The New Apple G5 - Merged - Page 3 - Simply Maya User Community

# 31 24-06-2003 , 12:50 PM

Kevin

Guest

Posts: n/a

Originally posted by gazzamataz

Especially if your a beer drinking curry-eater

Originally Posted by

Hell yeah dude!!! I knew I liked you for some reason!!

My kinda guy! user added image

Quote

# 32 24-06-2003 , 02:38 PM

Registered User
Join Date: May 2003

Location: Shanghai/Pittsburgh

Posts: 263

Correct me if I'm wrong but won't a 64-bit OS get you nowhere unless the software is 64-bit? I don't see that many software that's 64-bit these days.

MSN: cyborg_corporation@hotmail.com
AIM: RavagingOrc
ICQ: 49041947

Quote

# 33 24-06-2003 , 02:53 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 195

Hello Rage, you've missed a few things...

Here's the performance page from the Apple site.

https://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

And if you notice, Apple didn't do the testing of these sytems. Veritest did. You can find their results here:

https://www.veritest.com/

or download their .pdf here:

https://www.veritest.com/clients/repo....asp?visitor=X

If anything stands to question then it would be Veritests results, not Apple's.

What's going to stand out more so than any benchmark test, is going to be the throughput of the system. Apple's G5 appears to run even better in dual configurations, so these tests showing only one processor comparisons aren't really a tell all situation. What I don't really understand is how are they (Apple or Veritest) even getting accurate results from the system when there isn't a 64 bit OS finished for OS X. Is this just testing the 32 bit compatibility features of the G5? Or will the results be even better once OS 10.3 (64 bit) comes out? That's what I find most interesting.

IBM has already started work on the PPC 980, which is the next revision of the PPC 970 which Apple calls the G5. These should be ready by next year, and I'm sure they'll be much, much faster than these. Stay tuned folks...

By the way, anyone want to buy a DP 1ghz G4... I think it's worth about $2 now... I'll sell it cheap... LOL

And, my favorite quote of the day, from Ed Catmull, President of Pixar, "It's very important at Pixar that we be able to show our frames at full resolution and the G5 let's us see every pixel on the screen and send it around the studio. That's fantastic. After running our renderman benchmarks, we can now say that the G5 is the fastest desktop in the world" (Quote taken from the Highend3d.com mailing list)

Now, when will Maya be 64 bit for Mac OS X? Or any 64 bit program for OS X? That's what I want to know. user added image

My Website

Quote

# 34 24-06-2003 , 03:00 PM

Registered User
Join Date: May 2003

Location: Shanghai/Pittsburgh

Posts: 263

Excactly, it'll take year(s) for a program running at 32-bit to be devoloped at 64-bit.

MSN: cyborg_corporation@hotmail.com
AIM: RavagingOrc
ICQ: 49041947

Quote

# 35 24-06-2003 , 03:39 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 195

Well, I don't think so. Expect Shake, Final Cut Pro, maybe even DVD Studio Pro to be 64 bit soon. As for everyone else, I agree, it will be years before 64 bit software becomes standard. Sadly, that will be because of the Windows boxes only being 32 bit. I only expect 64 bit software to start shipping when 64 bit computer become more standard. That is unless Adobe, Quark, Alias|Wavefront, etc... will step up to the plate do it now rather than later. We'll have to see though. We'll have to see.

One thing to note though, is the G5 is much faster than the G4 is at 32 bit code instructions too. Here is a test from Alias|Wavefront using a PPC 970 1.4 Ghz mono (as in single processor) against a DP 1.42 Ghz G4.

This is from an initial benchmark of a PPC970 1.4

"Alias|Wavefront Maya Render : PPC 970 mono 1.4 is 254% faster than a
Dual 1.42 GHz"

I'd take this with a grain of salt, at least until I can get the person who quoted that to post a link. IMO, this sounds a bit strange, but I've seen stranger things. LOL

Being that Apple isn't even using the PPC 970 at 1.4 Ghz speeds, I'm assuming the 2 X 2.0 Ghz G5 will be significantly faster. But I'll leave that up to others to clarify since I won't be getting any new computer for about a year or more. user added image

My Website

Quote

# 36 24-06-2003 , 03:43 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002

Location: Minnesota, USA

Posts: 3,709

I love you guys user added image

I agree with Kev, that there may come a day when he may have to put a ban on these sorts of topics...

Bummer user added image

hehe...

Hey Gaz! How ya been m8!

Israel "Izzy" Long
Motion and Title Design for Broadcast-Film-DS
izzylong.com

Quote

# 37 24-06-2003 , 05:13 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 195

"I don't understand why people are criticizing. The SPEC test looks pretty valid. It's true that P4 and dual Xeon did not get the same high score as the published ones in SPEC website, but same as APPLE's G5 CPU (PowerPC 970). According to IBM, PowerPC 970 @ 1.8 GHz(prototype) should have 937 for SPECint2000 and 1051 for SPECfp2000 AT LEAST; a 2.0 GHz should be higher than that (SPECint2000: 1041 and SPECfp2000:1167 by scaling). However, the test conducted by apple only shows 800 for SPECint2000 and 840 for SPECfp2000, a lot lower than IBM tested. How come no one notice that all 3 machine(P4, Xeon 2.0GHz G5) get lower score than they are supposed to be, not just P4 and Xeon? Therefore, I don't think apple cheated (they can get sued for this); they just do it differently. And, please don't tell me that gcc 3.3 is optimized for G5 and not for P4. They just add support for Power 4 cpu (father of G5) in mid march. G5 just arrived. How can the code be optimized in such a short period? Also, AMD's operton is no that fast; it's has a high SPEC mark, but in real world test, it lags behind P4 3Ghz in most of the test. You can find this in some websites.

Apple's test
P4 3.0GHz SPECint2000: 889 SPECfp2000:693
Xeon 3.0GHz SPECint2000: 836 SPECfp2000:646
G5 2.0GHz SPECint2000: 800 SPECfp2000:840

Published SPEC:
P4 3.0GHz SPECint2000: 1014 SPECfp2000:1056
Xeon 3.0GHz SPECint2000: 1089 SPECfp2000:1138
G5 2.0GHz(by IBM) SPECint2000: 1041 SPECfp2000:1167

discrepency ratio (Apple's result / published result)
P4 3.0GHz SPECint2000: 0.877 SPECfp2000: 0.656
Xeon 3.0GHz SPECint2000: 0.767 SPECfp2000: 0.568
G5 2.0GHz(by IBM) SPECint2000: 0.768 SPECfp2000: 0.719"

quote taken from the www.macrumors.com forums:

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...&pagenumber=15

Here's why the Spec results are different. It seems that Apple/Veritest used the GCC 3.3 compiler which isn't designed for any specific cpu. Whereas even IBM's testing of the PPC 970(Apple G5), even scored higher than the tests Apple posted on it's site. Thus, IMO, making the tests a more fair result than what you would see if there where specific compilers used for specific processors. I'm not an authority on this, so if anyone has any different information, please let me know. user added image

My Website

Quote

# 38 24-06-2003 , 06:07 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 195

OT: Sorry for the second post, but I think this is a pretty cool read.

The Opteron, seemingly, doesn't seem to be quite ready yet for workstations. The DP Xeon systems still looks to be the best 3D hardware system for PC's. It's a pretty interesting read.

tomshardware:

https://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030422/index.html

My Website

Quote

# 39 24-06-2003 , 07:13 PM

The Maya Mountain
Join Date: Aug 2002

Location: Seattle, WA

Posts: 8,245

https://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/

-Mike
The Maya Toolbelt

Quote

# 40 24-06-2003 , 08:46 PM

Registered User
Join Date: May 2003

Location: Shanghai/Pittsburgh

Posts: 263

From what I heard, doom 3 (might) run in 64-bit, or have an option for it. No idea.

MSN: cyborg_corporation@hotmail.com
AIM: RavagingOrc
ICQ: 49041947

Quote

# 41 24-06-2003 , 08:48 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 195

I find it hard to believe Apple or Veritest was lying to anyone. Especially since they posted exactly what they did to test all the machines. Like I said in earlier posts, they used different compilers than what was used for the "Real" Intel specs.

This guy is in for a lot of dissapointments in life if he believes everyone else under the sun always tells the "Whole" truth. Apple has always been notorious for grossly exaggerated benchmarks, although they've never lied about it. They're just made out to make Apple look good. You know, just like every other manufacturer...

Ever hear this one? Hair so healthy it shines! How could hair be healthy? It's dead cells? Marketing will always candy coat everything, and to believe everything at face value, IMO, is just plain stupid. user added image

Oh, one other thing. All the benchmarks that where posted do not utilise the G5 to it's full extent either. The OS used was 32 bit. Not 64 bit. Hmm... seems like Apple didn't even use half of what it could have...

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

This is great stuff!!!

My Website

Quote

# 42 24-06-2003 , 10:11 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003

Posts: 1,113

I have heard Doom 3 runs 64-bit, and has multiple moniter capabilites. Not just takeing the image you already have, and puttig it on 4 screens, but actualy expanding the area which you can see. But that what i've heard.

You guys must realise too, that Apples test, are testing stock computers. Im telling you, I can still build a computer, faster, and better, than the top of the line G5, for at least less than 3/4 the cost!

I can go even bigger and better when the full line of 64-bit proccesors, OS, and the new line of Nforce mother boards come out....

Armitrex Studios
Now open!!

Quote

# 43 24-06-2003 , 10:18 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003

Posts: 1,113

BTW: Hair is dead cells. But, the dead cells are filled with a protien called Keratin, the same thing that is in your toe nails, finger nails, and the outer layer of skin. Now im sure everyone wants to have healthy soft skin. And i dont know anyone who wants unhealthy yellow toe nails. The part about healthy hair however, pretains to the folicle. I know that a few years back, i used, ALOT of gel and hairspray. The hairspray would coat on my head, not allowing the hair folicles to get oxegen, and allowing build of of natural oils. This made the hair folicles unhealthy, and my hair thinner.

There is always two sides to a story. (At least two)

Armitrex Studios
Now open!!

Quote