Apple G5 Photoshop benchmarks inside...

[Eug]

A minor Final Cut and Soundtrack test, and a few Photoshop benchmarks against a G4 933 MHz. No gaming benchmarks or P4 vs. G5 benchmarks yet for the AT types, though.

See here:

Dual 2 gig G5
Contributed by: jeremyw | Views: 5275

On Friday I got lucky and got about an hour on a pre-production PowerMac G5 (dual 2 gigahertz) with 2 gigs of RAM and I put it to some tests using Photoshop 7, Final Cut Pro 4 and Soundtrack. I was duly impressed with performance, stability and speed. The machine is huge (think Daystar machine size) but it is very quiet! The model I got access to (and the few others like it, apparently) have to travel around the country with an official Apple rep (like a G5 guard), but I didn't have to sign any NDA nor was I asked to keep my experience confidential.

In regards to ship dates, I have heard that the machines are NOT shipping yet, to anyone, as the FCC hasn't yet approved the computer. Think about this, though: their end of fiscal year is, what, the end of September? I think they need to ship them before this date.
Anyway, more information is included below...

It should be noted that this Dual G5 is a pre-release testing machine, not optimized or tweaked for real-world usage and these test results should be taken very lightly. I noted a sticker on the CPU that said "#1, 6-17", which I assume is a manufacture date for that chip. (Rumor sources have claimed that the IBM plant is not yet making the chips in any quantity, but that is unconfirmed.) Apple is guessing at a mid-September release date for the dual G5 machines and a lot of things could change by then (performance, speed, stability, etc). The last time I tested Photoshop on the then-new G4s and Photoshop was not yet optimized I saw similar results to the ones we have here. Also, with only 2 gigs of RAM and a 2+ gig file (when opened), the machine is hitting the disk all the time. Having a full 4 or 8 gigs of RAM would, I assume, give much better performance.

Some nice touches: the CD/DVD drive door slides down into the machine instead of swinging outward. Cool. The fans spin up and down as necessary and you can see which CPU is working harder based on fan speed. The machine looks great with side panels on or off. I imagine somebody adding neon tube lighting within days of Apple releasing the machines. There are virtually no cables or wires inside the machine. The Serial ATA drive connectors are super tiny and the driver power cables (like on standard IDE drives) are about twice the size. Having a few ports on the front is very convenient.

---

Testing the Dual 2 Gigahertz G5 Tower (2 gigs of RAM, Serial ATA drives, OS X.27) against a single 933-Mhz G4 (1.5 gigs of RAM, ATA133 drives, OS X.26)

In Soundtrack on the dual G5 I layered 64 audio files for about 20 seconds of length and played them all simultaneously without slowing down. Both CPUs were cranking at about 65%-70% usage. I have no idea what the computational limitations of audio files may be in Soundtrack (anyone have any idea?), but my ear can't discern all those sounds playing simultaneously!

In Final Cut Pro 4 the dual G5 recognized that the machine was a "PowerMac G5" and the most amazing thing to me was the fact that of all the video filters and transitions, only a couple filters were NOT real-time (no rendering needed) filters. I think only 1 or 2 transitions were not real-time. Scrubbing through the video files was extremely responsive and fast, even on non-rendered, layered video tracks. Again, in trying to slow down the machine, doing rapid scrubbing continuously on these layered tracks only used about 65% of the CPUs.

---

Photoshop 7, set to use 1 gig of RAM, unoptimized for G5?

First file (A): "couple_ethnic_gift.psd" layered photoshop file of 1.8 gigabytes
Second file (B): "couple_gift_exlrg.psd" layered photoshop file of 764 megabytes

Open file from internal disk:
G5 / A 4:40 minutes
G4 / A 5:01 minutes

G5 / B 1:47 minutes
G4 / B 2:15 minutes

Motion Blur 0 degrees 250 pixels:
G5 / A 0:46 seconds
G4 / A 1:55 minutes

G5 / B 0:32 seconds
G4 / B 1:04 minutes

Free Transform, Criss Cross Image (X-shape):
G5 / A 1:00 minutes
G4 / A 1:15 minutes

G5 / B 0:24 seconds
G4 / B 0:55 seconds

Twirl 999 degrees:
G5 / A 4:58 minutes
G4 / A 5:15 minutes

G5 / B 0:14 seconds
G4 / B 1:02 minutes

It would appear that RAM is critical as the smaller file, which fits in the available RAM, has much better performance. For all you large-file creators: I also took the 768 megabyte layered file and enlarged it to create a 5.6 gigabtye file. It created and saved out no problem.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Nice, but it still loses the M4H ValueMark 2003.

- M4H

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Nice, but it still loses the M4H ValueMark 2003. - M4H

bwahashahahaah

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Nice, but it still loses the M4H ValueMark 2003.

Heheh. I task you to spec out a Dell dual Xeon 2.8 with the same features as the $2999 dual G5 2.0. The Dell actually costs more. (I tried it.)

 

[DaveSimmons]

The G5 seems to scale 1:1 vs. G4 in the best case, i.e. 2 x double-MHz CPUs giving a max 4x speedup. Which is nothing to sneeze at, but it does imply the gain with G5 is mostly / entirely in the MHz increase not from any improved instructions-per-clock. And the increased memory bandwidth is enough to keep the scaling 1:1 but nothing more.

<out on a limb>
So a single G5 2 GHz will probably not be any better than 2x a 933 G4, and will be much slower than a P4 3.2 GHz. For gaming a P4 at 2.8+ will still be the performance machine to buy, and XP 2500+ will still be the value champ.

A G5 will just be less weak than the gaming turtle G4.
</out on a limb>

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
The G5 seems to scale 1:1 vs. G4 in the best case, i.e. 2 x double-MHz CPUs giving a max 4x speedup. Which is nothing to sneeze at, but it does imply the gain with G5 is mostly / entirely in the MHz increase not from any improved instructions-per-clock. And the increased memory bandwidth is enough to keep the scaling 1:1 but nothing more.

<out on a limb>
So a single G5 2 GHz will probably not be any better than 2x a 933 G4, and will be much slower than a P4 3.2 GHz. For gaming a P4 at 2.8+ will still be the performance machine to buy, and XP 2500+ will still be the value champ.

A G5 will just be less weak than the gaming turtle G4.
</out on a limb>

Well, your thoughts are valid, but like the situation with the P4 vs. the PIII, some things will need optimization. Remember these are tests with Photoshop optimized for the G4. (Adobe is supposed to release G5 optimized filters as an update in Sept. or something.)

According to posts I've seen on the subject, while basically all 32-bit code will run fine on the 64-bit G5, certain code needs to be rearranged to account for for the G5's architecture, if you want to maximize speed. Specifically, using certain instructions on the G5 will still work, but it will slow completion of that task significantly.

For gaming, I agree a P4/XP will still be the computer of choice. This is partially because game optimization is done for Windows and partially due to the very fast and stripped down P4s you can get, for a relatively cheap price. (With Apple you can't buy a 2.0 single, and you can't buy a stripped down 1.8 either. All of the 1.8 GHz Power Macs have a ton of features that, while useful for multimedia types, are not as useful for pure gamers.) A dual 2.0 will likely game very well, but not for the price.

However, with a high end non-gaming machine, I think the dual G5 is a strong contender though, because of the better motherboard design and FSB/memory speed, the comparable CPU speed, and the cheaper price of the dual G5 vs. the dual Xeon.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Nice, but it still loses the M4H ValueMark 2003.

Heheh. I task you to spec out a Dell dual Xeon 2.8 with the same features as the $2999 dual G5 2.0. The Dell actually costs more. (I tried it.)

Be careful with that statement. The current Dell Precision 450 with dual 2.8 GHz Xeon and 1 GB memory (double the G5s 512 MB) and 3 year warranty costs $2789 with the same features as the $2999 G5. Now suppose you wanted a dual G5 with 1 GB memory and 3 year warranty and minimal monitor - which is probably the typical way this will be purchased. The base price is $4197. But the Dell is still under $2999 even with adding the 17" LCD monitor! Plus the G5 isn't being sold yet, and by the time it is the Dell dual Xeon will likely be even cheaper.

But that isn't the point M4H was trying to make. You can if you want get a dual Xeon for far less than that. We all know Dell overcharges for some things: memory and Xeons being the major ones. Take the Dell computer with the G5 specs but go with just one 2.0 GHz Xeon and 1GB memory and 3 year warranty: $1199. Buy two 2.8 GHz Xeons yourself for under $800 ($345 each at Newegg), and you have a dual 2.8 GHz Xeon for under $1999. Yes that is $1000 cheaper than the dual G5 and with more memory and additional warranty. Strip out the DVD burner if you don't want that, and go with a base video card, etc and you can easilly get it for $1500 - half the price of the base dual G5. And you have a free 2.0 GHz Xeon to sell on ebay...

 

[0roo0roo]

damn shame no athlon benches to compare. i have no reference point

i mostly care about the sweet looking case. any reviews where they took it apart and took pics?

those 3 bladed cpu fans?

 

[Eug]

I just priced it out again. The 2.8 GHz dual Xeon is $2991 dollars. $8 cheaper. I stand corrected.

Remember to include the modem, Firewire, better video card, 512 MB RAM, USB keyboard, USB optical mouse, DVD burner, bigger hard drive, etc.

The dual Xeon price seems to have dropped a bit since I last spec'd it, but still it's not significantly cheaper than the dual G5, and doesn't come with things like optical in/out, Firewire 800, and the dual Xeon has a smaller hard drive. And of course, it doesn't come with the killer aluminum case.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: Eug
I just priced it out again. The 2.8 GHz dual Xeon is $2991 dollars. $8 cheaper. I stand corrected.

Remember to include the modem, Firewire, better video card, 512 MB RAM, USB keyboard, USB optical mouse, DVD burner, bigger hard drive, etc.

The dual Xeon price seems to have dropped a bit since I last spec'd it, but still it's not significantly cheaper than the dual G5, and doesn't come with things like optical in/out, Firewire 800, and the dual Xeon has a smaller hard drive. And of course, it doesn't come with the killer aluminum case.

Who cares? You're still using a MAC??? No amount of money or performance can replace that shame.

 

[Eug]

Who cares? You're still using a MAC??? No amount of money or performance can replace that shame.

Heh. I wish I had a dual G5, but I don't. (No one does, at least for the next 2 weeks.)

Anyways, multiple Windows desktops and one Mac laptop (PowerBook Titanium) here.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

hang your head in shame, you are using a Mac.

 

[0roo0roo]

and the intel fanboys arrive

 

[Eug]

Power Outage halts IBM's Fishkill plant - delays Apple's G5 chips.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: Eug
I just priced it out again. The 2.8 GHz dual Xeon is $2991 dollars. $8 cheaper. I stand corrected.

Remember to include the modem, Firewire, better video card, 512 MB RAM, USB keyboard, USB optical mouse, DVD burner, bigger hard drive, etc.

The dual Xeon price seems to have dropped a bit since I last spec'd it, but still it's not significantly cheaper than the dual G5, and doesn't come with things like optical in/out, Firewire 800, and the dual Xeon has a smaller hard drive. And of course, it doesn't come with the killer aluminum case.

You completely missed the point he was trying to make. What if I don't want all of that extra junk tacked on? With a Dell or home built I don't have to pay for all of those extras whether I want them or not. How does firewire 800 improve Photoshop benchmarks?

 

[beatle]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: Eug
I just priced it out again. The 2.8 GHz dual Xeon is $2991 dollars. $8 cheaper. I stand corrected.

Remember to include the modem, Firewire, better video card, 512 MB RAM, USB keyboard, USB optical mouse, DVD burner, bigger hard drive, etc.

The dual Xeon price seems to have dropped a bit since I last spec'd it, but still it's not significantly cheaper than the dual G5, and doesn't come with things like optical in/out, Firewire 800, and the dual Xeon has a smaller hard drive. And of course, it doesn't come with the killer aluminum case.

You completely missed the point he was trying to make. What if I don't want all of that extra junk tacked on? With a Dell or home built I don't have to pay for all of those extras whether I want them or not. How does firewire 800 improve Photoshop benchmarks?

I think Eug may have been trying to compare apples to apples (sorry, can't think of another way to put it ). If you're trying to get to the meat and potatoes of these systems, it does look like the Dell would win out (hey they have nice cases too) especially when performing maintenance.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Eug
Power Outage halts IBM's Fishkill plant - delays Apple's G5 chips.

There is a God.

- M4H

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: Eug

Who cares? You're still using a MAC??? No amount of money or performance can replace that shame.

Heh. I wish I had a dual G5, but I don't. (No one does, at least for the next 2 weeks.)

Anyways, multiple Windows desktops and one Mac laptop (PowerBook Titanium) here.

I'm just messing with you bud. I really don't care either way. I use what I like and it doesnt matter what others use. But you and I both know you're asking for it posting MAC stuff here at Anandtech

It's probably a pretty great machine, except the price.

 

[MDE]

I don't like the fact that you can only put one optical drive in there, or upgrade anything major without a giant headache.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Stupid comparisons as usual. Quit comparing penii and look at this for what it is: an assessment of the G5 versus the G4.

And I don't think your dell is going to run OSX too well.

 

[krackato]

Eug gets so much crap (and takes it in such stride) for starting his Apple threads.

 

[Eug]

What if I don't want all of that extra junk tacked on? With a Dell or home built I don't have to pay for all of those extras whether I want them or not. How does firewire 800 improve Photoshop benchmarks?

And you don't have to buy it. Nothing is stopping you buying a lower end Dell if you want. In fact, it would make sense, esp. at the low end. I personally like having all those doodads. I have them for my PCs too. (Well not Firewire 800 yet.) Indeed, when friends are buying low end hardware I point them to stripped down x86 boxes. For bigger budgets, the range of choices is much greater.

And since you asked, in this particular bench, if you used external hard drives, Firewire 800 would be the determining factor. In Photoshop, a computer endowed with a Firewire 800 scratch disk would absolutely destroy computers with only a Firewire 400 or USB 2.0 scratch disk. Files that big page out to disk quite a lot. Firewire 800 is faster than the fastest IDE drives. Firewire 400 will hold back such a drive, and USB 2.0 will hold it back even more.

Eug gets so much crap (and takes it in such stride) for starting his Apple threads.

I'm a masochist, so what?

 

[Pariah]

And since you asked, in this particular bench, if you used external hard drives, Firewire 800 would be the determining factor. In Photoshop, a computer endowed with a Firewire 800 scratch disk would absolutely destroy computers with only a Firewire 400 or USB 2.0 scratch disk. Files that big page out to disk quite a lot. Firewire 800 is faster than the fastest IDE drives. Firewire 400 will hold back such a drive, and USB 2.0 will hold it back even more.

Ignoring the fact that's a pretty dumb idea (spend $3000+ on a computer and then use non-SCSI external drives for a primary scratch disks anyone? Didn't think so.), it's still an advantage in the PC's favor. The $90 PCI card fee is much more appealing to me than spending $1000-1500 more initially on the Mac to get it onboard.

Apples inability to understand that certain fields have special requirements is probably doing more to hurt their market share than anything. You can't just sell an everything and the kitchen sink model without allowing potential customers to strip out the parts they don't need. The vast majority of industries and even consumers don't need Firewire 800, or gigabit ethernet, or DVD-burners and so on, so why force them to pay for it, if all they want is the fastest CPU? Apple may fool the suckers already buying their hardware into ponying up the cash for all the extras they don't need, but they certainly aren't going to convert anyone with that sales philosophy. Forget the lowend. PC's are still much cheaper at the highest end too, because all the customization options allow consumers to buy the fastest hardware available and nothing else they don't want or need.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: Pariah

And since you asked, in this particular bench, if you used external hard drives, Firewire 800 would be the determining factor. In Photoshop, a computer endowed with a Firewire 800 scratch disk would absolutely destroy computers with only a Firewire 400 or USB 2.0 scratch disk. Files that big page out to disk quite a lot. Firewire 800 is faster than the fastest IDE drives. Firewire 400 will hold back such a drive, and USB 2.0 will hold it back even more.

Ignoring the fact that's a pretty dumb idea (spend $3000+ on a computer and then use non-SCSI external drives for a primary scratch disks anyone? Didn't think so.), it's still an advantage in the PC's favor. The $90 PCI card fee is much more appealing to me than spending $1000-1500 more initially on the Mac to get it onboard.

Apples inability to understand that certain fields have special requirements is probably doing more to hurt their market share than anything. You can't just sell an everything and the kitchen sink model without allowing potential customers to strip out the parts they don't need. The vast majority of industries and even consumers don't need Firewire 800, or gigabit ethernet, or DVD-burners and so on, so why force them to pay for it, if all they want is the fastest CPU? Apple may fool the suckers already buying their hardware into ponying up the cash for all the extras they don't need, but they certainly aren't going to convert anyone with that sales philosophy. Forget the lowend. PC's are still much cheaper at the highest end too, because all the customization options allow consumers to buy the fastest hardware available and nothing else they don't want or need.

Does everyone need some of the things you listed today? No. What about 3 or 4 years down the line? Everyone probably won't need them then either, but I'm sure more of them will and they'll be happy their 4 year old machine isn't quite over the hill yet. And if you don't want a DVD burner don't buy one. Does everyone need a digital out on their gfx card? No, but it seems like all dual head cards have one digital and one analog out these days. Out of box Apple forces people to purcahase better future-proofed machines than many other computer makers do, and that's one of the reasons they are more expensive (and one of the reasons they typically have a longer lifespan). But if what you want/need is a stripped down box w/a fast chip, for a render farm or something, then probably isn't the direction you want to go. Apple fills a niche market and, IMO, fills it very well. If what Apple sells doesn't meet your needs find a manufacturer that does. I don't have any use for a Dell but I don't go around griping about their business model (which obviously works for a lot of people) I just went to a company that could deliver what I was looking for.


Lethal

 

[Eug]

Ignoring the fact that's a pretty dumb idea (spend $3000+ on a computer and then use non-SCSI external drives for a primary scratch disks anyone? Didn't think so.), it's still an advantage in the PC's favor. The $90 PCI card fee is much more appealing to me than spending $1000-1500 more initially on the Mac to get it onboard.

Actually the pros I know use IDE scratch disks, although internal IDE generally, not external with a enclosure. One of the problems is that Firewire 400 limits IDE hard drive speed. (This is even more on an issue with USB 2.0, but not an issue at all with Firewire 800.) The external (Firewire) drives often get used for DV capture and sneakernet, etc.

At risk of offending the advocates of external SCSI...

To be quite honest I have been less than overjoyed with external SCSI. It offers too many disadvantages IMO. I have a slide recorder, a slide scanner, and an (older) digital camera, all SCSI. After trying to get them to work consistently on my Windows 2000 Athlon at work I swore I'd never buy another external SCSI device again for the rest of my life. OTOH, my multiple Firewire 400 CD and DVD drives, hard drives, media readers, and scanner seem to work fine. If Firewire 800's implementation is anything like Firewire 400 (and by all accounts it is), it's gonna be way better than external SCSI in real-life usage. Today, for my usage $90 on an PCI SCSI card for external devices would be $90 down the drain. It's no surprise that besides for hard drives, external SCSI peripherals are becoming very hard to find.

External SCSI drives might be less problematic than other peripherals, but personally I agree with Apple's decision to scrap SCSI on their computers altogether (and ironically Apple was one of the very first to heavily push SCSI across their higher end lines). I have a couple of PCI SCSI cards sitting in my closet. It is unlikely they will see use again, in any of my own computers at least.