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.... ..)
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
??? 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.
??? 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!
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 :-)
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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,
Comments
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.... ..)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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!
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 :-)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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)
Let's wait a week or two.
IT JUST STARTED SHIPPING FOR **** SAKE!!!
are you people MAD?
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.
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,
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).