that say's those companies are not to produce benchmarks comparing each other's chips untill third party organisation do, which is something they can not control.
So if AMD and APPLE are in bed with each other, i don't see why one would try to screw the other soo soon in their relationship?
(I didn't spell check this)
Respect is not necessary only civility. Do a search on my name and you can easily find out about what I know about computers.
Apple DID NOT bring "Workstations" to the personal market. Dual PC systems have been available in x86 land since the 150mhz Pentium Pro days. Abit sold a whole boatload of BP6 (dual P2) and VP6 (Dual P3) motherboards (I owned a BP6 in fact). In fact probably more dual x86 systems are sold than all of Apple's computers combined.
Personally I (and others here) are already running Dual AMD systems from 1.4 - 2.2ghz. (Mine is a modified Dual Barton 2.0ghz 512K cache system.)
AMD, Intel, and IBM have cross licenseing agreements with each other. I'm not aware of any pact between AMD (or Intel) and Apple. (please post a link to such an item if you know of it) While for the last several years AMD has had an agreement with IBM to produce CPUs, they have not invoked it and all of their CPUs (up to the Barton 2.2ghz and Opteron 2.0ghz) are currently produced in their Dresden Fab in Germany.
So far Apple's (fastest computer) claims are being refuted by Independant sites. It's still a good design, but for the money you can do better. (For instance why on a $3000 G5 dual 2.0ghz is there a ATI 9600 Pro instead of a 9700 Pro or 9800 Pro video card....)
and if someone can find me a PC which looks just as good as a mac and can run Logic 6 Platinum and Soundtrack...i will switch back
I said a G5 1.6ghz lost in ONE (and I specifically said ONE) Benchmark to a Athlon 1.66ghz (XP 2000+). If that translated to "Macs Suck" in your eyes, then there's nothing I can say to you....
Other Previous Apple Posts by Omega65...
* News Post (On Frontpage) G5 Benchmarks Under Attack: Lies Damn Lies and Apple Benchmarks!
* The G5 has impressive specs! ......However waiting in the wings to rain on Apple's parade......
* Apple Cheats on Spec Benchmark
I attack Apple overblown claims, not the G5 architecture itself. With the G5 Apple finally has an computer design that catches up to what the x86 world can offer. However it is not the fastest and as time goes by it will fall further behind because Intel and AMD specialize in making Faster and Faster CPUs (& Subsystems, and memory technolgy) whereas IBM does not. IBM process technology is great but they focus on making Mainframe and Server CPUs which are more powerful and complex but run slower (mhz wise) than Intel and AMD offerings. IBM Fab offerings are also expensive Apple G5 chip will not be dropping in price as fast as x86 chips do.
As for how beautiful he Mac is well... beauty is in the eye. I prefer function over form.
Apple G5 expansion: Room for One Optical drive and Two HD's
My idea of a nice (& simple) case (it's light, easy on the wallet ($30) and packs a powerful PSU) It has 4 - 5.25 bays, can hold 6 Harddrives and a full size ATX motherboard