- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
Athlon 64 vs. Apple G5 Systems -- Athlon64 cleans house
- Thread starter NFS4
- Start date
Ouch, that's bad for Apple but good publicity for AMD. I'm glad they had same speeds (2GHz G5 vs. 2GHz A64 and so on) as that makes it more fair.
Go AMD!
-Por
Go AMD!
-Por
I guess we will wait for Apple's rendition of these test!!!!
Maybe they will disable the onboard memory controller and use the mobos memory slots to "even the comparison" or "apples to apples" (pun!!!)....
I would have liked to see a few more test but it gets the point across!!! AMD rocks and dual channel is the king with the FX!!! Who would want the non-fx model!!! (just kiddin' NFS4)
Also point out the p4 3.2ghz also held its own against the (2) 2ghz G5's....only losing to Apples mainstay of photoshop...
Maybe they will disable the onboard memory controller and use the mobos memory slots to "even the comparison" or "apples to apples" (pun!!!)....I would have liked to see a few more test but it gets the point across!!! AMD rocks and dual channel is the king with the FX!!! Who would want the non-fx model!!! (just kiddin' NFS4)
Also point out the p4 3.2ghz also held its own against the (2) 2ghz G5's....only losing to Apples mainstay of photoshop...
LOL!!!!! You know Apple is for the dummies cause they get all the stars to promote their product and talk about how "easy" it is to use!!!
Apple is about the most deceptful advertising I have seen...
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
I didn't know that MS's windows 64 was so lacking. Not available in retail? May lack some XP features? Doesn't run 16bit or dos programs? Lame! (If people can write playstation emulators for the PC then MS should be able to make a DOS and Windows 3.1 emulator for the PC!)
Dude, its still in development. (and they probably were testing with the 64-bit version of Windows 2003 Server)
Right now MS is aiming it at the same crowd that would be buying Opteron Servers for business use.
Those people won't care about running 16-bit or DOS programs, because those programs won't be used
to make them any money.
If (and when) they see the high demand for AMD64 machines for desktop use, then they will have
more incentive in developing a 64-bit version of XP (which is most likely already in the works).
Adul
Elite Member
Microsoft is developing a version for the desktop. Where were you when all the press releases from AMD and MS was spouted out?
MS is developing windows 2003 64bit editon and windows XP 64 bit edition
What's sad is that there are very few Athlon64 systems from OEMs, now. Unless they're workstation/server.. but then the opterton rules that territory now.
What are you're impressions, NSF4, of the Athlon64 VS P4C? Is there a big benefit in 32 bit?
What are you're impressions, NSF4, of the Athlon64 VS P4C? Is there a big benefit in 32 bit?
Oh. By the way. Here's a question I really wanna hear the answer to.
How does the A64 feel in terms of multitasking? Same as P4? Slower?
It seems, from paper, that the P4C would clean house when the A64 and the P4C were given 2 tasks to do.
How does the A64 feel in terms of multitasking? Same as P4? Slower?
It seems, from paper, that the P4C would clean house when the A64 and the P4C were given 2 tasks to do.
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,049
- 1,681
- 126
My post from the other thread:
Read it and weep.
The above bench is from Ars Technica, and puts equal weight to all the tests. The G5 wins by fairly good margin, but nowhere near as good as the Apple benchmark.
The Apple benchmark uses a different suite of tests, but from what I've read, it uses tests that pros actually use on a day to day basis. These include actions such as unsharp mask, RGB-CMYK, and despeckle. It turns out that those things are what the G5 excels at, while on the other hand x86 does very well at things like lens flare and pointillize. Lens flare is used very infrequently, and pointillize is almost never used. (I have confirmed this with my Photoshop friends.)
What we don't know is how the PC World test was really done and weighted. If it included a lot of radial blur and pointillize, etc., then it's essentially a meaningless test.
BTW, it should be noted that just about nobody uses Premiere these days on the Mac. The software of choice is Final Cut Pro, and I'm told it's much faster. And Word? Well, it looks nice on OS X, but it's definitely slower. Not that it really matters though in OS X on a G5. It's still fast. On a slow Mac the slowness of Word would be pretty be noticeable though. As for the Quake scores, correct me if I'm wrong, but both the Mac and PC scores could be better. I know for a fact that at that resolution, the dual G5 gets something 380 fps. But then again, the Opteron systems should probably get over 400 fps.
Too bad somebody with a real clue isn't doing the tests. Maybe somebody like the guys at Ars Technica, because they know Linux, Mac, and Windows stuff.
Anyways, I'm not surprised at all that an Opteron 246 is faster than a G5 2.0. I've been saying all along that a G5 2.0 is probably more in the speed range of an Opteron 244.
Other tests:
After Effects: The G5 cleans house usually, although x86 wins sometimes too.
Cinema4D: The Xeon with HT cleans house. (I haven't seen Opteron tests yet)
UT2003: The Athlon 64 cleans house.
ARC2D: The G5 cleans house (although I haven't seen the fastest Opterons yet running it), if you use IBM's compilers (vs. Intel's, etc).
BLAST: The G5 cleans house.
RenderMan: The 3 GHz dual Xeon is about as fast as the dual G5.
Etc.
Read it and weep.
The above bench is from Ars Technica, and puts equal weight to all the tests. The G5 wins by fairly good margin, but nowhere near as good as the Apple benchmark.
The Apple benchmark uses a different suite of tests, but from what I've read, it uses tests that pros actually use on a day to day basis. These include actions such as unsharp mask, RGB-CMYK, and despeckle. It turns out that those things are what the G5 excels at, while on the other hand x86 does very well at things like lens flare and pointillize. Lens flare is used very infrequently, and pointillize is almost never used. (I have confirmed this with my Photoshop friends.)
What we don't know is how the PC World test was really done and weighted. If it included a lot of radial blur and pointillize, etc., then it's essentially a meaningless test.
BTW, it should be noted that just about nobody uses Premiere these days on the Mac. The software of choice is Final Cut Pro, and I'm told it's much faster. And Word? Well, it looks nice on OS X, but it's definitely slower. Not that it really matters though in OS X on a G5. It's still fast. On a slow Mac the slowness of Word would be pretty be noticeable though. As for the Quake scores, correct me if I'm wrong, but both the Mac and PC scores could be better. I know for a fact that at that resolution, the dual G5 gets something 380 fps. But then again, the Opteron systems should probably get over 400 fps.
Too bad somebody with a real clue isn't doing the tests. Maybe somebody like the guys at Ars Technica, because they know Linux, Mac, and Windows stuff.
Anyways, I'm not surprised at all that an Opteron 246 is faster than a G5 2.0. I've been saying all along that a G5 2.0 is probably more in the speed range of an Opteron 244.
Other tests:
After Effects: The G5 cleans house usually, although x86 wins sometimes too.
Cinema4D: The Xeon with HT cleans house. (I haven't seen Opteron tests yet)
UT2003: The Athlon 64 cleans house.
ARC2D: The G5 cleans house (although I haven't seen the fastest Opterons yet running it), if you use IBM's compilers (vs. Intel's, etc).
BLAST: The G5 cleans house.
RenderMan: The 3 GHz dual Xeon is about as fast as the dual G5.
Etc.
flexy
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2001
- 8,464
- 155
- 106
as much as i like the idea my next system might be a A64 and 64bit XP
- HONESTLY
---> what "demand" should there be for 64bit OS for *desktop* use ??????
What are (we) 32 bit desktop users/home enthusiasts etc. *lacking* and what do we *need* what only a 64Bit OS gives us.
Answer: NOTHING
I have problems seeing AMD sellling A64 for the home/desktop market, especially if the prices are that steep....i also think that XP64 is not mainly targeted at the home/desktop user,
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,049
- 1,681
- 126
Hey, buy us one, and we'll bench it.Originally posted by: NFS4
LMAO, where's the dual Opteron benches on that graph?
Ooops...
Actually I expect the dual Opteron to do very well, but not quite as well in the first 12 tests (which are the important ones). But like I've always said, the Opteron is a great chip.Who says it's for you? It's for the scientists, etc. who want a desktop/workstation that can do hardcore numbercrunching with 4+ GB databases in Linux or Unix or whatever. Nobody is forcing you to buy a dual 246 Opteron workstation with PCI-X and 8 GB RAM. The problem with Linux though is that you can't run standard desktop apps with it.
The reason the scientists like the dual G5 is because you can run Unix apps alongside of Office and Photoshop or whatever. Too bad Mac OS X isn't fully 64-bit either. It's much more 64-bit than Windows XP, but it's far from being true 64-bit.
Right now you don't need it, but I betcha in 3 years, 64-bit on the end user desktop will be an important feature. Both Windows and Mac OS X will be fully 64-bit by then.
Originally posted by: Eug
Hey, buy us one, and we'll bench it.Originally posted by: NFS4
LMAO, where's the dual Opteron benches on that graph?
Ooops...
Who says it's for you? It's for the scientists, etc. who want a desktop/workstation that can do hardcore numbercrunching with 4+ GB databases in Linux or Unix or whatever. Nobody is forcing you to buy a dual 246 Opteron workstation with PCI-X and 8 GB RAM. The problem with Linux though is that you can't run standard desktop apps with it.
The reason the scientists like the dual G5 is because you can run Unix apps alongside of Office and Photoshop or whatever. Too bad Mac OS X isn't fully 64-bit either. It's much more 64-bit than Windows XP, but it's far from being true 64-bit.
Right now you don't need it, but I betcha in 3 years, 64-bit on the end user desktop will be an important feature. Both Windows and Mac OS X will be fully 64-bit by then.
Yes in 3 years there will be more of a market for consumer 64bit. Its what Intels been saying all along which is why they have held off so far, they want others to suffer the teething pain.
That said, like you said professionals have a need for 64bit. There are professional apps just waiting for Windows XP 64 to be released. Maya, Max, XSI, etc all have 64bit versions in development. Im postive adobe has there whole product line in development for 64bit platforms, as well as all the other pro applications developers.
High end audio, video, cad, dcc, etc have a use for 64bit platforms.
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,049
- 1,681
- 126
So, Maxon just came out with an update for the G5. It boosts the dual G5 speed by a little over 25%. So it seems a little optimization can go a long way.
The dual Xeon 3 GHz with HT still cleans house though, but at least now the dual G5 scores are respectable.
Also, they will reoptimize in early 2004:
CINEBENCH 2003 G5 is a technology study. MAXON has optimized crucial parts of the render engine for the G5 with the support of Apple, which now reaches speed increases of approximately 20%. Further improvements are expected once an optimized compilers with G5-support is are available, which shall produce efficient and reliable G5 code.
We expect new compilers and tools to be released during the first quarter of 2004, allowing us to deliver production quality G5-optimization for CINEMA 4D and BodyPaint 3D.
That should prove interesting. The 2.4-2.5 GHz G5s should be out by then too.
I have a boring day job then I go home & do graphics stuff. I used to do web design, now I'm jumping into 3d & texture work. I've used Photoshop for many years and pointillize/lens flare are not used often at all.
At home I have a stylish Mac. At work I have a stylish Dell.
OSX has really worked wonders for me. I like the serious stability of the UNIX base, and the option to hack the machine if it needs it, or to just be oblivious and let the friendly Mac interface take care of things.
I think the benchmarks themselves need to be appraised.
At home I have a stylish Mac. At work I have a stylish Dell.
OSX has really worked wonders for me. I like the serious stability of the UNIX base, and the option to hack the machine if it needs it, or to just be oblivious and let the friendly Mac interface take care of things.
I think the benchmarks themselves need to be appraised.
they're using ms word to benchmark? have these people lost their minds? and adobe premiere? no one uses premiere on the mac. everyone else uses final cut pro.
What do you need 64bit programs for?
Plain simple - to be optimized specificly for AMD. Most programs are not optimized at all (or optimized for P4 where Intel poured money, like Lightwave, 3DStudio and most benchmarks) and despite of that A64 is the best overall performer. Expect just from recompilation to 64bit (since only AMD has 64bit x86-64 for now) those programs to run 10-20% faster just because they are compiled for this specific architechture (not because being 64bit).
I saw with my eyes on the A64 launch event 64bit version of DivX running 30-40% faster than 32bit version on the same machine. Also another instant feature you gain aside from the double amount of registers in 64 bit mode is that you can have more than 2GB per process (the only way to get up to 3 GB now is with Windows Advanced Server) - you can use full 4GB adress space in 32bit programs. This means that for some of us power users that would like to do some SQL/CAD/Video Editing we can have more memory per process - I am using 1.5GB RAM now (mostly for DB applications development) and with the prices of the RAM falling I can double that amount next year and with A64 I can use it all for heavy application. Also for some stuff (crypto) being able to deal with 64bit int arithmetic means more than 100% speed increase (in order to perform a 64bit operation with 32bit registers you need atleast 3 instructions versus 1 for machine with 64bit registers). And while SSL is rarely used from normal users, for the web server SSL crypto performance is very important. So recompiling for AMD64 bit has benefits aside from the 64 bitness of the programs.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter