G5 vs P4

Ken-MastersKen-Masters In your backyard!!!
edited December 2003 in Hardware
Our University just got a couple of G5's (4 to be exact) and we also have existing P4 3.2Ghz (a class full) for our Imaging Tech class.

They are brand New systems, and only accessible to us students. Only Graphics apps on them, nothing more.

Just for fun, we wanted to test the speed of these monsters, just to waste time and stuff, and so after installing Cinbench we found that the G5 was 40% faster in the test. (Didn’t Icrontic say otherwise?)

In our Photoshop test, it was 80% faster in Photo with the G5 patch comparable to that on the P4.

G5 2Ghz Dual
2.5Gigs of RAM
Both Linux and Mac OS X 1.28 (not 1.3)
We used OS X
ATI 9600
160Gigs

P4 3.2Ghz
2Gigs of RAM
Nvidia FX 5600
XP Pro

We just did this for fun, but even I thought from the reviews that Icrontic gave, the G5 is supposed to slower or something?

U guys lied!!!

Comments

  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited November 2003
    Maybe on certain tests...but just from using a G5 I would say it's faster on running one app and completely blows away the pentium when running multiple apps.
  • SwordsmanSwordsman
    edited November 2003
    Just curious, but are the G5's duals and the P4's singles?

    S!
  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited November 2003
    yeah G5's are duals P4's are single. As that is their basic configurations. Even still though Dual P4's don't gain much of an advantage because of the limits of the OS and the architecture of the mobo. Unless we are talking server class machines.
  • NYCDrewNYCDrew NYC(duh)
    edited November 2003
    Maximum PC just did a full benchmarking comparison of the G5, the Althon 64 FX51, and the p4EE in order to see of each company's best, who was actually best of the best. The G5 got crushed. Their sister magazine MacAddict even gave them some Mac favored benchmarks to run. The G5 still lost unless the tests were competely engineered to give the G5 the advantage. Such as compiling video using Quicktime.

    Although the regular P4 was not in the competition, based on the G5's scores, it would still have been a tight competition.
  • Ken-MastersKen-Masters In your backyard!!!
    edited November 2003
    YOu mean, enabling vector processing???

    If a feature is in there, why not use it???

    It probably needed Quicktime, because Quicktime takes advantage of the Vector Unit inside the G5.

    But we just used software we had, from our real world non-proven test, we found the G5 much faster, but we don't have any AMD machines yet, our University can't get a hold of any.
  • RMFRMF
    edited November 2003
    Originally posted by Ken Masters
    If a feature is in there, why not use it???
    If a feature that will improve the resuts of a test is present on one machine but not on the other, then it's not a fair test.
  • StalkerStalker
    edited November 2003
    sure it is.

    Because that feature makes it better than the thing it was being tested against. Why wouldnt you use the full capabilities of a piece of hardware.
  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited November 2003
    I agree with stalker. Most of these tests I find useless because the often limit the advantage of one machine to make it fair in some stupid way. That's like taking a 6speed car and a 5 speed and topping them out but not letting the 6 speed go into 6th gear it's dumb. Regardless of raw processing power if machine X can do something faster because of some other more efficient code be it a hardware or software issue then it's a faster machine when it's sitting in front of me and I'm using it.

    Hell why not make all macs run virtual pc and run windows apps through virtual PC to benchmark them because then they'd be using the same software. BAHHHH lame.
  • NYCDrewNYCDrew NYC(duh)
    edited November 2003
    Quicktime is program made by Apple, for Apple computers, then ported for PC. It has an inherent advantage for Apple computers. The code was specifically written for them. I'm sure that a LOT less time was given to porting it over to PC then was given to write it.
  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited December 2003
    So what if quicktime is for mac. Windows has software that serves the same purpose. If computer A is using is propriatery software to accomplish task X and compuber B is using it's propriatery software to accomplish the same task X. I only care which is faster not if one computer is being fair to the other.

    When comparing Mac's to PC's we are already not comparing apples to apples so why should one be crippled to make a test fair. That doesn't make the test fair at all.
  • antthisantthis Bowling Green ky
    edited December 2003
    silly people AMD are the faster cpu around
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    Originally posted by Ken Masters
    YOu mean, enabling vector processing???

    If a feature is in there, why not use it???

    It probably needed Quicktime, because Quicktime takes advantage of the Vector Unit inside the G5.

    But we just used software we had, from our real world non-proven test, we found the G5 much faster, but we don't have any AMD machines yet, our University can't get a hold of any.

    You are comparing a $1000 machine to a $4500 machine, what results were you expecting?

    Now build a dual, or even quad Opteron system with all the "bells and whilstles" to get it up to $4500 and then bench those against each other.

    I have been using various Macs including G5s to do video and audio editing at Uni, and to be honest, they are as slow as **** and they look even worse.

    NS
Sign In or Register to comment.