Photoshop benches: Dual G5 2.0 vs. Dual Xeon 3.06 and others: G5 wins.

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Well for the 1% of people who actually use photoshop, get a Mac. As for the other 99% of the world, the speed of applying filters for a program that costs as much as a computer doesn't exactly impress us.

Well, that's true, but this *is* a thread about Photoshop speed. That's like saying "Who cares, most people don't have a tractor" in a thread about which tractor is better.

 

[Dug]

Well for the 1% of people who actually use photoshop, get a Mac. As for the other 99% of the world, the speed of applying filters for a program that costs as much as a computer doesn't exactly impress us.

Photoshop is a lot bigger than you could possibly imagine. You obviously have no idea about the graphics industry or how many people use it.

 

[mooojojojo]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

They should only use games to benchmark computers because computers are just toys and no one ever uses them as a source of income.

I mean, professional photographers and people in video/film post production don't use things like Photoshop, After Effects, or any of that useless non-linear editing software. They just sit around all day fragging each other in the latest shooter while magic pixies produce the content you see every day in print, on TV, or in the theaters.

Well for the 1% of people who actually use photoshop, get a Mac. As for the other 99% of the world, the speed of applying filters for a program that costs as much as a computer doesn't exactly impress us.

0roo0roo, nobody said the G5 was slow. Who's the fastest is what people are asking. Since I don't own a mac, I really don't even care who is the fastest.

Actually people often see Photoshop mentioned as the only application that is best on a Mac. You should check the Pro section on Apple's site. Shake, Maya, Final Cut Pro, and I'm sure many more are approved by professionals as being best experienced/implemented on or exclusive to the Mac and OSX.

It's sad when you see PC people try to dismiss the Macs as cheesegraters, or plasticky cases, or computers with just one mouse button, or not suitable for games, or too expensive (for the laptops it's just not true) or whatever. But there is never a real argument.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Dug

Well for the 1% of people who actually use photoshop, get a Mac. As for the other 99% of the world, the speed of applying filters for a program that costs as much as a computer doesn't exactly impress us.

Photoshop is a lot bigger than you could possibly imagine. You obviously have no idea about the graphics industry or how many people use it.

So of alllllll of the computers in the world, you think that many have photoshop?

 

[Dug]

So of alllllll of the computers in the world, you think that many have photoshop?

Personal computers? Yep.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Dug

So of alllllll of the computers in the world, you think that many have photoshop?

Personal computers? Yep.

There is no way that many computers have Photoshop. Do you have any proof of this at all?

 

[ShawnD1]

I should have specified before. Before, I said that not many people had photoshop...... which is partialy true. Photoshop itself is very common, but LEGAL copies are very rare. When a program costs $600, people just don't buy it.

 

[draelon]

I can't believe no one mentioned the fact that the Dual G5 is being benchmarked vs a Dual Overclocked P4. I'd like to see the benchmarks from a non-overclocked system, or an overclocked 3.06 chip running at 3.2 or higher.

As far as Photoshop as a benchmark is concerned, it's a pretty good choice. Not many other programs are capable of pushing a system's resources like photoshop can. It relies on ram, video processing, disk access and intensive cpu processing. Why bother benchmarking a program like Word, which is so limp that a p2 is capable of running it flawlessly regardless of how hard it is pushed.

Games are great and we all love to play them and brag about how many frames our system puts out, but when you consider that humans for the most part are incapable of distinguishing framerates over ~70fps, then who cares how many extra frames you are getting? I would rather see real world applications like Photoshop, Maya, AutoCad and the like being used to test a machine's processing power.

A hell of a lot of people use Photoshop in the work place, and a not insignificant amount use Photoshop at home, so don't bust on it just because you aren't running it. Personally, Photoshop has been installed on every one of my computers for the last 10 yearrs.

 

[OmegaRedd]

Originally posted by: draelon
I can't believe no one mentioned the fact that the Dual G5 is being benchmarked vs a Dual Overclocked P4. I'd like to see the benchmarks from a non-overclocked system, or an overclocked 3.06 chip running at 3.2 or higher.

As far as Photoshop as a benchmark is concerned, it's a pretty good choice. Not many other programs are capable of pushing a system's resources like photoshop can. It relies on ram, video processing, disk access and intensive cpu processing. Why bother benchmarking a program like Word, which is so limp that a p2 is capable of running it flawlessly regardless of how hard it is pushed.

Games are great and we all love to play them and brag about how many frames our system puts out, but when you consider that humans for the most part are incapable of distinguishing framerates over ~70fps, then who cares how many extra frames you are getting? I would rather see real world applications like Photoshop, Maya, AutoCad and the like being used to test a machine's processing power.

A hell of a lot of people use Photoshop in the work place, and a not insignificant amount use Photoshop at home, so don't bust on it just because you aren't running it. Personally, Photoshop has been installed on every one of my computers for the last 10 yearrs.

You must be one of the few home users that has alot of time on their hands to use photoshop,but it's funny how Mad mac's always use apps that maybe 2% of end users use. Then post that as that as g5 crushes pc. When like 99% of the software that real endusers care about runs faster on pc.

 

[mooojojojo]

Originally posted by: OmegaRedd

Originally posted by: draelon
I can't believe no one mentioned the fact that the Dual G5 is being benchmarked vs a Dual Overclocked P4. I'd like to see the benchmarks from a non-overclocked system, or an overclocked 3.06 chip running at 3.2 or higher.

As far as Photoshop as a benchmark is concerned, it's a pretty good choice. Not many other programs are capable of pushing a system's resources like photoshop can. It relies on ram, video processing, disk access and intensive cpu processing. Why bother benchmarking a program like Word, which is so limp that a p2 is capable of running it flawlessly regardless of how hard it is pushed.

Games are great and we all love to play them and brag about how many frames our system puts out, but when you consider that humans for the most part are incapable of distinguishing framerates over ~70fps, then who cares how many extra frames you are getting? I would rather see real world applications like Photoshop, Maya, AutoCad and the like being used to test a machine's processing power.

A hell of a lot of people use Photoshop in the work place, and a not insignificant amount use Photoshop at home, so don't bust on it just because you aren't running it. Personally, Photoshop has been installed on every one of my computers for the last 10 yearrs.

You must be one of the few home users that has alot of time on their hands to use photoshop,but it's funny how Mad mac's always use apps that maybe 2% of end users use. Then post that as that as g5 crushes pc. When like 99% of the software that real endusers care about runs faster on pc.

Which software?

 

[Eug]

I should have specified before. Before, I said that not many people had photoshop...... which is partialy true. Photoshop itself is very common, but LEGAL copies are very rare. When a program costs $600, people just don't buy it.

Yeah, I guess that's why Photoshop is Adobe's flagship program, because it makes them no money. I guess nobody pays for Office either. And don't forget that Photoshop Elements is just a stripped down version of Photoshop, and it's ubiquitous.

I can't believe no one mentioned the fact that the Dual G5 is being benchmarked vs a Dual Overclocked P4. I'd like to see the benchmarks from a non-overclocked system, or an overclocked 3.06 chip running at 3.2 or higher.

There is no such thing as a dual P4.

It was an overclocked dual Xeon, which scored 488 at 3.06 GHz. A non-overclocked dual Xeon 3.06 (with HT on, but no L3), has now been benched. It scores 490.

A P4 3.2 with HT scores pretty well at 427, but both the dual G5 and the dual Xeon blow it away in this particular bench (for obvious reasons). See here.

 

[draelon]

pffft. Does anyone even know the difference between the P4 and Xeon? =P

 

[dmw16]

I may someday be impressed by Mac if someone can show me them being faster at anything other than photoshop...

 

[mooojojojo]

Originally posted by: dmw16
I may someday be impressed by Mac if someone can show me them being faster at anything other than photoshop...

So it's all about speed?

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: dmw16
I may someday be impressed by Mac if someone can show me them being faster at anything other than photoshop...

I already linked more benches in this thread.

However, I don't buy computers for raw speed only.

Other things like build quality, OS preferences, software preferences, etc. also count of course.

 

[Regs]

I'm definitely going to go buy this POS now. Where do I sign?!!?!?!


Btw, I'm not biased either.

 

[clevere1]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Dug

So of alllllll of the computers in the world, you think that many have photoshop?

Personal computers? Yep.

There is no way that many computers have Photoshop. Do you have any proof of this at all?

Actually, there is. How many applications do you know have their own meeting a few times a year, as big as Photoshop World? www.photoshopworld.com

Also, Photoshop has been for many years now, the leader is Graphics enhancement software. This was taken from cnet

Photoshop is the major application for much of Apple's core audience of graphics professionals, and the release of the new version is expected to sway many who have held off on upgrading to the new operating system.

 

[RussianSensation]

after looking on Apple's website at benchmarks of their dual 2.0ghz i began to question the validity of those benchmarks as a whole.
here is the website:
http://a1472.g.akamai.net/7/1472/51...om/powermac/pdf/PowerMacG5_Perf_WP_072903.pdf

For instance say for gaming they took demo 1.32 of Quake 3 and ran it on Radeon 9800Pro

saying P4 gets 275 fps in 1024x768 resolution

when recent comparison that includes Athlon 64 shows that P4 3.0 ghz with Radeon 9700Pro gets a suprising 399fps????

http://translate.google.com/transla...86-secret.com/popups/articleswindow.php?id=91

hmmm...

then i realized that it never mentions whether the p4 3.0ghz is the 3.06ghz 533mhz or 3.0 800mhz with HT?

then i read all comments on how Apple G5 is so good at mathematical calculations and DNA sequence matching highlighting its raw processing and computational power of the GPU...well then how come my p4 3.0ghz system does 1 result of Seti in 1h and 40 min with HT enabled or 3:20min for both or 3:26 min for 1 without HyperThreading enabled and my friend's just a week old 1.8 G5 takes from 4.5 - 5hours!!!

lets get on to another argument...FireWire800...since most devices either support firewire 1394 (400) or usb2.0 the transfer rate will be limited by the slowest component. since i dont know many digital cameras or devices tha tsupport firewire 800 its speed increase is irrelevant just like AGP 8x over AGP4x is a total marketing gimmick

moving on..it then compares parallel ATA hard drive to a serial ATA hard drive.. first of all serial ata hard drive gains ALMOST nothing if minute% increase if any over 133mb/s transfer rate of ATA-133 format. hard drives never attain the advertised 150mb/s of SATA anyways.....and nowhere in the article does it mention that one could set up Raid 0 on a PC or even 2 WD Raptors in Raid....besides......SATA has been available on the PC long time ago anyways...

next thing you know Apple's DDR-3200 Ram is 30% faster than DDR-3200 Ram on teh PC...In fact apple has only emulated and not innovated

Athlon 64 is truly the first 64-bit processor, Apple uses same power supplies, same ram, same graphics cards as teh PC does always proclaiming how its teh first one to have USB2.0, Firewire, etc. Yes those little features, which p4 already had years ago who cares about Firewire 800 or Airport Extreme those are minor innovations..but where did all this apple peformance go and features for almost 2-3x the cost of a p4?\

The fact that you cannot assemble an apple by yourself, that you have to pay for their operating system, and the fact that its impossible to upgrade the cpu or the motherboard, the fact that 99% of most popular games never make it to the pc, and that no one ever knows how to use an apple at any computer store suggesting just how easily navigatable their operating system is....NOT just makes me wonder just why do people keep buying them? The answer is people buy Apples to fit a specific niche such as video editing, photoshop, design, and so on...but for everyday use its overkill for complexity, price difference, and perfomance of every day applications like word processor, internet, etc. which are generally satisfied by any cpu anyways

so if you play games, arent loaded with money, and dont do media involved applications then you should never buy an apple

otherwise purchasing an apple could make sense and its good that everyone has a choice

 

[shabby]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: dmw16
I may someday be impressed by Mac if someone can show me them being faster at anything other than photoshop...

I already linked more benches in this thread.

However, I don't buy computers for raw speed only.

Other things like build quality, OS preferences, software preferences, etc. also count of course.

How about if you post some benchmarks comparing the g5 vs p4 running some games, you know like UT, Q3, Splinter Cell, Flight Sim 2004, Serious Sam 2, RTCW and others.

 

[Eug]

No need to post game benchmarks. The G5 is almost guaranteed to lose at most games. No question, if you're a hardcore gamer, you don't buy a Mac. In fact, most Mac users that heavily game, buy a PC specifically for that purpose. More games out and usually runs faster.

Not sure why you mention Q3 though. Q3 even on older Macs and PCs get monster frame rates. Not much benefit in getting 300 fps if you're already getting 200 fps or whatever.

 

[RussianSensation]

OK but anyways

I dont trust apple's website anyways their are obviously biased towards their processor just like AMD overinflated benchmarks on their website saying 3000+ is better than 3.0ghz p4 and 3200+ is better than 3.2p4 thats bull of course

and here is teh PROOF THAT APPLE BULLSHITTED THE BENCHMARKS AS WELL

http://www.go-l.com/desktops/machl38/features/index.htm

oh what do i see apple powermac G5 dual 2ghz 2nd from the bottom

besides for the money look what kind of p4 you can get - that even has support for p5
can G5 claim support for G6? be easily upgradable? nope

3.8ghz
16gb of ram
2 terabytes of space...etc. etc.... smoking

 

[Eug]

and here is teh PROOF THAT APPLE BULLSHITTED THE BENCHMARKS AS WELL

http://www.go-l.com/desktops/machl38/features/index.htm

Heheh, I'm impressed at this site in progress. It's fairly slick, and Apple should be flattered.

I won't bother explaining any further. Maybe some other kind soul can explain the meaning of this spec list to my AT friend here, RussianSensation.

3.8GHz Accelerated Hyper-Threading Extreme
Edition 2MB L3 Cache Intel® P4
512K L2 Cache
Support for next-gen Pentium 5 Prescott CPU
950MHz System Bus
PuRam? No System Hard Drive Configurable
Up to 1.000 faster than ATA/SCSI/FC HD based
designs with Data Burst Speeds up to 8GB/s
and I/O data requests at over 150.000 I/O sec.
Enhanced CacheFlow? Technology
SuperBIOS? IBPT Technology
180W Sub-zero Vapor Compression Cooling
DDR-II Performance PC4200 533MHz Dual-Channel
DDR, up to 4GB
Up to 16GB Total RAM with optional RamDrives.
Over 8.4Gb/s Memory Bandwidth
ATA-133 RAID, Serial ATA-150 Connectivity
UltraSCSI-360 & FiberChannel Expansion
Up to 2 Terabytes of Colossal Storage Capacity
Intel Performance Acceleration Technology
AGP Pro 8x Accelerated 256bit MemoryBus
Radeon? 9800 Pro Graphics with 8 Pixel Pipelines
at 3.04Gp/s Pixel Fil rate, 21.8GB/bandwidth &
Multi-monitor, High-Definition support
Ultra High-speed 8x DVD+/-RW Optical Drive
Front Panel Multi-information LCD Status
Display, External removable HD Storage racks
with LCD Monitoring or Multi-Optical Drives
interchangeable bays
FireWire 400 & 800 Ports
Up to 8 Full-Duplex USB2 480Mb/s Ports
6 Channel Digital IA Audio with Artificial
Intelligence Audio-Sensing Technology &
S/PDIF Digital interface
3COM Gigabit LAN with AI Net
(Artificial Intelligence Net-Diagnosing)
Up to 74 32-bit or 64-bit PCI slots expandability
650W VF-Speed Power Supply
AI Ultra-low noise Q-Fan technology
802.11G Wireless LAN & Bluetooth Expansion
Artificial Intelligence Auto-Recovery BIOS
Absolutely stunning design combined high-end
european critical components quality worksmanship.

 

[Eug]

Maybe some other kind soul can explain the meaning of this spec list to my AT friend here, RussianSensation.

Heh, they should probably tell The Inquirer, too.

 

[InlineFive]

I went to my closest Apple Store and played on a 1.6GHz G5. It's fast, I mean like FAST. Everything is really snappy and Mac OS X rocks! Too bad Apple is so expensive though... :|

-Por

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: PorBleemo
I went to my closest Apple Store and played on a 1.6GHz G5. It's fast, I mean like FAST. Everything is really snappy and Mac OS X rocks!

Yeah, but it's not as FAST as Teh Creative WEAPON?! It r00lz!!!111