Dual Core Pentium versus Dual CPU G5 Powermac

[imported_Lucifer]

Link

Interesting.

 

[Mik3y]

u like? i like.

 

[d2arcturus]

I rather have a Mac than an Intel box. This reinforces that further. I'll stick with AMD though.

 

[thirdlegstump]

Not surprising.

 

[kitkat22]

I have a tough time accepting the benchmarks as is. First off, they compared two high end apple processors to "mainstream" Intel. The Intel processor also lacks hyperthreading, which would set it several notches back on the comparison. In my mind this is another example of the typical apples and oranges comparisons Apple likes to do to prove their processors are at least 10 times faster than x86.

 

[thirdlegstump]

Originally posted by: cscpianoman
I have a tough time accepting the benchmarks as is. First off, they compared two high end apple processors to "mainstream" Intel. The Intel processor also lacks hyperthreading, which would set it several notches back on the comparison. In my mind this is another example of the typical apples and oranges comparisons Apple likes to do to prove their processors are at least 10 times faster than x86.

First, it's not Apple's benchmarks. Second, they compared it with dual core P4's as well as standard P4's which most likely have HT enabled (and were DESTROYED). Apple's processors are not 10x faster but they are indeed significantly faster as evident here.

 

[Maximilian]

Well they wont be "apples cpus" much longer since they will be using Intel next year.

 

[chcarnage]

The Powermacs likely are the last models to recieve Intel CPUs, i think rather of two years from now.

 

[Hacp]

Sure, there comparing Macs which cost 3k to Intel Processors that cost 1k... Not EXACTLY fair IMO...

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Sure, there comparing Macs which cost 3k to Intel Processors that cost 1k... Not EXACTLY fair IMO...

Barefeats is a low budget website... You are free to lend or donate them your high end equipment, though

 

[Baked]

Heh, they should try running WoW w/ the dual Mac. My old Barton 2.2GHz runs WoW much smoother than a G5 Dual 2.0GHz system. 1GB of PC3200 on each system. Ti4200 on the AMD, 9600 on the Mac.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Bump.

 

[batmanuel]

Yeah, but how does a G5 stack up against a X2 4800+? That will more realistically depict how a Yonah-power Mac will compare to the G5s. If the Yonah-powered dual core Pentium-Ms are the powerhouses that we think they'll be you might see Powerbooks out benching dual G5 towers until the Conroe chips hit the street late 2006.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: batmanuel
Yeah, but how does a G5 stack up against a X2 4800+? That will more realistically depict how a Yonah-power Mac will compare to the G5s. If the Yonah-powered dual core Pentium-Ms are the powerhouses that we think they'll be you might see Powerbooks out benching dual G5 towers until the Conroe chips hit the street late 2006.

Quoted from barefeats:

5. I was hoping to include a Dual Core AMD system in this article, but XiComputer, who provided the AMD test units in our previous article, turned me down this time. But hope is not lost. Whisper PC has informed me they will have a dual core AMD for me to test soon with dual GeForce 7800s. Oh yeah.

 

[kitkat22]

Originally posted by: deathkoba

First, it's not Apple's benchmarks. Second, they compared it with dual core P4's as well as standard P4's which most likely have HT enabled (and were DESTROYED). Apple's processors are not 10x faster but they are indeed significantly faster as evident here.

After looking at the numbers again, it isn't the final numbers that are flawed, it is the test behind the numbers. The processors are not similar enough. If the tester is attempting to compare efficiency at a certain clock rate than the Apple by far takes the cake. However, everyone should know mhz does not matter. They compared G5 dual-cores against Intel's Single and Dual-core processors. This immediately tosses out the single core comparison which now should only be used as a reference instead. In addition to this where is the single core Apple processor? It would be nice to see how much performance improvement there is compared to the Apple's duallie. There is no surprise that the single core gets a walloping in the benchmarks. Thus the real test should be a comparison between both dual-cores. There is a problem, however, because the processors are very dissimilar other than clock-speed. The apple dual core is on the high end and extremely expensive. The intel processor lacks in features that are included in intel's high end processors. It would be expected that the intel processor would be outperformed by apple's chip. The results are just stating the obvious that we already know. We already know that Apple's processors are more efficient clock-per-clock.

 

[Oyeve]

Originally posted by: cscpianoman

Originally posted by: deathkoba

First, it's not Apple's benchmarks. Second, they compared it with dual core P4's as well as standard P4's which most likely have HT enabled (and were DESTROYED). Apple's processors are not 10x faster but they are indeed significantly faster as evident here.

After looking at the numbers again, it isn't the final numbers that are flawed, it is the test behind the numbers. The processors are not similar enough. If the tester is attempting to compare efficiency at a certain clock rate than the Apple by far takes the cake. However, everyone should know mhz does not matter. They compared G5 dual-cores against Intel's Single and Dual-core processors. This immediately tosses out the single core comparison which now should only be used as a reference instead. In addition to this where is the single core Apple processor? It would be nice to see how much performance improvement there is compared to the Apple's duallie. There is no surprise that the single core gets a walloping in the benchmarks. Thus the real test should be a comparison between both dual-cores. There is a problem, however, because the processors are very dissimilar other than clock-speed. The apple dual core is on the high end and extremely expensive. The intel processor lacks in features that are included in intel's high end processors. It would be expected that the intel processor would be outperformed by apple's chip. The results are just stating the obvious that we already know. We already know that Apple's processors are more efficient clock-per-clock.

Too true. If the Intel chip had a similar core as the G5 and a carbourator sized HS then maybe the Intel would have performed better. With the 10 pound HS of the G5 and nine fans I bet we could crank that Intel to blow away the mac.

 

[kitkat22]

I would also like to point out that the complete configurations were not included. How are we to know whether they had similar specs or not? Was the intel processor limited by a 5400rpm HD or 256MB of RAM? Or maybe it was a limited video card? The information was not given. I don't trust the results. It is also interesting that the website is clearly Apple related. Apple ads surround the article which further leads to some bias. Sorry, I don't buy into the test.

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: deathkoba

Originally posted by: cscpianoman
I have a tough time accepting the benchmarks as is. First off, they compared two high end apple processors to "mainstream" Intel. The Intel processor also lacks hyperthreading, which would set it several notches back on the comparison. In my mind this is another example of the typical apples and oranges comparisons Apple likes to do to prove their processors are at least 10 times faster than x86.

First, it's not Apple's benchmarks. Second, they compared it with dual core P4's as well as standard P4's which most likely have HT enabled (and were DESTROYED). Apple's processors are not 10x faster but they are indeed significantly faster as evident here.

I bet the 3.8ghz P4 w/ HT would probably beat out the dual 2.7g5. Comparing cost is important as well. Athlon X2s will walk all over both setups though as far as content creation goes, as long as it's not encoding.

Apple CPUs are not 'faster', at least compared to the equivalently priced competition. The benefit with Apple is that you get to run Apple's apps; people haven't been buying a Mac for speed with photoshop in years, it's the UI and general usability of the OS that entices them.

 

[Oyeve]

Only reason I still use a mac is for final-cut pro HD. If it wasnt for that app I would dump the mac.

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: Oyeve
Only reason I still use a mac is for final-cut pro HD. If it wasnt for that app I would dump the mac.

Yep, their software is amazing. I'll buy a powermac in the (far) future in order to use Logic Pro.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: cscpianoman
I have a tough time accepting the benchmarks as is. First off, they compared two high end apple processors to "mainstream" Intel. The Intel processor also lacks hyperthreading, which would set it several notches back on the comparison. In my mind this is another example of the typical apples and oranges comparisons Apple likes to do to prove their processors are at least 10 times faster than x86.

Yeah, those G5 processors are the fastest available and have heat issues as bad as any prescott, ideally they should be going up against 3.8ghz p4s.....except I don't think there are xeons or dual cores at that speed.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: Soviet
Well they wont be "apples cpus" much longer since they will be using Intel next year.

it was never "apple's cpu's". they are powerpc processors from ibm.

 

[Xephian]

I'd like to see it against AMD processors.

 

[Oyeve]

We've done non-skewed testing at work pitting a Dual 2.0 ghz G5 against a single core 3.2 prescott. Mac running OSX 10.3 and the PC running WinXP SP2. both comps had 2 gig of ram. The PC had a 9800 pro and the mac had a 9600. The PC spanked the mac in photoshop, MS office suite.....basically everything non computer specific and the PC always won hands down. I dont know about these test sites, but in real life I have always found PCs faster (and a heluva lot cheaper) than macs. I use a dual G5 and when I am crunching, those 9 fans drive me apesh!t.

 

[w00t]

Originally posted by: d2arcturus
I rather have a Mac than an Intel box. This reinforces that further. I'll stick with AMD though.

I'd rather have my pc run x86 tiger without illegal version. I heard some crazy stuff on TWIT's podcast its just a rumor but some people belive that steve wanted people to h4x his os than tell the public that so many people want it and are downloading it illegally we might as well start producing it. but right now you could run illegal version and all the apps if you chip supports sse3 so pretty much pentuim 4 or later.

edit: I think that pc has better hardware but os goes to mac.