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 7

post #241 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Jono
My Dad works for the government in Canada, does it also apply in Canada? Where can I see it on Apple.com or .ca? Thanks

Edit: Judging by another post, I can't get the Governement discount with the Education discount anyway?

The Government discount seems to be U.S. only, though you can get an education discount in Canada.

The edu and govt discounts are separate "stores," and therefore are not combinable.
post #242 of 284
isn't there a lightwave benchmark app? Why don't people use that one. Aren't there ALOT more lightwave users then the cine-whatver?

Or am i mistaken. Plus lightwave seems to be more mac willing to optimize for it.

3d gurus chime in.
post #243 of 284
and alias too.

I'd get much confidence out of a benchmark between any of those two.
post #244 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by richcigar
I have plenty of more pics which I can email to someone who would like to post. I've been busy playing with the G5 so I've stayed away from some of the madness. I have no idea how I got these on Tuesday and no one else seems to have them.

The few pics I've seen do not show any cabling ot the HD's. Please send your picts with cabling installed if possible.
post #245 of 284
i don't know if someone posted this already but XBench 1.1 - optimized for G5 - is now available - could someone with a G5 please test it?

http://www.xbench.com/
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #246 of 284
Yes I like to see some keyboard pictures if thats possible. I realy hope its not that horrible looking keyboard I saw at an PCF introduction day here in Holland. I had a also a short change to play with the new 1.6. The first time I explored OSX. I was not impresed with how fast the windows, control ppanels and apps came up. In other wordss I didnt had a lighting fast impression of it. Mabey I am to much influensed by the PR of Apple.
post #247 of 284
moox12, everyone, it's the same Apple Keyboard that ships with the eMac. This is not an assumption. I can't believe people are still in denial over a keyboard!
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #248 of 284
If thats so, it will be shame from Apple to add a keyboard like that with an Pro machine.
post #249 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Krassy
i don't know if someone posted this already but XBench 1.1 - optimized for G5 - is now available - could someone with a G5 please test it?

http://www.xbench.com/

Those will be nice, but there is the need to also test non G5 with the same version. The changes are such that you can't directly compare the numbers from the old and new versions if you want a realistic comparision. However, a "baseline" with the new version for a dual 800 is provided for 1.1, so that is a good starting point.
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
post #250 of 284
"Aren't there ALOT more lightwave users the..."


Cinema4D?

Yes. Max is no.1, Lightwave no.2. However, Cinema 4D is no.3!

And still closing.

Impressive. Why? Because sometime ago, nobody had even heard of it. A couple of years ago it was ranked about no.18 in usage! To go from nowhere to 18 then to 3 says something about Maxxon's ability as a team.

It's always been fairly priced. Latterly? A bargain. You get a blazingly fast ray tracer. Easy to use interface. Along with Newtek's Lightwave, Cinema was the first 3D app' to hit Mac Os X! Maxxon have ultilised the 2nd processor. And it's an amazingly small app (last time I check was years ago, mind...) Maxxon also make the amazing 3d painter, Bodypaint 2 (which I will find hard to resist, it looks superb!) which is less than half the price of PC suck up software Righthemisphere's 'Deeppaint3d' (or something like that...)

Take yer hat off to Maxxon. They listen to feedback and really improve their app'. You know when Cinema's had an update!

I don't have it. I prefer the interface of the Legendary Lightwave But if you want to get into 3D cheaply on the Mac? By the Cinema 4D highend for less than £500? is it? Bargain (minus a few of the other modules.) Clever idea by Maxxon to make their package modular. Just buy what you need. It means you can a high end app for a stunning price. Be nice if Newtek followed suit. Anything to pile the pressure on the overpriced Studio Max.

Who needs Xsi, Max.

We got Maya, Lightwave and Cinema!

Yay! Twinkie Cakes.

lemon bon bon (sales rant over...)

PS. On topic? Er...X.bench 1.1 is indeed here. Looking for substantial improvements. It's been compiled with GC 3.3? Should make a huge difference if this is the Compiler used for Panther?

But hey, a 1.6 G5 is hanging with a '2 gig rating' Athlon at the mo'. Not bad for a machine that isn't even optimised! Macrumors have got some good links re: G5 1.6 performance.

Anybody seen a PS7.1 bench yet?
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #251 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaktai
Those will be nice, but there is the need to also test non G5 with the same version. The changes are such that you can't directly compare the numbers from the old and new versions if you want a realistic comparision. However, a "baseline" with the new version for a dual 800 is provided for 1.1, so that is a good starting point.

i tested my G4/400
Code:


Results 49.21

_System Info
Xbench Version 1.1
System Version 10.2.6
Physical RAM 448 MB
Model PowerMac3,1
Processor PowerPC G4 @ 400 MHz
Version 7400 (Max) v2.8
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 1024K @ 200 MHz
Bus Frequency 100 MHz
Video Card ATY,Rage128Pro (ATI Rage 128 Pro)
Drive Type IBM-DTLA-307030

_CPU Test 35.80
GCD Recursion 40.15
1.57 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 60.64
215.67 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 50.04
726.86 Mflop/sec
vecLib FFT 15.33
236.21 Mflop/sec
Floating Point Library 76.60
3.07 Mops/sec

_Thread Test 30.62
Computation 26.12
210.39 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 37.01
464.60 Klocks/sec, 4 threads

+Memory Test 66.02
_System 55.65
Allocate 75.53
25.47 Kalloc/sec
Fill 53.53
426.12 MB/sec
Copy 45.48
227.42 MB/sec

_Stream 81.12
Copy 80.26
327.32 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 79.28
329.35 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 81.93
345.75 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 83.11
342.06 MB/sec [altivec]

Quartz Graphics Test 50.80

Line 42.51
1.08 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 61.17
4.30 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 59.42
1.37 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 41.92
455.49 beziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 55.97
912.29 chars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 75.54
Spinning Squares 75.54
52.86 frames/sec
User Interface Test 52.40
Elements 52.40
17.83 refresh/sec

+Disk Test 68.97
_Sequential 70.14
Uncached Write 65.08
25.91 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 65.27
25.47 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 77.75
12.31 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 74.18
29.97 MB/sec [256K blocks]

_Random 67.83
Uncached Write 53.58
0.77 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 72.46
16.34 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 75.40
0.50 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 75.50
15.54 MB/sec [256K blocks]



note: i think it's funny that i have such good altivec results - does XBench only use one cpu for those tests?
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #252 of 284
Apparantly it does use single CPU's only, except for the threading tests, where you also see that your PowerMac does significantly worse than in the regular CPU-test.

There is a separate thread dedicated to Xbench-tests in the Mac OS X forum, I advice to use that one for non-G5 macs, because this is off-topic IMO.
post #253 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Zapchud
Apparantly it does use single CPU's only, except for the threading tests, where you also see that your PowerMac does significantly worse than in the regular CPU-test.

There is a separate thread dedicated to Xbench-tests in the Mac OS X forum, I advice to use that one for non-G5 macs, because this is off-topic IMO.

if it works that way it should probably be noted that the final number in 'Results' is not very useful to compare overall system speed. also you can't hope for much better numbers when it comes to disk performance - the HD-technology didn't make a huge step forward just because there is a PPC970
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #254 of 284
Mr Lemon


It's spelled "MAXON" not "MAXXON"

You need as much work on improving spelling as I do

Jesus. You like Lightwave's workflow and interface? You are sick
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #255 of 284
Quote:
You need as much work on improving spelling as I do

Hey, I don't USE the program, you can't expect me to spell it right...

:P

Re: Lightwave. There's something interesting about that. When I first started using Lightwave...I carped about the fact there were 'NO ICONS!?' However, when you read manuals such as the brilliant 'Inside Lightwave 7', it's 'Written' icons greatly speed up your understanding of what you're finding and what it does. As opposed to that 'icon/blob' thing one has to find and understand. After a while, Newtek's approach made great sense to me. I suppose that and the fact that Lightwave is widely used for T.V and Film production speaks volumes for it's 'production orientated' interface.



Still, I do like icons.

It's interesting that Xsi is more like Lightwave in this respect.

And Maya is more like Cinema.

Just a superficial observation on icons vs text interfaces...

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #256 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by moox12
If thats so, it will be shame from Apple to add a keyboard like that with an Pro machine.

Can someone explain to me what is so terrible about those keyboards?
post #257 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon

It's interesting that Xsi is more like Lightwave in this respect.

And Maya is more like Cinema.

Just a superficial observation on icons vs text interfaces...

Lemon Bon Bon


I notice the same thing too

Cinema's interface started looking like Maya since version 6. When I launch the app in front of people many of them do think it is Maya.

Even XSI and LW have similar interface I prefer XSI over LW. Again I just hate LW's workflow (separate modeling, animation environoment sucks) .......but the difference in price is huge......
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #258 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by ryukyu
Can someone explain to me what is so terrible about those keyboards?

It's more like a BMW with an Pinto dashboard.
post #259 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
damn hawkman, that's one cynical statement

You of course will be proved wrong over the next 2 weeks

A healthy skepticism (possibly descending into cynicism at times) has stood me in good stead for fifty three years, and seems justified in this case in light of the following:

One week of "shipping" seems to have landed low end G5s into the hands of four individuals/universities ( here , here , here , and here ) and they have already written off one whole country.

On Saturday I trekked over to the WILLOW BEND apple store where all of the employees were decked out with black T-shirts with a gradient G5 logo on the back. They were all were staring aimlessly at a rotating halogen lit turntable with a little card that read "G5 coming soon"---that pretty well sums up the situation in my mind.
Personnally, I am going to stand down my anticipation level back to "defcon 1" so that if my 2Ghz G5 backorder from July 6th actually ships in five days as scheduled, it will come as an unexpected surprise.
it was the world's fastest computer when I ordered it!
Reply
it was the world's fastest computer when I ordered it!
Reply
post #260 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by moox12
It's more like a BMW with an Pinto dashboard.

Can you be a little more specific?
I've seen them and I don't see anything so terrible about them.
Is it just because it was first introduced with the eMac, so people's perception is that it's low end?
To be honest, I don't think the pro keyboard that came with my Quicksilver is all that great either, but it does the job.
post #261 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by ryukyu
Can you be a little more specific?
I've seen them and I don't see anything so terrible about them.
Is it just because it was first introduced with the eMac, so people's perception is that it's low end?
To be honest, I don't think the pro keyboard that came with my Quicksilver is all that great either, but it does the job.

Too me, there is just *no* quality at all in it compared to the black 'Pro' item.

The plastic the keys are made of feels cheap, cheap, cheap! The action of the keys is plain awful. The angle is also all wrong for me, as I like flat keyboards.

Also the USB ports on the back are not as useful for peripherals as they were when they were located on the side. I found I had to loop cables around and it caused all sorts of hassle that never happened with the 'pro' item...

Also, after a few months usage, the white finish looks like ass. I have seen them absolutely filthy in some stores after only a few weeks... This never happened on the black items.

All in all, they are bloody awful.
post #262 of 284
Quote:
I have seen them absolutely filthy in some stores after only a few weeks... This never happened on the black items.

I have a white pro keyboard with my 17" iMac. It gets dirty. All you need to do is clean it regularly. Geez.
Things Ain't What They Seem!
Reply
Things Ain't What They Seem!
Reply
post #263 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
It's interesting that Xsi is more like Lightwave in this respect.

well have you ever used softimage 3d? It was(is) all text and a really simple looking but deep interface. Comming from Max I was like what the hell is this, but then I grew to love it.
post #264 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by hawkman
A healthy skepticism (possibly descending into cynicism at times) has stood me in good stead for fifty three years, and seems justified in this case in light of the following:

One week of "shipping" seems to have landed low end G5s into the hands of four individuals/universities ( here , here , here , and here ) and they have already written off one whole country.

On Saturday I trekked over to the WILLOW BEND apple store where all of the employees were decked out with black T-shirts with a gradient G5 logo on the back. They were all were staring aimlessly at a rotating halogen lit turntable with a little card that read "G5 coming soon"---that pretty well sums up the situation in my mind.

Personnally, I am going to stand down my anticipation level back to "defcon 1" so that if my 2Ghz G5 backorder from July 6th actually ships in five days as scheduled, it will come as an unexpected surprise.

Only Defcon 1? I think you better reconsider keeping it at Defcon 2 just to be on the safe side.

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 #265 of 284
two 970s
Code:


Results 126.13 119.82
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1 1.1
System Version 10.2.7 10.2.7
Physical RAM 1280 MB 2048 MB
Model PowerMac7,2 PowerMac7,2
Processor PowerPC 970 @ 1.60 GHz PowerPC 970 @ 1.60 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data) 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1600 MHz 512K @ 1600 MHz
Bus Frequency 800 MHz 800 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200 GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST380013AS ST380013AS
CPU Test 91.85 73.46
GCD Recursion 72.97 74.15
2.85 Mops/sec 2.90 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 213.26 195.83
758.44 Mflop/sec 696.43 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 78.43 77.96
1.14 Gflop/sec 1.13 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 51.25 30.43
789.76 Mflop/sec 468.95 Mflop/sec
Floating Point Library
264.65 264.56
10.59 Mops/sec 10.59 Mops/sec
Thread Test 80.68 81.74
Computation 59.27 60.45
477.48 Kops/sec, 4 threads 487.01 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 126.33 126.17
1.59 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads 1.58 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 251.00 259.39
System 199.11 205.66
Allocate 327.59 320.70
110.45 Kalloc/sec 108.13 Kalloc/sec
Fill 155.75 152.77
1239.80 MB/sec 1216.08 MB/sec
Copy 178.75 203.12
893.76 MB/sec 1015.58 MB/sec
Stream 339.49 351.13
Copy 335.86 350.36
1369.69 MB/sec [G5] 1428.83 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 319.23 332.01
1326.10 MB/sec [G5] 1379.19 MB/sec [G5]
Add 347.79 359.41
1467.62 MB/sec [G5] 1516.68 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 357.52 364.54
1471.49 MB/sec [G5] 1500.38 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 156.39 163.04
Line 174.55 178.20
4.44 Klines/sec [50% alpha] 4.54 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 174.20 171.60
12.26 Krects/sec [50% alpha] 12.07 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 175.11 177.85
4.04 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha] 4.10 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 148.88 149.27
1.62 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha] 1.62 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 123.84 144.78
2.02 Kchars/sec 2.36 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 188.62 182.49
Spinning Squares 188.62 182.49
132.00 frames/sec 127.71 frames/sec
User Interface Test 141.20 141.32
Elements 141.20 141.32
48.04 refresh/sec 48.08 refresh/sec
Disk Test 105.75 99.70
Sequential 114.68 106.96
Uncached Write 146.61 131.21
58.36 MB/sec [4K blocks] 52.23 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 138.07 123.69
53.89 MB/sec [256K blocks] 48.28 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 75.75 75.20
11.99 MB/sec [4K blocks] 11.90 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 131.30 119.16
53.05 MB/sec [256K blocks] 48.15 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 98.12 93.36
Uncached Write 86.38 81.53
1.24 MB/sec [4K blocks] 1.17 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 102.33 96.68
23.08 MB/sec [256K blocks] 21.81 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 95.15 94.64
0.63 MB/sec [4K blocks] 0.62 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 112.26 103.42
23.10 MB/sec [256K blocks] 21.28 MB/sec [256K blocks]



phew



note: after searching the web i found CPU scores as high as 118.69
... this is a little odd \ i think we should compare mp3 encoding and such
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #266 of 284
Quote:
well have you ever used softimage 3d?


Yes.

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #267 of 284
Sawtooth Upgraded to 1 GHz G4/2MB L3, 2 GB Ram, Radeon 8500, WD 120 GB 7200 RPM 8 MB cache Drive:

Results 84.69
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1
System Version 10.2.6
Physical RAM 2048 MB
Model PowerMac3,1
Processor PowerPC G4 @ 1.00 GHz
Version 7455 (Apollo) v2.1
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 256K @ 500 MHz
L3 Cache 2048K
Bus Frequency 100 MHz
Video Card ATY,R200
Drive Type WDC WD1200JB-75CRA0
CPU Test 60.96
GCD Recursion 115.27 4.50 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 125.54 446.48 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 124.70 1.81 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 20.40 314.29 Mflop/sec
Floating Point Library 120.10 4.81 Mops/sec
Thread Test 61.89
Computation 61.83 498.13 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 61.94 777.57 Klocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 85.15
System 104.63
Allocate 118.55 39.97 Kalloc/sec
Fill 175.71 1398.67 MB/sec
Copy 68.74 343.71 MB/sec
Stream 71.78
Copy 72.71 296.54 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 71.60 297.42 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 72.02 303.90 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 70.82 291.49 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 117.73
Line 116.27 2.96 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 112.30 7.90 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 121.47 2.80 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 116.25 1.26 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 123.01 2.01 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 95.39
Spinning Squares 95.39 66.75 frames/sec
User Interface Test 107.71
Elements 107.71 36.65 refresh/sec
Disk Test 99.12
Sequential 102.71
Uncached Write 106.65 42.46 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 104.87 40.93 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 100.48 15.91 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 99.20 40.08 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 95.77
Uncached Write 101.94 1.46 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 102.54 23.13 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 99.53 0.66 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 82.26 16.93 MB/sec [256K blocks]

And another...

TiG4 500Mhz, 1GB Ram, New 5,200 RPM Drive.

Results 50.09
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1
System Version 10.2.6
Physical RAM 1024 MB
Model PowerBook3,2
Processor PowerPC G4 @ 500 MHz
Version 7410 (Nitro) v1.3
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 1024K @ 250 MHz
Bus Frequency 100 MHz
Video Card ATY,RageM3
Drive Type TOSHIBA MK6022GAX
CPU Test 43.21
GCD Recursion 48.83 1.91 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 76.40 271.69 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 62.68 910.37 Mflop/sec
vecLib FFT 17.98 277.07 Mflop/sec
Floating Point Library 94.58 3.79 Mops/sec
Thread Test 36.92
Computation 32.14 258.90 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 43.37 544.44 Klocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 80.08
System 74.08
Allocate 182.02 61.37 Kalloc/sec
Fill 72.29 575.44 MB/sec
Copy 47.23 236.16 MB/sec
Stream 87.15
Copy 85.96 350.55 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 85.19 353.90 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 88.24 372.38 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 89.33 367.68 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 62.00
Line 57.62 1.47 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 60.38 4.25 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 69.96 1.61 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 67.38 732.10 beziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 56.85 926.71 chars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 72.90
Spinning Squares 72.90 51.02 frames/sec
User Interface Test 58.31
Elements 58.31 19.84 refresh/sec
Disk Test 65.41
Sequential 72.91
Uncached Write 72.44 28.84 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 67.97 26.53 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 94.33 14.93 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 63.51 25.66 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 59.31
Uncached Write 50.52 0.72 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 58.51 13.20 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 65.14 0.43 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 65.76 13.53 MB/sec [256K blocks]
post #268 of 284
http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc1=26715

A G5 XBench score. I agree with the comments posted there about the G5 being a very big disappointment.
post #269 of 284
I'd rather call Xbench 1.1 the big disappointment. It's buggy, rushed, and you KNOW something is very wrong when a iBook 700 gets within 6 points of the G5 at GCD Recursion, even though the G5's got more than double the clockfrequency, and all the other obvious stuff.

This is ridiculous!

Also, the vecLib FFT was run in "buggy mode" on that G.This is something that happends for an unkown reason, and sets the score back to a small fraction of the correct value. Although it does 1.5-2 times better than the G4 at this per clock, it's still way too low. Steve Gutierrez should re-run Xbench, at least.

Other than the terrible, clearly irrelevant, non-measuring, etc. CPU-benchmark, I think it looks pretty good!

Still waiting for real-world application benchmarks such as Photoshop, and optimized/recompiled versions of other important apps.
post #270 of 284
From a post by 1Stunna over at MacRumors. Note, that the scores change with each run. Also why was more RAM a bad thing on the benchmark posted above??? This is all a pleasant Sunday diversion, but these benchmarks are really just a load of BS in my book.

<Start paste:

test1:

Results 124.04
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1
System Version 10.2.7
Physical RAM 256 MB
Model PowerMac7,2
Processor PowerPC 970 @ 1.60 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1600 MHz
Bus Frequency 800 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST380013AS
CPU Test 90.16
GCD Recursion 72.93 2.85 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 210.14 747.32 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 78.29 1.14 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 49.00 755.06 Mflop/sec
Floating Point Library 262.85 10.52 Mops/sec
Thread Test 80.49
Computation 59.27 477.51 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 125.37 1.57 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 241.11
System 188.79
Allocate 329.91 111.23 Kalloc/sec
Fill 136.04 1082.91 MB/sec
Copy 181.52 907.60 MB/sec
Stream 333.53
Copy 330.19 1346.57 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 312.42 1297.81 MB/sec [G5]
Add 342.88 1446.91 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 351.25 1445.69 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 154.81
Line 179.17 4.56 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 172.06 12.10 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 171.77 3.96 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 147.58 1.60 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 120.38 1.96 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 178.12
Spinning Squares 178.12 124.65 frames/sec
User Interface Test 138.33
Elements 138.33 47.07 refresh/sec
Disk Test 105.63
Sequential 114.51
Uncached Write 142.09 56.56 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 137.22 53.56 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 76.73 12.15 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 132.03 53.35 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 98.02
Uncached Write 84.92 1.21 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 102.71 23.17 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 95.49 0.63 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 113.35 23.33 MB/sec [256K blocks]

test2

Results 128.84
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1
System Version 10.2.7
Physical RAM 256 MB
Model PowerMac7,2
Processor PowerPC 970 @ 1.60 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1600 MHz
Bus Frequency 800 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST380013AS
CPU Test 115.66
GCD Recursion 72.79 2.84 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 212.47 755.61 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 74.60 1.08 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 131.71 2.03 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 263.97 10.57 Mops/sec
Thread Test 80.64
Computation 59.35 478.12 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 125.77 1.58 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 242.09
System 189.38
Allocate 304.24 102.58 Kalloc/sec
Fill 131.01 1042.84 MB/sec
Copy 203.21 1016.07 MB/sec
Stream 335.44
Copy 332.89 1357.60 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 314.62 1306.98 MB/sec [G5]
Add 343.47 1449.40 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 353.27 1453.97 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 151.82
Line 172.21 4.38 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 172.08 12.11 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 172.93 3.99 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 143.64 1.56 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 116.68 1.90 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 173.26
Spinning Squares 173.26 121.25 frames/sec
User Interface Test 136.51
Elements 136.51 46.45 refresh/sec
Disk Test 105.58
Sequential 114.08
Uncached Write 145.76 58.03 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 137.39 53.63 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 76.66 12.14 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 126.90 51.27 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 98.25
Uncached Write 87.25 1.25 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 103.36 23.31 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 94.82 0.63 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 110.76 22.80 MB/sec [256K blocks]

test3:

Results 135.21
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1
System Version 10.2.7
Physical RAM 256 MB
Model PowerMac7,2
Processor PowerPC 970 @ 1.60 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1600 MHz
Bus Frequency 800 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST380013AS
CPU Test 118.69
GCD Recursion 73.95 2.89 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 198.78 706.93 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 78.23 1.14 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 143.08 2.20 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 263.18 10.53 Mops/sec
Thread Test 81.63
Computation 60.51 487.47 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 125.39 1.57 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 234.46
System 180.08
Allocate 297.39 100.27 Kalloc/sec
Fill 131.40 1045.97 MB/sec
Copy 175.84 879.22 MB/sec
Stream 335.90
Copy 332.45 1355.82 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 313.41 1301.93 MB/sec [G5]
Add 345.68 1458.75 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 355.03 1461.23 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 153.34
Line 175.22 4.46 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 171.20 12.04 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 173.84 4.01 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 144.02 1.56 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 119.57 1.95 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 179.16
Spinning Squares 179.16 125.37 frames/sec
User Interface Test 136.37
Elements 136.37 46.40 refresh/sec

as you can see, it does better the more times you run it.

still doesnt seem right.

end paste>
post #271 of 284
Well let's keep in mind that the developer of Xbench is doing his best to optimize, with what he knows are obvious areas, but doesn't even have a G5 to work with. Cut the guy some slack. Besides, just look at the variances. That right there tells you that the test circumstances themselves are questionable. No two machines were tested under identical circumstances or setups.

The only thing that disappoints me, is the ridiculous expectations that some folks have placed on the G5 while running a "patched" OS and software that isn't even remotely optimized for it.

Wake up folks. Nothing you have seen or heard to date is the least bit definitive. We will have better real world tests soon, but in the mean time just chill. I swear, there are some folks here who just look for a reason to be dissatisifed, and if there isn't one, then they will create one.

I would just be thrilled to have a G5 of any speed sitting next to my desk, and if I did, the last thing I would be doing with it is running benchmarks, unless those benchmarks had something to do with real work.
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
post #272 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaktai
Well let's keep in mind that the developer of Xbench is doing his best to optimize, with what he knows are obvious areas, but doesn't even have a G5 to work with. Cut the guy some slack.

He could use Shark, and doesn't really need a G5. Its called profiling, and I don't think the xbench guy did it.

Further, I wonder if he realizes that 7450/7455 optimizations can kill a G5s proformance. That coudl explain a lot.

But I think benchs like this are stupid. I want to see some realworld results. Bitvice mpeg2 encoding times, FCP rendering out times, how long does it take someone to convert a DVD to a DIVX? This is more important in my book.

I think a lot of people are looking to find ways to be disapointed over the G5 so they can bitch and whine. So they keep posting and talking about unoptimized benchmarks.
post #273 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by kupan787

But I think benchs like this are stupid. I want to see some realworld results. Bitvice mpeg2 encoding times, FCP rendering out times, how long does it take someone to convert a DVD to a DIVX? This is more important in my book.

People are too busy doing word processing and web surfin' on their G5. They don't have time to do these realword tests.
post #274 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
People are too busy doing word processing and web surfin' on their G5. They don't have time to do these realword tests.



Actually, they are probably having too much fun just playing with them and doing work, to worry about trying to time it all. Heck, if I had one, I sure wouldn't be here typing this.

Soon enough folks. It won't be long before the likes of MacWorld, MacAddict, Barefeats and others who make a living out of testing, will have their results, along with a few professional users.

And when Panther is finally released, it will start all over again.
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
Mac User since '86 and Apple II before that.
Reply
post #275 of 284
How much time does it take for Jaguar to boot on a PowerMac G5. Please submit results.
post #276 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by BZ
Sawtooth Upgraded to 1 GHz G4/2MB L3, 2 GB Ram, Radeon 8500, WD 120 GB 7200 RPM 8 MB cache Drive:
Results 84.69
CPU Test 60.96

TiG4 500Mhz, 1GB Ram, New 5,200 RPM Drive.
Results 50.09
CPU Test 43.21

Wanna see mine?

G4 466Mhz 512Mb Ram Gforce3 64Mb
Results: 63.79
CPU Test 60.40

Hey, this is obvious: There is something terribly wrong with Xbench. Shouldn't a 1Ghz G4 score 100% better than a 466Mhz G4, and not just 40% ? And how comes that a 1,6 (!) Ghz G5 (!) just scores 50%-100% better (in CPU), when it should be around 350% ?
I do not know, if all parts of xbench score so wrong as the CPU test does, but, as said before, we should not trust any of those crappy benchmarks.
To make it clear: I don't expect miracles from the G5, but in my opinion the 1,6 Ghz Mac should at least be on par with a 1,8-2 Ghz Pc.
I look forward to the first guy who posts some Unreal 2003 fps, or some (G5 optimized) photoshop tests.
post #277 of 284
Ugh, and I mixed numbers. My 466Mhz G4 is on par with the 1Ghz G4 on the CPU test.
post #278 of 284
Can someone post the pictures of the 1.6 here. I don't know if it's this linux computer, and that's why i didn't see them. If someone has them could they post it, or send them to
galen_s(at)mind.net
THanks
post #279 of 284
Quote:
Originally posted by BZ
Sawtooth Upgraded to 1 GHz G4/2MB L3:

System Info
Bus Frequency 100 MHz
Memory Test
Fill 1398.67 MB/sec

Let's see:
bandwidth = 800 MB/sec,
memory test = 1400 MB/sec

Is the rest of this "test program" just as good as this result?
post #280 of 284
their's a new 1,6 GHz G5 that showed up at xbench with scores that are higher then the other 1,6 and the 1,8 . It's about 10 points overall better and is in the same league as the 1,25 ghz MP.
"Respect my authoritaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!"
Reply
"Respect my authoritaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!"
Reply
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