Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA Benchmarks the New G5 Powermac

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the measuring-up dept.

Desktops (Apple) 751

sockit2me9000 writes "Well NASA's Langley Research Center recently benchmarked the new G5 dual 2ghz Powermac against a dual 1ghz Xserve, a dual 1.25 ghz Powermac, a Pentium4 2 ghz, and a Pentium4 2.66 ghz. To make things fair, the second processor in the G5 was switched off, as well as the other dual sysytems. Then, they all ran Jet3d. Even with un-optimized code and one processor, the G5 performance is impressive."

cancel ×

751 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Macs suck (-1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369184)

What the fuck are you thinking? Don't read that shit.

Singer Barry White dead at age 58 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369189)

I just read some sad news on CNN.com [cnn.com] - R&B crooner Barry White was found dead [cnn.com] at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center this morning. There weren't any more details other than he had suffered kidney failure from years of high blood pressure. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to music and popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:Singer Barry White dead at age 58 (-1, Offtopic)

bigjocker (113512) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369231)

I just read some sad news on CNN.com - R&B crooner Barry White was found dead

You got modded offtopic, but I checked the link and is quite insightful, may the father of R&B rest in peace ...

Re:Singer Barry White dead at age 58 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369234)

Nobody will ever have a singing voice like that again.

Re:Singer Barry White dead at age 58 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369279)

You got modded offtopic, but I checked the link

OK, I guess I missed it.

Care to explain to the rest of us what relevance Barry White has to an Apple benchmark?

Maybe he got modded offtopic because he WAS offtopic?

Re:Singer Barry White dead at age 58 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369288)

Barry White used a Mac.

Re:Singer Barry White dead at age 58 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369373)

Barry White used a Mac.

And? Lots of people die who use PCs - should they be mentioned in every Pentium benchmark story?

Perhaps if he designed the Mac, then it would have some relevance.

Single Processor Mode (5, Informative)

CptChipJew (301983) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369191)

Because I have a strong feeling this is going to be asked:

For those of you who were wondering, you too can switch off one of your Mac's dual CPU's with the Apple CHUD Tools [apple.com] . Look near the bottom of the page. It'll make you appreciate your second processor ;)

Personally though, I want to see how well it runs Seti@Home [berkeley.edu] .

Re:Single Processor Mode (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369206)

CHUD also comes with Reggie, which USED to let you sort of overclock your iBook, but of course Apple removed that functionality.

Re:Single Processor Mode (5, Informative)

jbm (17264) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369286)


you ... can switch off one of your Mac's dual CPU's with the Apple CHUD Tools.

You can also do this simply with the cpus= boot argument; here's a reference [apple.com] .

Re:Single Processor Mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369405)

and you can also do it in openfirmware, but i'm not supposed to tell you how.

Fist me (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369192)

WHO CARES!?

Why isn't there an article about the 5Dwm [5dwm.org] up yet?

NASA Verifies Apple Benchmarks? (5, Interesting)

Dak RIT (556128) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369193)

Though dual processor benchmarks are not presented in detail here, it is worth noting that the G5 system benchmarked at 498 MFLOPS and 0.125 MFLOPS/MHz for scalar Jet3D performance when two processors were used.

By adding a second processor, the MFLOPS/Mhz output only dropped from 0.127 to 0.125 MFLOPS/Mhz. This chip can definitely perform in a multi-processor environment. The P4 scored 0.096 MFLOPS/MHz with a single processor.

Apple's benchmarks [apple.com] which were highly criticized by some, gave the Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 a 194.5% performance advantage over a 3GHz P4 in SPECfp_rate_base2000. The G5 getting a score of 15.7, and the P4 getting an 8.07.

NASA's study found the Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 to score 498 MFLOPS for their Jet3D performance. A P4 running at 2.66GHz scored 255 MFLOPS: a 195.3% performance advantage for the G5 in this test. If we assume a direct correlation between MHz and MFLOPS for the P4 (which would actually overstate the performance of the P4) and increase the P4's score by 12.782% this would give the 3GHz P4 a score of 287.594 MFLOPS. This is still a 173.16% performance advantage for the G5, and NASA states that a 20% increase in performance for the G5 would be reasonable "when G5-aware compiler tools become available."

So it would seem NASA's benchmarks go a long way in validating the benchmarks for the G5 that Apple released last month at the WWDC. In fact, NASA appears to be giving the G5 even better scores than Apple and Veritest did.

The vector tests that NASA performed to test the G5's AltiVec instruction set produce some even more impressive results, and would be a good indication for why the G5 outpaced the Xeon and P4 by such dramatic amounts on real world tests (at times more than 700% faster than a 3GHz P4). "The vector version of Jet3D runs an order of magnitude faster than the scalar version (speedups of 10X-13X are typical)." The dual 2GHz G5 was benchmarked at 5177 MFLOPS (a 1040% increase over the scalar test) and 1.29 MFLOPS/MHz. This also seems accurate considering Ars Technica's claim that the AltiVec engine wasn't as well integrated into the G5 as it was in the G4. The 2GHz G5 (single cpu) scored 2755 MFLOPS, or 1.378 MFLOPS/MHz, which shows a slightly larger performance hit for vector operations than floating point operations when moving to a dual G5.

Dak

Re:NASA Verifies Apple Benchmarks? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369218)

"NASA's study found the Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 to score 498 MFLOPS for their Jet3D performance. A P4 running at 2.66GHz scored 255 MFLOPS: a 195.3% performance advantage for the G5 in this test."

First, 498 vs 255 is 95.3% (instead of 195.3%) advantage.

Second, why compare dual fastest G5 vs single mid-range P4? Singe 2GHz G5 scored 254 MFLOPS, it quite fast, but then again equally fast 2.66GHz P4 is available at $188.

It would be much more interesting to compare dual 2GHz G5 against dual Opterons and Xeons.

Re:NASA Verifies Apple Benchmarks? (5, Insightful)

baseinfinity (18023) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369376)

Either way they're still benchmarking Apple hardware to be released in September versus Intel hardware that was available months ago. A quick look at Tejas and Athlon 64 specs will prove that both Intel and AMD have some whoopass coming down the line in Q4. At least this means Apple will be competitive still when the storm hits... but I don't think this hardware is revolutionary when compared to it's future peers.

Re:NASA Verifies Apple Benchmarks? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369403)

is this the same NASA that keeps blowing people
up and dumping body bits across the nation?

its the same NASA, right?

macintosh ... yeah

Maybe offtopic? Who cares! (-1, Offtopic)

Eric(b0mb)Dennis (629047) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369194)

I just want to wish everyone (and this may seem a bit US centric, but give me a break) a wonderful July 4th

Even though our opinions sometimes differ, and trolls run wild...

May the barbeque be good, the fireworks neat, and the beer free!

Happy Fourth!

Re:Maybe offtopic? Who cares! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369248)

A _bit_ US centric? It's July 5th over here you clever boy.

fuck you, pal (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369252)

I've got no friends, nothing to do, nowhere to go.

I hate holidays because they won't let me go into work.

Re:Maybe offtopic? Who cares! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369296)

What's so big about July 4th?

RH7.1? (0, Offtopic)

Gortbusters.org (637314) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369200)

Why not 8 or 9? Certainly there must be some performance increases in 8 or 9!

Either way, RedHat still won.. 255 to 254, YEAH!!!!

Summary (3, Insightful)

LordOfYourPants (145342) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369204)

I love the wording:

"Benchmarks from the scalar version of Jet3D are shown in Figure 1 (MFLOPS) and Figure 2 (MFLOPS normalized by MHz). In terms of raw MFLOPS, the 2GHz G5 is about 32% faster than the 2GHz P4, 97% faster than the 1.25GHz G4, 142% faster than the 1GHz G4, and within 1 MFLOP of the 2.66GHz P4."

Translation: Slower than the P4 for anyone who didn't look at the grid. And M stands for million. Not one.

Re:Summary (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369253)

Translation: Slower than the P4 for anyone who didn't look at the grid.

Real Translation: 0.4% slower, at 75% of the clock speed.

Real translation appended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369284)

And at what % of the cost of a Pentium 4 2.66 GHz?

Just to add to the real world translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369306)

The G5s have 9(?) fans I believe.. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember it being a ridiculous number to that effect. If an equivalent P4 had 9 fans, how much higher could you clock it?

Re:Just to add to the real world translation (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369311)

I guess this makes me the 10th fan...oh wait...

Re:Just to add to the real world translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369339)

http://a1568.g.akamai.net/7/1568/51/1ab711c21c324b /www.apple.com/powermac/images/designcooling062320 03.jpg

From what I can count either 4 or 6 (if there are 2 hidden behind the processor), Compaire with 4-5 is a properly cooled PC dual P4 tower (2xCPU, Case, HDD, PCI)

9 fans (1)

LordOfYourPants (145342) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369362)

This article [insidemacgames.com] says 9 fans. Say what you like about the source. :)

"The new PowerMacs feature an all aluminum enclosure featuring 9 fans but with be up to twice as quiet as current Power Mac G4's. The new Power Macs will be shipping in August."

That's nice that they're twice as quiet. But 9 speicalised fans can be expensive to replace over time. They are not immortal.

Re:9 fans (1)

treat (84622) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369384)

That's nice that they're twice as quiet.

How can something be twice as quiet as something else? How is "quiet" measured? Is "twice as quiet" supposed to be the same as "half as loud"?

Re:Just to add to the real world translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369346)

If an equivalent P4 had 9 fans, how much higher could you clock it?

If it's a P4 2.66, then you could only clock it to 2.66Ghz.

How much you could over clock it is a different question.

We're talking about manufacturer's specs here, not some redneck playing "let's see how much we can push it before it blows up"

Re:Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369338)

And did you notice the
"(developed and compiled on G4 systems)"
at the top?

I've got some code I developed on a DEC Alpha which, though completely portable and compiles trivially, sucks sweaty goats balls when run on x86.

The code was written with one architecture in mind - is anyone surprised that it performs well on that architecture?

What's wrong with just using ""178.galgel Fortran 90 Computational Fluid Dynamics" from SPEC CFP2000?

YAW.
(slashdot keeps making me anonymous, not my choice)

Re:Summary (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369358)

You'll notice that, while slower by about 1M flop, the G5 is a 2Ghz processor, while the P4 is a 2.66GHZ processor. The G5 is more efficient. If you were to bring the 2Ghz G5 chip up to 2.66GHZ, it would still smoke the P4.

Disclaimer: I'm still an x86 fan, just impressed by the new G5.

This story is stolen from OSnews (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369205)

This story is copied from http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3956

Shame, shame, shameee...

If speed is all you need.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369208)

Then why not simply go with an IBM pSeries server that is based on the same POWER chip? It runs real Unix (at least until SCO wins their lawsuit) and you can get it in rack-sized units today and it supports SMP sizes higher than just 2. Oh right, this is McSlashdot, where worship of all things Apple is practiced. Sorry.

Turn the optimizations on first. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369209)

You have to optimize your bloody code for a particular IA. They have probably compared the i386 generated code against the one for G5...

I hope they didn't use gcc (the yet-another free and hopeless compiler).

Re:Turn the optimizations on first. (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369305)

Wait, let me get this straight, your assertion is that the benchmark is invalid because they "probably compared the i386 generated code against the one fot he G5". "Probably" IOW, you have no freakin' clue if this is the case and are just spouting off. Brilliant! Worse yet, you got a +1 Insightful...

Re:Turn the optimizations on first. (5, Informative)

Phroggy (441) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369324)

I hope they didn't use gcc (the yet-another free and hopeless compiler).

It should be noted that Apple uses gcc to compile Mac OS X and most of their applications, so it would be appropriate to use gcc on the G5. Intel's compiler might be a more appropriate choice for the Xeon.

Re:Turn the optimizations on first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369344)

You got to be joking. Hopeless? Have you even tried the gcc 3.2.x series?

Re:Turn the optimizations on first. (1)

Squidgee (565373) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369367)

Uh, they did optimize...

RTFA.

Curious... (2, Funny)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369210)

I wonder why none of the NASA boxes were running Windows? I mean, if it's an all sinigng all dancing solution to everything...

(It's ok, you can mod me -1 Troll now. I'm just bitter about an edict on a project I'm working on.)

MFLOPS/MHz? No AMD, Old P4, Old Redhat. (3, Interesting)

jbridges (70118) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369215)

What the heck is that a benchmark of? Divide by the Mhz to create a higher number on their nice little graph for the G5?

Why a Pentium 4 2.66mhz?

Why no Athlon?

Why no Opteron?

Why an old old version of RedHat 7.1?

and so on....

Re:MFLOPS/MHz? No AMD, Old P4, Old Redhat. (2, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369299)

Why a P4 2.66? That's probably what they had that was closest in clockspeed to 2ghz, maybe while still using the newest core. Plus this is still pretty close to 3ghz, so you know the P4 scores wouldn't double if you used one or anything.

Why no Athlon? They probably didn't have one and with the P4 at 3ghz and climbing, the old althon is becomming less and less significant for these pure number crunching apps. Plus maybe they've done previous tests that said that P4 they uesd was faster than an equivelent athlon, so it didn't need to be tested.

Why no Opteron? They probably didn't have one. This is the most valid question you ask.

Why RH 7.1? That's probably what they use. They are benchmarking PURE CPU so the OS doesn't matter too much for this kind of thing.

Re:MFLOPS/MHz? No AMD, Old P4, Old Redhat. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369359)

Are they making use of transcendental functions? How about using multithreading? If they are using either of those two, then they'd see a big improvement if they were running RH9 instead.

Why No Cray? (4, Insightful)

Detritus (11846) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369309)

Maybe because that was the hardware and software available to the testers. Contrary to popular belief, government employees do not have unlimited budgets to buy stuff. The last time I worked in a government office, some of the furniture was older than I was and my PC was built from scrounged parts.

apple marketing (0, Flamebait)

qewl (671495) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369220)

I guess Apple was legit in its marketing of calling it the fastest PC ever..

Re:apple marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369371)

???? It's clear a 3ghz P4 would beat the G5 from those tests..

Sorry G5 Trolls (-1, Flamebait)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369223)

Looks like once again /. Trolls were slapped in the face. Nice try though.
YOU FAIL IT!!!

LOL, the only trolls here are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369325)

head up the ass Mac users. Macs offer shiny objects and that's all. They look great, have an easy to use interface and perform second best to PCs.

Ok, Joe-Blue_collar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369360)

Hows that construction gig going?
Just get your Compaq and got online I assume, you common loser?
Suck my collective dick after you are done beating your wife or your wiener, whichever dies first.

I love Mac (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369226)

I only have a G3 233 but it feels faster than my friends Pentium 4 1800. I guess its because P4 is still a crappy CISC design eh? And Windows is based on DOS which means pre-emptive multitasking and memory protection is bolted on, not an integral part of the system like NetBSD-based MacOS X. I love Apple, they are the best computir company ever.

MOD PARENT UP, FUNNY (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369243)

n/t

Portland compiler (2, Interesting)

PineGreen (446635) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369229)

I have very bad experience with Portland compiler; I wonder what the results would have been if they had used Intel Fortran Compiler....

fortran compiler (4, Informative)

mz001b (122709) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369230)

It is interesting to note that they used the Portland group compiler instead of the intel compiler. For the CFD code that I work on (which is mostly Fortran), the Intel compiler produces much faster code than the Portland group compiler (as much as 50%).

Interesting choice of processors (4, Interesting)

binaryDigit (557647) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369235)

If there budget is such that dualie 2Ghz G5's are a possibility, then it's somewhat surprising that they A) used such low powered P4's B) that they didn't include Itanic2 systems. Seems that their report really just pointed out stuff that we already knew, the PPC is typcially faster per mhz than the P4 (hell, just about anything is better per mhz than the P4). Interesting to note that on the vector test, the G5 outperformed the G4 is a fashion that is almost purely based on the increase in Mhz (i.e. other system improvements didn't really seem to help much). Compiler perhaps, though some of the architectural improvements would seem to be not dependant on that?

Re:Interesting choice of processors (3, Informative)

Phroggy (441) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369335)

If there budget is such that dualie 2Ghz G5's are a possibility...

Budget had nothing to do with it; the PowerMac G5 isn't shipping yet. NASA had to have obtained theirs through a special arrangement with Apple.

G5 is really a full-blown workstation (4, Interesting)

reporter (666905) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369236)

The G5 by Apple is really a workstation but has been mis-labeled a "PC". The floating-point performance of the G5 crushes any workstation by Sun. In fact, the heart of the G5 is a Power4 server-based microprocessor. At "SPEC [spec.org] ", you can easily find the performance of a Power4 @ 1.45 GHz. Its SPEC2000 rating for floating point is 1097. When you scale that to the 2.0 GHz processor in the G5, you conclude that it has a SPEC score of about 1500.

Apple has just created a new market for itself among the hardcore engineers who use workstations for numerical simulations like HSPICE, etc. Steve Jobs lucked out -- again.

By the way, the bell tolls. It tolls ominously for Sun Microsystems.

Re:G5 is really a full-blown workstation (1)

binaryDigit (557647) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369304)

By the way, the bell tolls. It tolls ominously for Sun Microsystems.

But how is this different than the way it's been for years? Sun has always been pretty much at the low end when it comes to cpu ooomph. They've always depended on multi-processor systems to achieve reasonable performance, and they've always positioned themselves as the best overalll solution, even if others offer faster machines.

Re:G5 is really a full-blown workstation (4, Interesting)

Phroggy (441) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369350)

Steve Jobs lucked out -- again.

Um, yeah, sure is lucky Apple found the G5. I'm sure they had nothing to do with its development. It's not like Apple has been involved with development of the whole PowerPC architecture since the early 90s.

Re:G5 is really a full-blown workstation (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369366)

"When you scale that to the 2.0 GHz processor in the G5, you conclude that..."

That you're talking out of your ass.

SCO suit (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369239)

I wonder how SCO will affect Mac OS X ? I heard that Mac OS is based on FreeBSD which is a distro of Linux right? I hope Mac doesn't get suied.

Re:SCO suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369244)

Hahaha, FreeBSD a distro of Linux?! Hahahaha, good one!

Re:SCO suit (1)

satanicat (239025) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369318)

but deep down inside . . everything is linux right?=)

Re:SCO suit (0, Troll)

RevSmiley (226151) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369268)

I wonder how SCO will affect Mac OS X ? I heard that Mac OS is based on FreeBSD which is a distro of Linux right? I hope Mac doesn't get suied.

Tell me this is a troll. Please!

Re:SCO suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369330)

FreeBSD and Linux have no correlation besides the fact that they are both opensource products. FreeBSD is a kernel _and_ an Operating System. While linux distros are the linux kernel and the set of tools that goes with it to make it an OS (GNU tools, operating scripts, packaging system, etc).

Re:SCO suit (1)

lostchicken (226656) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369333)

Um...no.
BSD and Linux are two different code bases.

Re:SCO suit (1)

k2r (255754) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369336)

> Tell me this is a troll. Please!

Yes, your posting is a troll.
Do you feel any better now?

k2r

Only benchmarks that matter are.... (5, Insightful)

FooGoo (98336) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369250)

The only benchmarks that matter is my impression of the system while using the apps I use. Everything else is opinion.

Re:Only benchmarks that matter are.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369289)

mod parent up funny! stupid mods, wake up.

Costs (3, Insightful)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369255)

Something which seems to get lost in the Mac/PC debates *sometimes* is the cost factor. I looked those graphs and thought "Wow - mac is faster at this benchmark". Then I looked up pricing - minimum I can get that mac for would be $1999. An equivalent PC system with the P4 2.66ghz is probably under $900 (didn't spec it out entirely, just did a rough lookup on Dell). Great - Mac is faster. But I can apparently get within reasonable range on PC hardware for probably 50% less cost.

I'd read some thread a while back on another board saying that "Macs are cheaper than PCs". I still can't believe anyone would make that argument. Doesn't being really good in a few areas satisfy the mac people? Do they have to try to spin higher costs as 'lower' (craziest thing I'd ever heard...)

Re:Costs - correction (4, Informative)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369277)

$2999 for the mac 2x2ghz

Re:Costs - correction (1, Insightful)

Phroggy (441) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369374)

$2999 for the mac 2x2ghz

How much for the dual Xeon system they were comparing that too? Yeah, you can build a P4 for $900, but not a dual Xeon.

However, yes, the $1999 low-end G5 is definitely more expensive than a P4 of similar performance, if the only consideration is raw speed. Macs are cheaper than PCs at the high end, not the low end.

Re:Costs (1, Insightful)

birdman666 (144812) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369320)

Ok, so you save on upfront costs with pentium system. But just think, you'll end up spending that money on the numerous games, peripherals, and online services that simply aren't available for the mac anyway!

Re:Costs (1)

Squidgee (565373) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369340)

Err...

Didja notice that overall the G4s were faster, too? Therefore the price of entry for a slower machine if $799, and it includes way more than that $900 PC.

PLUS, the G5 is a lot cheaper (A couple hundred) than other 64bit systems.

When comparing the price of a 32bit system to that of a 64bit, it's a bit pointless...as you're getting so much more with the 64bit chip.

I do admit, however, that the price of entry is a bit high. =p

Re:Costs (4, Insightful)

nordicfrost (118437) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369342)

Mac is cheaper than PCs, even in laptops. It all depends on what you'll use it for. I'm trying to convince a pal that the iBook would be a better purchase for his mother than a Fujitsu Siemens PC. The iBook is rougly 9500 NOK and the Siemens 11500 NOK.

The difference in speed mHz, RAM etc. is irrelevant for a person just getting used to computers and the net. When she is having weekly problems with the Siemens / Windows machine, it will be lost money in time. While the Mac is cheaper in usage, because of less "frustration time" and less hassle.

This is an argument I would strongly disagree with, if you asked me two years ago. But since then, I have come to the conclusion that the Mac simply work better for the lay people. It does the work, and faster because there are less frustrations and less hassle.

Re:Costs (1)

weston (16146) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369386)

Something which seems to get lost in the Mac/PC debates *sometimes* is the cost factor. I looked those graphs and thought "Wow - mac is faster at this benchmark". Then I looked up pricing - minimum I can get that mac for would be $1999.

Something which often gets lost? My friend, this particular point, while being a better one than the Phillip Glass Sonata cry of "one mouse button," is pointed out exactly as often. Probably more.

The G5 (3, Insightful)

Eric(b0mb)Dennis (629047) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369259)

The G5 really is a powerful machine, and i wouldn't mind owning one... if only the price for maintaining a mac wasn't so high...

Their scheme for OS X is the equivalent of Microsoft charging $100+ for a service pack, I just don't understand it.

I've used OS X, and it blows everything else out of the water in elequency and it seems the perfect balance between productive and 'cool factor'

But until I win the lottery, I'll stick with my cheap x86 machines

Re:The G5 (5, Insightful)

Dak RIT (556128) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369300)

Microsoft Windows XP Pro: Full price: $299
Microsoft Windows XP Pro Upgrapde: $199
http://shop.microsoft.com/Referral/Productinfo.asp ?siteID=10798

MacOS X 10.3/2/1 Full price: $129
http://www.apple.com/macosx/

Microsoft Windows XP Pro (5 Users): $1315.60
MacOS X 10.3/2/1 (5 Users): $199

If you bought Windows XP ($299), and then can upgrapde to Longhorn for $199, you paid $498. If you bought MacOS X 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4, you paid $516. Pretty similar, and that's assuming you only have to pay $199 for Longhorn. In the meantime, Apple users enjoy continued advance, while Windows stagnates for 4+ years.

Do the same with a family licence of 5. Buy Windows XP for $1315.60, then upgrade for $875.60: $2191.20 (over 4 years, for 5 people: $109.56/user/year).

Buy MacOS 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 (5 User Licence): $796 (over 4 years, for 5 people: $39.80/user/year).

Using http://shopper.cnet.com I found a copy of Windows XP Pro for $207, and an upgrade for Windows XP Pro for $177. I found a copy of MacOS X 10.2 for $98.

If these prices hold over to the newer Operating Systems these companies release, then Windows would cost $384 (23% savings), and MacOS X would cost $196 (24% savings). If you bought every point upgrade Apple released it would cost $392.

Dak

Wrong. (3, Insightful)

Tokerat (150341) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369302)


Their scheme for OS X is the equivalent of Microsoft charging $100+ for a service pack, I just don't understand it.
Apple regularly issues Security Updates, Bug Fixes, and Mac OS X Updatres through the Software Update system. This, the equivilant of a Service Pack, is free.

The major OS version updates are when new features are added, etc. That is the equivelant of upgrading 98 to XP. The cost of buying a Mac is high. The cost of maint. is probably less than a Windows box.

Re:Wrong. (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369388)

Actually, so do Microsoft (issue bugs, security updates etc through windows update).

Service Packs do have bug fixes yes, but often also increased hardware support, and they sometimes add new features as well (see fast user switching in XP).

It's also worth remembering that up until recently at any rate, most large scale updates to Windows were free (many still are). DirectX, DCOM, Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, MSN Messenger, MSXML, ADO - these are all free for many versions of Windows.

That policy has the added advantage for the users that they rarely have to upgrade their OS to get new apps, in contrast to the situation on MacOS X.

Re:The G5 (0)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369313)

Their scheme for OS X is the equivalent of Microsoft charging $100+ for a service pack, I just don't understand it.
Nope. "Service packs" are free. Bug fixes are free. Upgrades that are the equivalent of going from W95 to W98 cost money, just as they should. Apple is just confusing you by remaining in the 10.x version range.

However, it's a good thing that they aren't waiting 3 years between versions like that other OS company.

Re:The G5 (1)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369332)

Agreed, the commercial OS is expensive, but nothing stops you from using Linux, a BSD (Open, Net or even Darwin!).

Re:The G5 (0)

OmniVector (569062) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369347)

Their scheme for OS X is the equivalent of Microsoft charging $100+ for a service pack, I just don't understand it.

The difference is, for that $100 you fund R&D for a better operating system with better apps than their windows counterparts. i mean come on, lets look at the list:
  • Windows Media Player - QuickTime/iTunes: iTunes has a music store and superior interface
  • Windows Messenger - iChat AV: Messenger only works with messenger, at least iChat works with every other AIM Client and can also work with ICQ Lite now. Not to mention they just added phone and video conferencing.
  • Outlook express - Mail: Mail wins hands down: junk control, integration with the operating system's address book and iChat, and no slew of viruses in it's history (granted it's new, but still impressive).
  • iCal: the closest windows counterpart is Outlook's Calendar, and that isn't free

there's a heck of a lot more than that, too.

But until I win the lottery, I'll stick with my cheap x86 machines

That argument really is flawed. I went to newegg.com one day and added the equivalent parts (dual xeons, 1gb ram, 160gig sata drive, aluminum case, ati 9600, etc) and the cost was $2500 before tax. Add on the cost of windows xp you've got $2700. for $300, i'm willing to pay for better programs, a better operating system as well as performance that is on par and often faster than that equivalent x86 machine, and the 1 year apple care service contract. You get what you pay for.

Re:The G5 (1)

OmniVector (569062) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369379)

Self correction: that should be 512mb ram, not 1gb (for those who care)

Re:The G5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369377)

Panther (OS X 10.3) is to Jaguar (OS X 10.2) what Windows XP (WinNT 5.1) is to Windows 2000 (WinNT 5.0).

Panther is not a $129 service pack - it's a new version. Apple has shipped 6 service packs so far for Jaguar: 10.2.1 - 10.2.6 and those were free.

Compare pricing to other commercial OS updates and you'll see these are quiet reasonable, though not as cheap as our favorite GPL/BSD licensed OS updates.

Now you understand.
-evn

Linux is Dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369267)

just look at this pie chart

http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/may03_pie. gi f

I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss it - even if you didn't enjoy its work, there's no denying its contributions to the failed open-source movement. Truly an American icon.

Re:Linux is Dying (2, Insightful)

WuWarrior (628294) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369319)

Linux is almost as popular as Windows 95! Seriously, 1% of that pie is probably tens of millions of people.

Ummm? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369282)

Jet3D was compiled and optimized for the best performance on each platform

and yet he didn't use the Intel compiler (a free download) [intel.com] on the P4?

It's people like him that keep losing our space probes. ;)

MFLOPS/Mhz. - Useless Metric (4, Insightful)

Cordath (581672) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369308)

It was interesting to see this paper devote so much effort to the completely useless metric of MFLOPS/MHz. This measurement has absolutely nothing to do with performance, but rather, with the approach taken by the chip manufacturer. You can do more in one clock cycle, as AMD historitcally has done, or less, but optimize for faster clock speeds, as Intel has in recent flavors of the Pentium.

One might be tempted to design a chip that does more in one cycle and then clock it as fast as a chip that does less in one cycle. Unfortunately, while reality is a little more complex than this, the basic reason is that the more a chip does per cycle, the more heat it generates per cycle. If you try to squeeze too many cycles through it in a second it will fry.

So showing that the G5 has better performance per clock cycles is no more useful than showing that an AMD chip has better performance per clock cycle than an Intel chip. All that matters is how much performance you can get from a chip before it cannot be clocked any faster without requiring unreasonable cooling methods.

All this paper shows is that, while the G5 is designed to do more in a clock cycle than a P4 is, the chip tested is ultimately not any faster than the P4 they benchmarked it against. It remains to be seen how the G5 will do at higher clock speeds. With this in mind, it would be *far* more useful to see heat dissipation stats on the G5 since that might give us some idea how close to it's design limits. If it is cranking out high-end P4 performance and running cool *then* I will be impressed.

And of course (-1, Offtopic)

mrpuffypants (444598) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369310)

....your tax dollars at work!

Interesting Thought (5, Interesting)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369321)

Apple has been making better software for years, everyone agrees; They just never had the hardware to back them up. Then every time they do crop up with better hardware, everyone criticizes them and says that it's just not possible, PC hardware is always better they say. But now they've proven you wrong... TWICE, and some trolls STILL don't believe them. It's a sad world. I just wish Apple would open up at least their motherboards a little more, make Macs more customizable, more like PC's so they can start dominating again.

There's also one benchmark I'de love to see. Power Mac G5 vs Sun UltraSPARC III. It's fair: they're both 64-bit procs, and it would really make people look at it in businesses that only look at supercomputers as viable. Then maybe people would start giving Apple and IBM some credit.

My 2 cents (Canadian). Thanks.

MFLOPS per $ (5, Interesting)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369348)

Why not show an mflops/$ chart? Related to my 'cost' post as well, but I felt it deserved its own post. :)

This seems to confirm my belief that most mac people don't buy their own hardware, but get it through work or school.

MFLOP/Mhz.. What about MFLOP/$ (0, Flamebait)

philask (216894) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369349)

What a pointless test, I hate to say it but the new G5's are just stupidly expensive. I can't believe anyone in a government environment would put together a farm of G5's instead of a farm of Intel processors...

The REAL metric should be MFLOP/$

Source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369369)

Why isn't it hosted on NASA servers if it's a NASA report?

Mac ROX!!!~ (-1, Troll)

NOOBINATOR (685155) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369380)

The only good thing about a Mac is that you can attach a chain to those handles on the box and use it as a BOAT ANCHOR!!!

Vector Performance (5, Insightful)

Japer Lamar Crabb (670674) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369381)

>>Vector performance of the G5 remains excellent, and is inline with current G4 systems on a per clock cycle >>basis. As a result, raw vector performance of the G5 will be boosted simply by its higher clock speeds relative >>to current G4 systems.

This would seem to be one of the more interesting points made, actually. Prior to the announcement of the G5s, speculation on the PPC 970 suggested that it would be stellar with FP & so-so with integer; the real question surrounded how well IBM would implement SIMD. Many were pessimistic. Given that it seems like they've managed to add it efficiently a scaled-down POWER4 core, future refinements could make this series of chips (PPC 9X0s) real monsters.

But the future viability of that roadmap (given how ruthless the company as a whole tends to be when faced with departmental money losses) depends as much upon the success of IBM's Linux strategy as it does on its success in the PowerMac line.

[With apologies to BadAndy of the Ars Technica boards; thanks for sharing your insights.]

In all fairness... (5, Insightful)

Znonymous Coward (615009) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369382)

It's not Apple's G5, it's IBM's 970 and it's the shizzle.

Impressive? (1)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369392)

The only result reported is this: 2.66 GHz P4 = 255, 2 GHz G5 = 254. What is so impressive about that?

Yes, I see the article talks a lot about performance per MHz, but that's a useless measurement. That would be like comparing cars by looking at speed/RPM. If you want to get somewhere, car A that goes 60 MPH and runs at 6000 RPM will get you there faster than car B at 50 MPH and 2500 RPM, even though car B has a better speed/RPM ratio.

In Soviet Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6369396)

New G5 Powermac Benchmarks NASA

News Flash (1)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369402)

G5 compared to Itanium and Opteron as soon as someone actually writes a G5 compiler, news at 11:00.

Benchmarking a system thats not out yet with unoptimized code with compilers written for systems from 3 years ago, old news.

Good thing we have some more bogus benchmarks, it's a slow nerdy news day.

what? (1)

JoJoFine (671477) | more than 11 years ago | (#6369404)

i just wanna see a dual 2ghz G5 vs a dual 1.8ghz Opteron
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?