or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › G-5's 1.6 arrived at my office today
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

G-5's 1.6 arrived at my office today - Page 4

post #121 of 284
Well the Cinebench scores are only slightly better than what my two year old 1400MHz Athlon achieves.
post #122 of 284
CPU Test 126.12

GCD Recursion 82.57 - 3.22 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 207.84 - 700.71 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 95.27 - 5.17 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 232.79 - 10.45 Mops/sec

Memory Test 191.13

System 176.02
Allocate 312.80 - 105.46 Kalloc/sec
Fill 120.12 - 688.84 MB/sec
Copy 181.08 - 905.40 MB/sec

Stream 209.09

Copy 201.22 - 879.94 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 200.94 - 876.69 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 211.47 - 962.18 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 224.44 - 986.17 MB/sec [altivec]

100 equals the performace of a dual 800 G4, so the scores are relative to this reference system.

What the scores says?
Well.. it really just says that in some tests it does a really great job and in others it just suck. But thats good, cause the good things (memory, floating point) are well ..nice.. and the sucky things (integer performance) may be optimized. .. so i would say that it actually look quite good..

and yes.. the cinebench benchmark sucks..

btw: remember that a "fair" comparision actually should implement fake double long (64bit) integer values, since the G5 code (if compiled for it is capable of handling much greater (max:2^64) values than the G4 (max: 2^32..),.. not important normally but.. nevermind..

GCD Recursion: is that Greatest shared thingy? you know GCD(20,16) = 4
i know the algoritm for it is recursive, but i can't remember what it is called in english (english is my second language.. supprise.... ..)
post #123 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by richcigar
I'll try some more benchmarks soon, and I'll get up more pics as soon as I can

Hmm...something tells me there's an imaginary G5 on his desk.
post #124 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by FotNS
Well the Cinebench scores are only slightly better than what my two year old 1400MHz Athlon achieves.

So if a single 1.6Ghz is the same speed as an Athlon 1.4, HOW THE HECK will a dual 2Ghz beat by 2x the dual 3.0Ghz Xeon???
I would like to think that the benchmarks that have been posted by Apple and Pixar so far have been fair (I mean why would Pixar switch to G5's and have Ed Catmul put his reputation on the line by calling it the fastest desktop in the world), but it seems to me that the G5 right now is coming out with some really pathetic scores. It's easy to say that "this ain't optimized for that", but when I get that thing on my desk, I don't want stupid excuses like that. I want to know that it's fast. That it'll run my Photoshop, Final Cut, etc. the fastest. Not that I have to wait for this optimization and that optimization, etc. That's pathetic if you ask me. I love the G5, but something just doesn't seem to match up to me from all these "pre-release" benchmarks, and what we're seeing right now. As of right now, it's basically just a supped up G4 with a little extra clock speed.
post #125 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by twinturbo
So if a single 1.6Ghz is the same speed as an Athlon 1.4, HOW THE HECK will a dual 2Ghz beat by 2x the dual 3.0Ghz Xeon???
I would like to think that the benchmarks that have been posted by Apple and Pixar so far have been fair (I mean why would Pixar switch to G5's and have Ed Catmul put his reputation on the line by calling it the fastest desktop in the world), but it seems to me that the G5 right now is coming out with some really pathetic scores. It's easy to say that "this ain't optimized for that", but when I get that thing on my desk, I don't want stupid excuses like that. I want to know that it's fast. That it'll run my Photoshop, Final Cut, etc. the fastest. Not that I have to wait for this optimization and that optimization, etc. That's pathetic if you ask me. I love the G5, but something just doesn't seem to match up to me from all these "pre-release" benchmarks, and what we're seeing right now. As of right now, it's basically just a supped up G4 with a little extra clock speed.

From what I've heard, Cinebench is currently about as unoptimized for the PowerPC as you can get, so it's not a fair benchmark. This is opposed to "your" Photoshop, which is already optimized, and "your FCP" which is either optimized or I'm sure will be really soon.
post #126 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by twinturbo
... It's easy to say that "this ain't optimized for that", but when I get that thing on my desk, I don't want stupid excuses like that. I want to know that it's fast. That it'll run my Photoshop, Final Cut, etc. the fastest. Not that I have to wait for this optimization and that optimization, etc. That's pathetic if you ask me. I love the G5, but something just doesn't seem to match up to me from all these "pre-release" benchmarks, and what we're seeing right now. ...

I don't understand where all this confusion or discontent is coming from. So far, the benchmarks have been just as expected. Apple's of course portrayed the G5 in a positive manner. Why would anyone expect something different?

And why is it pathetic for software developers to only release optimize code for machines that are actually on their customers' desks? This industry-wide practice seems perfectly reasonable to me. Even though the optimization process is already well underway, as developers spend time with the architecture, they become more familiar with it and are able to make more efficient use of its capabilities. For this reason, processor intensive professional application will continue to gain speed over time. The same is true for benchmarking tools.

The only thing out of wack here are your expectations of instantaneously updated code the second a new machine is merely announced as shipping.
post #127 of 284
<Rant>
Why does everyone care what machine runs a benchmark the fastest? Do you get paid to sit and pump out as many cinebench scores as possible all day long? I don`t know about you but I don`t. I want to know which machine will run photoshop the fastest, which machine is going to render my images the fastest in my app of choice and which machine is going to compile my code the fastest. With the massive pipes in the G5 I`m sure it will do that just fine.

If your first concern before buying a G5 is its xBench score or what ever I honeslty don`t think you really have the need for a G5 anyways other than your ability to brag to your office m8s about who has the fastest machine but guess what? Give it 6 months and a machine 1.5X faster than yours will be out atleast.
</Rant>
Sorry for the rant

Carry on.
''i'm an extremist, i have to deal with my own extreme personality and i walk the fine line of wanting to die and wanting to be the ruler of all.''
Reply
''i'm an extremist, i have to deal with my own extreme personality and i walk the fine line of wanting to die and wanting to be the ruler of all.''
Reply
post #128 of 284
Really disappointed by the cinebench scores. As it seems the single 1.6 G5 is just only up to par with middle of the line single AMD systems. So after all the hoopla of the G5 'being the fastest desktop computer in the world, first 64 bit, etc' well the performance is just average compared to a 32 bit pc. OK, the software is not optimized and you just will have to wait for optimised software that makes use of the 64 bit capabilities and so on. But right now there are cheaper systems that are as fast if not faster to work with a 3d app like cinema 4d.
I am a graphic designer who has used and liked macs for over 8 years; but having recently moved into the world of 3d design, I discovered the limitations of the macs. Even the most powerful of G4 systems is ridiculed in it's 3d capabilities (rendering and opengl performance) by high-end pc systems, which are way faster and more advanced (hyperthreading).
i just hoped the G5 would be that big leap as it was advertised but it seems not so, at least not untill all the soft is optimised. if apple had been honnest they should have advertised 'maybe the fastest in a year or two'. I will still wait to see the cinebench results of the dual G5. but if it's only barely up to par with a middle of the line dual pc system, I think apple just lost a costumer. I might just consider a dell workstation.
post #129 of 284
??? The Dual 2GHz machine is the one that's touted as the fastest in the world. Not the single 1.6 GHz

To say that it's 'only' up to par with the middle of the road AMD systems is complement indeed - when you consider that it's the bottom of the range pro Mac.
post #130 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Gee4orce
??? The Dual 2GHz machine is the one that's touted as the fastest in the world. Not the single 1.6 GHz

To say that it's 'only' up to par with the middle of the road AMD systems is complement indeed - when you consider that it's the bottom of the range pro Mac.

Thank you Gee4orce for taking the words out of my mouth!

post #131 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Gee4orce
To say that it's 'only' up to par with the middle of the road AMD systems is complement indeed - when you consider that it's the bottom of the range pro Mac.

While this may not get me any points on this board, and we can dice all the disappointing benchmarks any way we want, I think we're eventually going to have to realize that the G5 sucks . . . for now :-)
post #132 of 284
it's not my intention to dis apple or anything. As is said i used macs and still use and like them, they are probably the only computers I have used in 8 years but I just expected more from them. i couldn't care less G4 G5 G6 whatever. I just expect performance that at least equals CURRENT pc-systems. is that too much to ask?
post #133 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by twinturbo
While this may not get me any points on this board, and we can dice all the disappointing benchmarks any way we want, I think we're eventually going to have to realize that the G5 sucks . . . for now :-)

Yes, it sucks, you should all cancel your orders so I can get mine sooner!
post #134 of 284
Here's a rant for you... Maxon makes it easy in Cinebench to present the results in a table format for easy system comparison. How? There's a "--> To Clipboard" button in the test interface for pasting your results, and it gives a chart that look like this:

Tester : tcastudios
Processor : G4 450 MP
MHz : 450
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 9.2.2
Graphics Card : ATI Rage128 main/ XCLAIM VR Pro 2nd monitor
Resolution : 1152x870 main /1024x768 2nd monitor
Color Depth : millions/millions

***********************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 48 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 91 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.88
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 64 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 182 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 136 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 2.8
___________________

The benefit of this format is that it's standard and there are a couple places on the web that have compilations of many many system configs that go back several years. It's a good way to predict the kind of C4D performance you can expect from a machine. Plus it gives more info on the system (OS, graphics card, monitor res).

If you all would put the word out to follow the standard we'd all be better off.

Maxon, by the way, is working on optimizing Cinema for the G5 (as of a day or two ago they were waiting on a compiler). I assume that an optimized version of Cinebench will be forthcoming as well.
post #135 of 284
Quote:
I think we're eventually going to have to realize that the G5 sucks . . . for now :-)

Or turn it around in a more appropriate way and say the software sucks... for now.

lmd: Can you please wait a little moment, to let software vendors and developers recompile and fix their use of DSTs in their apps? It will not take a year, nor will it take half a year, should be a matter of weeks, or days.

It's always like this when a brand new CPU-architecture is released. It was like this with the P4 too (933Mhz P3's beating P4's in many benchmarks), for example. You'll have a little suckage initially, but then the sky clears up, and the architecture is appropriately running code that doesn't suck.
post #136 of 284
What we are looking for is for Apple to beat PC's at whatever we want to do. After all the hype it seems disappointing that the first G5 out of the box is further up the league. However the bus speed scales linearly with the processor so a sp2ghz should be 25% faster and DP faster still.

If the DP 2ghz G5 isn't top of the Cinebench benchmarks we will then know it isn't the fastest desktop, I sincerely hope that it is.
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
post #137 of 284
Quote:
If the DP 2ghz G5 isn't top of the Cinebench benchmarks we will then know it isn't the fastest desktop, I sincerely hope that it is.

With some luck in timing, Maxon will have their G5-optimized Cinebench available when the dual 2 G5s begin to ship. If it ain't available the scores will be totally irrelevant and will cause a bunch of mac fans to faint dead away. (and a bunch of PC fans to dance happy dances)
post #138 of 284
Not this stupid benchmark, comparison mumbo jumbo again..

Let's wait a week or two.

IT JUST STARTED SHIPPING FOR **** SAKE!!!

are you people MAD?

What contemptible scoundrel has stolen the cork to my lunch? _(W.C. Fields)
Reply
What contemptible scoundrel has stolen the cork to my lunch? _(W.C. Fields)
Reply
post #139 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by artcat
With some luck in timing, Maxon will have their G5-optimized Cinebench available when the dual 2 G5s begin to ship. If it ain't available the scores will be totally irrelevant and will cause a bunch of mac fans to faint dead away. (and a bunch of PC fans to dance happy dances)

Never mind Cinebench- is Cinema 4D R8 optimized for the G5 yet? That's what I'm going to be running on my G5, so that's what matters. \\

And when Cinema 4D is optimized, people can do their own 'fair' tests, using the render times as scores. Macworld should be reviewing the G5 soon, and one of their peformance benchmarks is a Cinema 4D file.
post #140 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
Never mind Cinebench- is Cinema 4D R8 optimized for the G5 yet? That's what I'm going to be running on my G5, so that's what matters. \\

And when Cinema 4D is optimized, people can do their own 'fair' tests, using the render times as scores. Macworld should be reviewing the G5 soon, and one of their peformance benchmarks is a Cinema 4D file.

There is apparently a new version of Cinema 4d (version 8.2) coming out soon, (details on maxon website) so it could include G5 optimisations,
post #141 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Anna Mated
There is apparently a new version of Cinema 4d (version 8.2) coming out soon, (details on maxon website) so it could include G5 optimisations,

That's good. I guess I'll hold off on my purchase.

Looky- Bodypaint is up to Version 2 (R2).
post #142 of 284
How come no one seems to mention the fact this 1.6 everyone keeps looking at is the lowest in G5. Not only is nothing designed right now to fairly benchmark them but you are looking at the lowest end model. I've never put much stalk in benchmarks either, its all about if it can do what you need it to do.

While it my work out it's more expensive than a PC of equivalent speed it still runs a supior operating system and has the Apple "it just works" advantage.

Devmage
post #143 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by twinturbo
So if a single 1.6Ghz is the same speed as an Athlon 1.4, HOW THE HECK will a dual 2Ghz beat by 2x the dual 3.0Ghz Xeon???

That kind of performance edge requires very aggressive use of AltiVec. I doubt Cinebench uses AltiVec much, if at all.
post #144 of 284
Um, you'll notice that richcigar is no longer posting.

I wouldn't either. It's gotten back to the PC vs. Mac mine's bigger than yours thing.

[sigh]
post #145 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Anna Mated
There is apparently a new version of Cinema 4d (version 8.2) coming out soon, (details on maxon website) so it could include G5 optimisations,

And Bodypaint R2 is out, I notice.
post #146 of 284
i hereby pledge that i will not take any benchmark of the new g5s seriously until it is documentend that all tools and software used for the benchmark are 100% g5 aware.


post #147 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by fether
Um, you'll notice that richcigar is no longer posting.

I wouldn't either. It's gotten back to the PC vs. Mac mine's bigger than yours thing.

[sigh]

I agree. I unsubscribed from this thread a while ago after it got ruined by the ego-mongering, mine's bigger crowd. Upon returning to check for any real discussion, I see its still in the same rut. But I'm guilty as well. Sometime I forget that rebuttals can ruin a thread even if you end up 'winning' the argument. Oh well, maybe we wont scare off the next person who posts about receiving a G5.
post #148 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by dfiler
I agree. I unsubscribed from this thread a while ago after it got ruined by the ego-mongering, mine's bigger crowd. Upon returning to check for any real discussion, I see its still in the same rut. But I'm guilty as well. Sometime I forget that rebuttals can ruin a thread even if you end up 'winning' the argument. Oh well, maybe we wont scare off the next person who posts about receiving a G5.

And I still haven't seen the keyboard photos. Damn.
post #149 of 284
Quote:
There is apparently a new version of Cinema 4d (version 8.2) coming out soon, (details on maxon website) so it could include G5 optimisations,

No, R8.2 absolutely does NOT include G5 optimization. Maxon (as I said upthread) was waiting on a compiler as of a day or two ago. They've had a G5 for only two weeks. The G5 optimization for C4D will be released as an incremental upgrade to R8.2, or possibly a patch. This info is based on a post (another forum) by a Maxon programmer.

I assume (though they have not explicitly said so) that a Cinebench version with G5 optimization will also be coming along, though, as a C4D user, I much prefer they get the app optimizing finished before the benchmark. I'm sure you can understand why
post #150 of 284
FACT: There is not a single benchmark out there that has been re-compiled to run properly on a G5.

FACT: There is only ONE major application out there that HAS a means of enabling G5 optimization (Photoshop).

FACT: There are no offically published Photoshop benchmarks pitting the G5 against the G4...


...ergo arguing about G5 benchmarks is also like running in the Special Olympics... and you know the rest.

\
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #151 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Tidris
That kind of performance edge requires very aggressive use of AltiVec. I doubt Cinebench uses AltiVec much, if at all.

No, the SPECmarks don't take AltiVec into account.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #152 of 284
Thank you, Moogs. Finally somebody who's not an idiot about these benchmarks.
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
post #153 of 284
Take my pledge...

post #154 of 284
Some people are thick. It has been repeatedly stated that Cinebench isn't optimized at all for the G5, but people are ready to condemn the G5 on the basis of those benchmarks alone. It would be more problematic if someone could prove the real world benchmarks SJ demoed at WWDC were fabricated. No one has been able to make any such substantive claim. So give it a friggin rest.
PPC4EVER
Reply
PPC4EVER
Reply
post #155 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
FACT: There is only ONE major application out there that HAS a means of enabling G5 optimization (Photoshop).

Two: You forgot Logic.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #156 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
FACT: There is not a single benchmark out there that has been re-compiled to run properly on a G5.

FACT: There is only ONE major application out there that HAS a means of enabling G5 optimization (Photoshop).

FACT: There are no offically published Photoshop benchmarks pitting the G5 against the G4...


...ergo arguing about G5 benchmarks is also like running in the Special Olympics... and you know the rest.

\

FACT: There are TWO major applications optimized for G5. Logic 6.2 Platinum was the FIRST. Photoshop was SECOND.

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply
post #157 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL
Two: You forgot Logic.

Great minds think alike. We posted at exactly the same minute from each of two continents.

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply
post #158 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Multimedia
Great minds think alike. We posted at exactly the same minute from each of two continents.

JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #159 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Multimedia
Would someone please analize these numbers. They mean nothing to me. What do they mean to someone who understands them please?

What they mean, in a nutshell:

Given code compiled and optimized for the 745x G4, run on an OS built with a compiler targeting the G4, the low-end G5 holds its own against the previous high-end G4.

This is good. For one thing, it means that once the OS and the applications target the 970 it will pull cleanly away except for a few cases where compute-bound AltiVec code favors the G4 implementation, or where dual processors increase e.g. UI responsiveness by concurrently executing processes and threads.

This pretty much what happened with the 7400 -> 7450 transition, except that the 7450 started out significantly slower clock for clock before apps were specifically targeted for it.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #160 of 284
is the photoshop update/plugin in out yet?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › G-5's 1.6 arrived at my office today