which PC processor can match Apple Mac G5 performence?

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

Originally posted by: jhu


actually you can get one for around $3000 from hp. with a dual dual g5 already at $3000, i'd rather go with the itanium. an alpha @ 1ghz does not pwnz3r the itanium2. peruse the spench benchmarks: an sgi altix 900mhz is faster than an hp es80 @ 1000mhz on fp operations.

read up,those are single processor benchmarks. and you get two G5s, not one

 

[MegaWorks]

man now I'm so confuse I though Athlon FX beats the G5, now the G5 is better.

------------------------------------------------------
AMD Athlon XP T-Bred B DLT3C 1700+ @ 2.3GHZ (1.775v) 400FSB = 3200+
Abit NF7-S V.2 (nForce2-U400)
Corsair TwinX XMS 3200LL 512MB @ 2-3-2-6 (2.6v)
Sapphire Radeon 9500 Pro 128MB
Antec TrueBlue 480W
Thermalright SLK-947U with 92mm Vantec Tornado @2800RPM
Antec PlusView 1000AMG
Cambridge SoundWorks MegaWorks THX 550 5.1

 

[txxxx]

Originally posted by: jhu
an itanium2 @ 1.5ghz will clearly trounce all the processors previously mentioned

Sure it will, if theres lots of thread parallelism in general applications

 

[txxxx]

Originally posted by: MegaWorks
man now I'm so confuse I though Athlon FX beats the G5, now the G5 is better.

It varies across the board. Both are quite close. Altivec optimised applications give a little margin.

However, the FX series is only a small part behind the Altivec optimised applications. Not only that, but the FX is an X86 CPU , which gives you a bit more range as to what you can run

 

[myocardia]

Mega, here's what it all boils down to: Apple's products are faster when running software designed specifically for them (though they're still way overpriced). PC's are faster when running software that's designed specifically for them. Now, the reason we all have PC's is because more than 95% of all software that's ever been written is written for a PC. People who make their living working with still images always think that Mac's are better, and they should. Everyone else is better off having a PC.

 

[MegaWorks]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Mega, here's what it all boils down to: Apple's products are faster when running software designed specifically for them (though they're still way overpriced). PC's are faster when running software that's designed specifically for them. Now, the reason we all have PC's is because more than 95% of all software that's ever been written is written for a PC. People who make their living working with still images always think that Mac's are better, and they should. Everyone else is better off having a PC.

nice!

------------------------------------------------------
AMD Athlon XP T-Bred B DLT3C 1700+ @ 2.3GHZ (1.775v) 400FSB = 3200+
Abit NF7-S V.2 (nForce2-U400)
Corsair TwinX XMS 3200LL 512MB @ 2-3-2-6 (2.6v)
Sapphire Radeon 9500 Pro 128MB
Antec TrueBlue 480W
Thermalright SLK-947U with 92mm Vantec Tornado @2800RPM
Antec PlusView 1000AMG
Cambridge SoundWorks MegaWorks THX 550 5.1

 

[RussianSensation]

Yeah and for pure computational and arithmetic power a 3.2ghz P4 HT smokes any apple computer in SETI@Home. For gaming applications A64/FX lays the smack down on everyone. And for video and image editing and crap Apple is better (while being 2-4x as espensive for a full rig). So the answer is -- it depends on the applications you use the most.

But the fact that my 2.6@3.2ghz p4 system cost me ~$800, 1 year ago, and does everything I need it to do without have to worry about program incompatibility and so on, makes me never want to spend $3000-4000 on an apple computer unless you are a niche user who needs the advantages that apple offers in niche environments.

As far as I am concerned, apples are scared of gaming and you'll have to actually buy all of the software, including the OS, AND a load of games can't even be played on a MAC. Their mouse is the least functional mouse in the computer world as it sucks major a**. Geezzz now when you buy a 4000 computer you need a comfortable mouse with buttons because they couldn't make one!!! And the argument about apple having better image quality? you can use an apple LCD for a PC so you'll get that excellent image quality. Apple uses identical DDR ram, same hard drives, same usb ports and firewire (apart from firewire 800), same videocard making their technology identical with the only slight difference being the motherboard, and a the actual cpu (this is the major hardware difference). So now ask yourself would you ever buy any computer that offered performance increases in only specialized applications, and was just as good or worse at everything else, had identical internal hardware apart from the cpu, and cost 3-4 times more? Hell no. Even the cost of a stable operating system doesn't justify the cost of an apple. But price aside, apples are excellent if you use them in the areas where they excel (very few and niche areas), otherwise a PC is a much better choice. If that wasn't true, apple wouldn't have trouble increasing their market share.

 

[beachbreeze]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Mega, here's what it all boils down to: Apple's products are faster when running software designed specifically for them (though they're still way overpriced). PC's are faster when running software that's designed specifically for them. Now, the reason we all have PC's is because more than 95% of all software that's ever been written is written for a PC. People who make their living working with still images always think that Mac's are better, and they should. Everyone else is better off having a PC.

Anything is faster running software designed for it. Motorola never wrote a compiler for the G4. Intel writes probably the best in the industry. IBM is in beta stages of one for the G5 and early results are showing improvements anywhere from 50 to 300% with it. What this adds up to is that there is plenty more performance due from IBMs G5s. But do you wait?

The 95% of all software argument is not a good one. You don't need 20 mp3 players - just one. You don't need 5 video editors - just the one you want. I make my own guitars - I could by Lie Nielsen planes, Record, Stanley, Millers Falls, Norris, Emmerich.... do I need all of them or just one that works well?

Check out the available software - check out upgrade cycle times - check out initial capital outlay & then check out total cost of ownership.

myocardia I notice you give no figures with your claim of Apple hardware as "way overpriced"

What do you mean by WAY over - 50%... 100%? Everytime I have checked PC OEMs (Dell, Sony, Gateway) I have failed to turn up these WAY lower prices. Last time I checked the Dell Dual Xeon work station, that the G5 beats in the PC Magazine bench mark, was $1500 more than the Apple... but that 3.06GHz 512MB cache Xeon option is not available now... the lower model (Intel® Xeon? Processor 2.80GHz, 1MB L3 Cache) now comes out at $3,447 - that's $450 more than the Apple Dual G5 2.0GHz.

Mega, I think what myocardia is refering to (if I may be so bold, myocardia) is that Apple makes no cheap towers... in that he is right. You either buy all in one eMacs at the bottom end, LCD all in ones for the mid range or Work Station equivalents at the top end. It's a commercial decision they have made as a low volume OEM. They clearly feel there isn't much money in the cheap box/chop & change market segment. I think they should try to work at it because it is many people's choice - and I think they need to give people what they want, if Apple are to grow. The iMac is due for an overhaul - sales have been falling. There has been speculation in Mac circles that a cheaper Cube type computer may be the next offering... if they do it's about time!

 

[Cashmoney995]

A Duron!

 

[Jeff7181]

On avereage, what's the life cycle of a Mac?

For example... my CPU is about 2 months old... my motherboard is about 15 months old... my RAM is 2 months old... my PSU is about 1.5 months old... one of my hard drives is 1.5 years old... the other one is 9 months old... my sound card is about 3 months old...

What PC CPU was state of the art 2 years ago? The XP2100 and the P4 2.4B. Are those as useful today as a 2 year old Mac is today? Seriously, I'm asking... I have no idea...

 

[jamesbond007]

I am on the verge of switching my home PCs into Macs. In fact, I have my mom on an iMac already. I know she cannot break it in any way. (No handle jokes or I'll bring out my whip! ) I restarted it tonight for the first time in 41 days because she forgot her password and I had to use a boot disc to reset it! I have her using a Mac because I know that she is not a computer-literate person. I know that if she got some random pop-up from the web or some trojan installed by accidentially clicking 'yes' on those tracker/spyware genre programs, she'd have a PC hosed in 10 minutes flat. Now, I'm not saying she can't use a PC, it's just that I don't want to waste my time fixing and removing trojans, worrying about virii, or having OS exploits being unveiled on a weekly basis. In many homes, this scenario is commonly found, at least in my experience as a computer technician and repair man.

Anyways, back on topic, like others have stated, cross-platform comparing is pretty much impossible. I've been a x86 user all my life, but have recently turned over a leaf when I started using OSX. To me, that is the selling point for Apple. Back to hardware, solutions like the AMD Opteron/AMD64, Xeon, Itanium, P4, and the G5 are all great processors. Each have their advantages and disadvantages, but the same can be applied to anything, really. There is nothing in this world that is perfect, unless you're talking about Brook Burke.

In regards to the lifecycle of a Mac, the hardware release time is far slower than PCs. This can be looked upon as a good thing and a bad thing. Good because you don't need to worry about your hardware being outdated as quickly. (this is platform dependant of course) In this scenario, if you buy a Mac this year, chances are it'll still be highly regarded 2 years or more down the road. As even AMD has proven, the number of MHz/GHz you are running isn't important; it's the balls behind them that matter most. As most of us know, clock-for-clock, all of the processors we've talked about in this thread differ from each other in this regard. In the 'bad view' of having slowly-updated hardware available for your platform, you may feel like you want something newer, faster, but there isn't anything for you to upgrade. In my time, I've met a lot of fanatics that enjoy the PC hardware and specifications changing every 3-4 weeks.

The reason I am considering changing to the Mac platform? I love OSX, the G5 is just damn sexy, and having the power of a terminal window connected to a unix core is very nice. Did I mention OSX is hawt?

My $0.02.

 

[Gurck]

which PC processor can match Apple Mac G5 performence?

It had to be done...

 

[KillaBong]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
On avereage, what's the life cycle of a Mac?



For example... my CPU is about 2 months old... my motherboard is about 15 months old... my RAM is 2 months old... my PSU is about 1.5 months old... one of my hard drives is 1.5 years old... the other one is 9 months old... my sound card is about 3 months old...



What PC CPU was state of the art 2 years ago? The XP2100 and the P4 2.4B. Are those as useful today as a 2 year old Mac is today? Seriously, I'm asking... I have no idea...

I bought my 2100 long ago for $90, and it's still just as good to me as the day I got it. Runs ut2k4 completely smooth. My friend bought an imac that is newer than that for easily double my whole computer's price, and its the biggest pos i have ever seen. It can't even run original ut at good settings.

 

[MegaWorks]

Originally posted by: Gurck

which PC processor can match Apple Mac G5 performence?

It had to be done...

LOL! nice one

------------------------------------------------------
AMD Athlon XP T-Bred B DLT3C 1700+ @ 2.3GHZ (1.775v) 400FSB = 3200+
Abit NF7-S V.2 (nForce2-U400)
Corsair TwinX XMS 3200LL 512MB @ 2-3-2-6 (2.6v)
Sapphire Radeon 9500 Pro 128MB
Antec TrueBlue 480W
Thermalright SLK-947U with 92mm Vantec Tornado @2800RPM
Antec PlusView 1000AMG
Cambridge SoundWorks MegaWorks THX 550 5.1

 

[exar333]

hmm...Id get a nice Celeron...maybe underclock it a bit...then add a LOT of RAM like 128MB...or EVEN more!! LOL j/k Im not a mac hater...just couldn't resist the fun!

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
On avereage, what's the life cycle of a Mac?



For example... my CPU is about 2 months old... my motherboard is about 15 months old... my RAM is 2 months old... my PSU is about 1.5 months old... one of my hard drives is 1.5 years old... the other one is 9 months old... my sound card is about 3 months old...



What PC CPU was state of the art 2 years ago? The XP2100 and the P4 2.4B. Are those as useful today as a 2 year old Mac is today? Seriously, I'm asking... I have no idea...

what do you define 'useful' to be? neither a 2 y/o mac or x86 computer will be able to run the latest and greatest games without sacrificing visual quality and resolution. for regular word processing or internet usage even a computer from 1997 will suffice.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

IBM made a pretty nice CPU with the G5, only problem is that it (unfortunately) is stuck along with other Apple hardware and software...

 

[benDalton]

alright, I'll bite....

Being a dual-platform user, I'll add my 2 cents to the mix.

First off, as many people have pointed out that benchmarks on separate platforms are often a poor gauge of true performance. (Especially when you use programs such as Word which is a completely different program on Mac OS and Windows). Also when that first set of benchmarks was run, I doubt the G5 patch was applied to photoshop.

Secondly, though my pc may be "faster" than my Mac, I often find that workflow on my mac is more effecient and even thought the processing time may be a titch longer, the total time spent on a project is a) shorter and yes b) more enjoyable. (now this is my oppinion, but it is a valid point. I'm completely capable in windows but... OS X just treats me better). As noted by one poster, workflow can make a HUGE difference. (if it takes over a minute for a 'tool' to pop up before I can use it, I don't care if the execution time is 30 seconds less.)

Third, as many of the Anandtech reviews have pointed out about purchasing a new computer soon.... a 64 bit version of Windows and Mac OS will be released in the relatively near future. So, what does that mean for the pc v. mac argument? Well Windows 64 is being customized for two different 64 bit processors with slightly different behaviours, the xeon and the a64. The Mac OS a) is already partially 64 bit (they added new memory management bits in the last major release) and b) will be customized for performance with the new G5's. Essentially what I am saying is: who knows how these machines will perform when the next versions of the OS comes out... but my guess is that Apple doesn't let up on their new high-performance initiative.

No 64bit doesn't make your photos any better, but both the a64 and the g5 are powerful platforms that are faster than anything else on the market and will only get better after the next OS upgrade. So don't knock what you don't know, and give credit where credit is due.

 

[Conscript]

the only thing a Mac does better than a PC is run Mac software...:laugh:

actually, I'm only joking. I really like apple, and have a owned a few pb's in my lifetime.

 

[Fricardo]

Originally posted by: benDalton

Well Windows 64 is being customized for two different 64 bit processors with slightly different behaviours, the xeon and the a64. The Mac OS a) is already partially 64 bit (they added new memory management bits in the last major release) and b) will be customized for performance with the new G5's. Essentially what I am saying is: who knows how these machines will perform when the next versions of the OS comes out... but my guess is that Apple doesn't let up on their new high-performance initiative.

Actually, the 64 bit edition of Windows will not be compatible with Xeon. It is exclusively made for the x86-64 instrucion set, which is currently only supported by the Athlon 64. Intel is planning on releasing compatible chips eventually, but the Xeons will never work with 64 bit Windows.

 

[OblivionLord]

I dont care for the standard OSX or WINXP from the factory. I do custom installations on Win os's as well as tweaks. Linux on the other hand runs with the least amount of overhead after a standard installation compared to both OSX and Winxp. You can even load it through the cd itself without alot of overhead. Neither OSX or WinXP are able to do that.

For gamming and some apps I use my Custom XP. For all profesional apps I use Linux.

As far as video editing being better on the Mac then pc.. well that is just preferance not performance or editing features. You can use Avid Xpress Pro or apps from Discreet on Linux to do the same editing features/speed as with Finnal Cut Pro on any x86 as well as a Mac. Finnal Cut Pro is just a user friendly app which alot of semi-Profesionals like. Compare it with Fire or Smoke from Discreet and you will see a world of diffrence in editing capabilities.

As far as 3d grafic designing goes on a Mac, well that is just 1 field the Mac looses greatly in. The strongest 3d designing software on the Mac is Maya Complete. Maya Unlimited which is better is used at Pixar and on LOTR as well as alot of 3d designers. The Mac's strongest video card for 3d editing is ATI 256mb Pro. That in itself clearly can not match the speed and quality of actual Pro grafic cards like Wildcat/Quadro. The FireGL is good but, not even it can beat the other 2 I named in speed using Maya. So using a video which only speciallizes in Fill rate is just a terrible solution for doing 3d designing at home. You can buy a SGI and use that which would be better then Mac or PC in this field but, if you want damn near close quality and speed of the SGI then you deffinetly want a Pro grafics card like the Wildcat/Quadro on your PC which Mac doesnt offer.

Other then that I think its mainly preferance of the OS which would determine if someone wants this platform or that. I would personaly go for a PC just for the fact that I can do every aspect of applications very fact as Video/audio editng, 3d grafic designing, just as efficent as on a Mac and even exceeeding its quality/performance and with the added ability to play games with much faster speed then on a Mac.

Building a PC is another added benefit which greatly reduces the price and adds more power then anything Dell/Alienwarez/HP or any company that specializes in prebuilt computers can offer. You just have to know your computers or you will be in a world of hurt. Thats the only downfall.

 

[MegaWorks]

OblivionLord welcome to the forums

------------------------------------------------------
AMD Athlon XP T-Bred B DLT3C 1700+ @ 2.3GHZ (1.775v) 400FSB = 3200+
Abit NF7-S V.2 (nForce2-U400)
Corsair TwinX XMS 3200LL 512MB @ 2-3-2-6 (2.6v)
Sapphire Radeon 9500 Pro 128MB
Antec TrueBlue 480W
Thermalright SLK-947U with 92mm Vantec Tornado @2800RPM
Antec PlusView 1000AMG
Cambridge SoundWorks MegaWorks THX 550 5.1

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: jhu

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
On avereage, what's the life cycle of a Mac?



For example... my CPU is about 2 months old... my motherboard is about 15 months old... my RAM is 2 months old... my PSU is about 1.5 months old... one of my hard drives is 1.5 years old... the other one is 9 months old... my sound card is about 3 months old...



What PC CPU was state of the art 2 years ago? The XP2100 and the P4 2.4B. Are those as useful today as a 2 year old Mac is today? Seriously, I'm asking... I have no idea...

what do you define 'useful' to be? neither a 2 y/o mac or x86 computer will be able to run the latest and greatest games without sacrificing visual quality and resolution. for regular word processing or internet usage even a computer from 1997 will suffice.

Well, I find myself upgrading more often than I probably need to in order to stay ahead of things a little... so when new software comes out, I don't even have to consider if it'll run on my computer. Could you take for example, a 5 year old iMac and run the latest OS (well, not the LATEST "64-bit" OS, but you get my drift) and applications on it without it being too slow or just not install because the hardware is too old?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: OblivionLord
I dont care for the standard OSX or WINXP from the factory. I do custom installations on Win os's as well as tweaks. Linux on the other hand runs with the least amount of overhead after a standard installation compared to both OSX and Winxp. You can even load it through the cd itself without alot of overhead. Neither OSX or WinXP are able to do that.

For gamming and some apps I use my Custom XP. For all profesional apps I use Linux.

As far as video editing being better on the Mac then pc.. well that is just preferance not performance or editing features. You can use Avid Xpress Pro or apps from Discreet on Linux to do the same editing features/speed as with Finnal Cut Pro on any x86 as well as a Mac. Finnal Cut Pro is just a user friendly app which alot of semi-Profesionals like. Compare it with Fire or Smoke from Discreet and you will see a world of diffrence in editing capabilities.

As far as 3d grafic designing goes on a Mac, well that is just 1 field the Mac looses greatly in. The strongest 3d designing software on the Mac is Maya Complete. Maya Unlimited which is better is used at Pixar and on LOTR as well as alot of 3d designers. The Mac's strongest video card for 3d editing is ATI 256mb Pro. That in itself clearly can not match the speed and quality of actual Pro grafic cards like Wildcat/Quadro. The FireGL is good but, not even it can beat the other 2 I named in speed using Maya. So using a video which only speciallizes in Fill rate is just a terrible solution for doing 3d designing at home. You can buy a SGI and use that which would be better then Mac or PC in this field but, if you want damn near close quality and speed of the SGI then you deffinetly want a Pro grafics card like the Wildcat/Quadro on your PC which Mac doesnt offer.

Other then that I think its mainly preferance of the OS which would determine if someone wants this platform or that. I would personaly go for a PC just for the fact that I can do every aspect of applications very fact as Video/audio editng, 3d grafic designing, just as efficent as on a Mac and even exceeeding its quality/performance and with the added ability to play games with much faster speed then on a Mac.

Building a PC is another added benefit which greatly reduces the price and adds more power then anything Dell/Alienwarez/HP or any company that specializes in prebuilt computers can offer. You just have to know your computers or you will be in a world of hurt. Thats the only downfall.

What exactly do you mean by a custom installation? I have my PC customized quite a bit... but I don't do it during the installation process.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: jhu

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
On avereage, what's the life cycle of a Mac?



For example... my CPU is about 2 months old... my motherboard is about 15 months old... my RAM is 2 months old... my PSU is about 1.5 months old... one of my hard drives is 1.5 years old... the other one is 9 months old... my sound card is about 3 months old...



What PC CPU was state of the art 2 years ago? The XP2100 and the P4 2.4B. Are those as useful today as a 2 year old Mac is today? Seriously, I'm asking... I have no idea...

what do you define 'useful' to be? neither a 2 y/o mac or x86 computer will be able to run the latest and greatest games without sacrificing visual quality and resolution. for regular word processing or internet usage even a computer from 1997 will suffice.

A DPG4 1.25Ghz PowerMac is still a relatively powerful machine. You can still edit in FCP and master in DVD Studio Pro with ease on older G4 Al Powerbooks. Even most of the recent FPS games released for MacOS run well, but not at super high frame rates. 10.3 runs faster on older G4's than 10.0 did. A 4 year old used Mac can cost over $1000. Macs are useful longer and retain the value better than PCs. You cant even really sell a complete XP2100 or P2.4B system and get enough to cover the cost of a new motherboard and CPU. Well, you probably could sell it to someone, but whether or not its worth it is debatable.