Inside a Quad G5

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: Ronald McDonald
Barefeats is not a biased site. Just take a look at a lot of the mac vs PC benchmarks. There are lots of tests that show the G5 getting it's ass handed to in some tests. A lot of the tests do show that one is better than the other though. The G5 is better at one thing, while the PC is better at the other.

I emailed Rob Art, barefeats site owner, a few months back regarding the Pentium D system he tested against the Dual processor G5. I got a reply within 30 minutes. Reason I emailed him is because he didn't have the full specs posted. He emailed me the specs, then corrected the web page by adding the full specs to it.

:thumbsup:

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Wow. Apple has done it AGAIN. That thing is going to be the fastest most innovative thing on earth seriously. This is a great example of top tier engineering. Good job once again Apple.

Eh, IBM made this. Pretty impressive that they have quad core already, though the G5 core isn't as complicated as Opterons or Pentium 4s (I think its core logic is roughly about the same number of transistors as a pentium m, though the G5 has a heck of a lot more computational power). Pretty impressive they even have a quad core considering Apple is dumping IBM.
Honestly, I don't think the number of cores matters, you can't say a quad core opteron would or wouldn't be a fair comparision to Apple...unless they cost the same price. What's the price difference between a dual-dual core opteron system and a quad core G5?

Oh, I'm surprised that programs even are 4 way multithreaded yet, with dual threading just barely taking off, what programs benefit from 3 or 4 threads? Hyperthreading on the dual core pentiums doesn't seem to help, so I can't imagine many.

 

[mosco]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Wow. Apple has done it AGAIN. That thing is going to be the fastest most innovative thing on earth seriously. This is a great example of top tier engineering. Good job once again Apple.

Eh, IBM made this. Pretty impressive that they have quad core already, though the G5 core isn't as complicated as Opterons or Pentium 4s (I think its core logic is roughly about the same number of transistors as a pentium m, though the G5 has a heck of a lot more computational power). Pretty impressive they even have a quad core considering Apple is dumping IBM.
Honestly, I don't think the number of cores matters, you can't say a quad core opteron would or wouldn't be a fair comparision to Apple...unless they cost the same price. What's the price difference between a dual-dual core opteron system and a quad core G5?

Its not a quad core G5, its a dual dual core G5.

 

[Dubb]

so far I've seen two 3d rendering tests comparing quad g5 to opteron quad.

in mental ray the g5 quad slightly beat the 2x270, and got beat slightly by 2x275

in maxwell render the g5 beat everything except the 2x275 and 2x280, however no 265 or 270 was included, but from the numbers I remember thinking a 2x265 would probably match the g5 evenly.

 

[taterworks]

I want one of those dual cooling pump things.

 

[firewolfsm]

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Regarding your dual-cord arguement, look at the scores. A Dual processor 2.7GHz Apple pretty much almost ties the Dual Core Athlon 2.2GHz, albeit losing a few points. Wheres the bias?

the bias is that AMD has a 2.4GHz DC that they arn't running against apples flagship

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Regarding your dual-cord arguement, look at the scores. A Dual processor 2.7GHz Apple pretty much almost ties the Dual Core Athlon 2.2GHz, albeit losing a few points. Wheres the bias?

the bias is that AMD has a 2.4GHz DC that they arn't running against apples flagship

That's not a bias. They're just numbers, and can be interpreted in any way you want. The website is run by one individual who does this to provide what ever data he can. He doesn't have an unlimitd supply of PC's.

 

[imported_fictionised]

The high res. for games could be that he used a large monitor ...? All I know is that we're making too many assumptions without fact here.

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: fictionised
The high res. for games could be that he used a large monitor ...? All I know is that we're making too many assumptions without fact here.

It doesn't matter what montior he used (most likely he was using an Apple 23" or 2405FPW), as you don't have to run in native resolution.

 

[bob4432]

what is so hard about getting a 2xDC opteron system? tyan makes boards for them, hell i think ribbon13 has a dual dc opteron setup.

 

[MetalStorm]

Originally posted by: Fox5
Eh, IBM made this. Pretty impressive that they have quad core already, though the G5 core isn't as complicated as Opterons or Pentium 4s (I think its core logic is roughly about the same number of transistors as a pentium m, though the G5 has a heck of a lot more computational power). Pretty impressive they even have a quad core considering Apple is dumping IBM.
Honestly, I don't think the number of cores matters, you can't say a quad core opteron would or wouldn't be a fair comparision to Apple...unless they cost the same price. What's the price difference between a dual-dual core opteron system and a quad core G5?

Oh, I'm surprised that programs even are 4 way multithreaded yet, with dual threading just barely taking off, what programs benefit from 3 or 4 threads? Hyperthreading on the dual core pentiums doesn't seem to help, so I can't imagine many.

The G5 is dual core, not quad core.
When you say "computational power" if you're talking IPC, you're wrong again, the Pentium M is way above the G5 and K8. I've seen a 2.2GHz P-M matching an FX55 in games! While 2.2Ghz is as fast as they go, they are certainly not to be taken lightly.

Originally posted by: Ronald McDonald
Barefeats is not a biased site. Just take a look at a lot of the mac vs PC benchmarks. There are lots of tests that show the G5 getting it's ass handed to in some tests. A lot of the tests do show that one is better than the other though. The G5 is better at one thing, while the PC is better at the other.

I emailed Rob Art, barefeats site owner, a few months back regarding the Pentium D system he tested against the Dual processor G5. I got a reply within 30 minutes. Reason I emailed him is because he didn't have the full specs posted. He emailed me the specs, then corrected the web page by adding the full specs to it.

Originally posted by: fictionised
The high res. for games could be that he used a large monitor ...? All I know is that we're making too many assumptions without fact here.

Because he replied to you doesn't mean that he's got good testing methodology. As I've said before, his games tests are virtually meaningless due to the resolution he tested. If a guy who can apparently make unbiased benchmarks fluff something as SIMPLE as that up so easily, I will not trust his other benchmarks especially as even less information is provided.

 

[Fox5]

The G5 is dual core, not quad core.
When you say "computational power" if you're talking IPC, you're wrong again, the Pentium M is way above the G5 and K8. I've seen a 2.2GHz P-M matching an FX55 in games! While 2.2Ghz is as fast as they go, they are certainly not to be taken lightly.

I'm not talking about IPC, I'm talking about FLOPS and MIPS. Have that P-M run a photo or movie editing program, or a 3d rendering program, and see how well it performs.

For that matter, don't compare an overclocked P-M to a stock K8.
Based on Anandtech's review of Turion versus P-M notebooks, P-M and K8 seem to be matched in IPC in games, with K8 winning in most other things. Due to video cards handling the most intensive calculations in games the cpu isn't doing much other than handling branches and shuffling data around.
Now then, the G5 seems to be pretty horrible at games, probably due to its poor memory performance (it has latency as high as old VIA Athlon XP systems) and maybe its branch prediction / long pipeline just can't compare to the P-M and K8?

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: MetalStorm

Originally posted by: Fox5
Eh, IBM made this. Pretty impressive that they have quad core already, though the G5 core isn't as complicated as Opterons or Pentium 4s (I think its core logic is roughly about the same number of transistors as a pentium m, though the G5 has a heck of a lot more computational power). Pretty impressive they even have a quad core considering Apple is dumping IBM.
Honestly, I don't think the number of cores matters, you can't say a quad core opteron would or wouldn't be a fair comparision to Apple...unless they cost the same price. What's the price difference between a dual-dual core opteron system and a quad core G5?

Oh, I'm surprised that programs even are 4 way multithreaded yet, with dual threading just barely taking off, what programs benefit from 3 or 4 threads? Hyperthreading on the dual core pentiums doesn't seem to help, so I can't imagine many.

The G5 is dual core, not quad core.
When you say "computational power" if you're talking IPC, you're wrong again, the Pentium M is way above the G5 and K8. I've seen a 2.2GHz P-M matching an FX55 in games! While 2.2Ghz is as fast as they go, they are certainly not to be taken lightly.

Originally posted by: Ronald McDonald
Barefeats is not a biased site. Just take a look at a lot of the mac vs PC benchmarks. There are lots of tests that show the G5 getting it's ass handed to in some tests. A lot of the tests do show that one is better than the other though. The G5 is better at one thing, while the PC is better at the other.

I emailed Rob Art, barefeats site owner, a few months back regarding the Pentium D system he tested against the Dual processor G5. I got a reply within 30 minutes. Reason I emailed him is because he didn't have the full specs posted. He emailed me the specs, then corrected the web page by adding the full specs to it.

Originally posted by: fictionised
The high res. for games could be that he used a large monitor ...? All I know is that we're making too many assumptions without fact here.

Because he replied to you doesn't mean that he's got good testing methodology. As I've said before, his games tests are virtually meaningless due to the resolution he tested. If a guy who can apparently make unbiased benchmarks fluff something as SIMPLE as that up so easily, I will not trust his other benchmarks especially as even less information is provided.

Jeez you PC fanboys are nuts. Everytime you see a Mac winning in a bloody benchmark, its bullsh!t. I never mentioned testing methodology. Him replying to my email is totally irrelevant to this testing methodology. People were curious as to what the specs of the Pentium D system was. I hit him up an email so he can post them on the web page.