Question is there confusion??.....DualCore and Quad

MacDoc · Oct 29th, 2005, 12:04 AM

Just had a discussion about some of the comments on Creative Cow ( content creation forum...Final Cut Pro in particular ) and it appears to me there is some confusion.

As a result of that I summarized what we have found and how it matches the other conclusions out there.

There is simply no real testing of the Quads out there yet and it appears confusion over the DualCore.

Maybe I'm wrong about that but here's the summary I wrote for him regarding specifically Final Cut Pro.

Quote:

There were no discussion of ACTUAL performance of the Quad at Creative Cow ....lots about Dual Core which show the same conclusions I reached.
The only real world testing that has been published other than Apple is here.

http://forums.luxology.com/discussio...c.aspx?id=3717 and they were bloody impressed.

$3k for a 2.3 dual core versus $3k for a 2.5/2.7 dual processor.....who cares.
Almost zero difference -........

The Quad is a different animal entirely - it's cheap.
45-70% and perhaps more ( as the Luxology tests indicate ) for a grand extra......that's cheap.

The new architecture facilitates that performance gain by opening up the bus architecture and adding high end L2 1:1 caches so they don't bottleneck in feeding the processing and multiple operations.

Apple has also done a ton under the hood with the OS to help that - it shows 212% user interface improvement. That's an incredible bump in speed given the processors are actually less powerful.

Does it make FCP efficient.....no.

Will it make it faster than anything currently available for a FCP suite yes....for cheap. The architecture will also allow the high end cards to be much much more effective.

For the same price as the previous 2.7 dual you get a Quad with 40-70-% or more better processing and at least 30% better architecture throughput and twice the RAM capacity.

That's called an excellent upgrade.

For the middle of the line - YAWN. It feels a little faster and processes a little slower.

The Quad??......that's good stuff

	Quote:
	Final Cut Pro(R) 5 encodes SD video content up to 60 percent faster on the new Power Mac G5 Quad when compared with the Dual Processor 2.7 GHz Power Mac G5; Adobe Photoshop runs a series of 45 commonly used filters and actions 43 percent faster on the new Power Mac G5 Quad when compared with the Dual Processor 2.7 GHz Power Mac G5; Adobe After Effects renders video effects up to 69 percent faster on the new Power Mac G5 Quad when compared with the Dual Processor 2.7 GHz Power Mac G5; LightWave 3D renders animation up to 59 percent faster on the Power Mac G5 Quad when compared with the Dual Processor 2.7 GHz Power Mac G5; and The scientific benchmark Bioinformatics Benchmark System (BBS version 3) completes a comparison of genomic sequences up to 39 percent faster on the Power Mac G5 Quad when compared with the Dual Processor 2.7 GHz Power Mac G5.

These are Apple's numbers and we see nothing to think they will not hold up.

It will NOT transform Final Cut the way a dedicated card system can perform custom designed processes.
- it WILL make Final Cut MUCH faster....at the same price as the previous top box and open the platform to the PCiExpress architecture which is just emerging on BOTH platforms.

Summary - the intermediate machines get into the good architecture but offer no gain in processing - pricing remains the same. They feel way faster and can use the new cards that will emerge.

The Quad offers greatly enhanced processing by way of having 4 processors each with 1:1 L2 caches in play at once and they are fed by the new architecture.

Without the opened up RAM and PCiE bus the Quad would just choke. WITH the enhanced architecture the processors can work quite efficiently.....40-70% better performance for $1000 incremental cost. = excellent value.

IF you intend to get into FCP - the Quad is the way to go.

For the first time Apple's top end box actually provides value for money.

What remains to be seen is just how much the GPU performance affects the overall system performance in the real world.....

and on the one real test out there which is bloody impressive

http://www.architosh.com/news/2005-1...quad-modo.html

Quote:

Exactly my point - the Quad is a whole different animal

	Quote:
	The new Quad G5 finished the image -- which looks extremely good by the way -- in 17 seconds flat. That bested a score of 38 seconds flat on a Luxology Power Mac Dual G5 at 2.5 Ghz

Twice as fast!!!

For the same price as the previous top banana there is serious speed bump with the Quad and it's architecture FOR THE SAME PRICE POINT as the the previous unit

FCP will not get the same improvements as the 3d rendering as there are many more operations which will bottleneck video creation performance as an overall workflow......that's what the third party cards help - the new architecture will help those cards perform better than they do on PCiX.

This is a good transition and will only help if and when Apple goes to Intel ...which is a good ways off in the workstation end.
The Intel boxes are also just moving to PCiE and DDR2.

WE think the two winners in the line are the 2.0 PCiE Dual Core and the Quad.

A current DualCore 2gHz with 4 gigs of RAM for a graphics station is reallllly quick and under $3k.

A Quad with 4 gigs of RAM the 7800 card and a small RAID is under $5k.....

Good stuff Apple.

And they DO reallly feel fast with 4 gigs. I love mine.

MacGYVER · Oct 29th, 2005, 12:41 AM

I have to tell you, I am more confused by your post then actually the difference between a G5 Dual and a G5 Quad. To me, there is no confusion between the processors or the models that Apple came out with the other week. Anyone who thought the Quad G5 would be slower then the Duals, would also think that a Pinto could out speed a Ferrari

You're getting a heck of a lot of power for the value of the Quad G5 over the G5 Duals.

So, I'm not sure what to make of your post, except I have already read the review that you posted above from Apple and Luxology.

parousia · Oct 29th, 2005, 04:26 AM

There is a caveat to that particular test by Apple though, they are using the new Quatro card on the QuadG5 and just the stock card on the dual 2.7.. thats really no competition.

If you look at the downloadable spec sheets it lists the 2.7 as bone stock, and the Quad as having the Quatro gfx card.

Parousia

MacDoc · Oct 29th, 2005, 10:56 AM

Exactly, Parousia that's what I'm wondering how much that card impacted the testing - I imagine the Luxology testers had that workstation card as well.

Still even 40% gain which is very likely for just about anything processor intensive is decent for 30% more $$.

PosterBoy · Oct 29th, 2005, 04:44 PM

Small note: It's PCIe and PCI-X, not PCiE or PCiX.

Oct 29th, 2005, 10:56 AM	#4
MacDoc Honourable Citizen Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Planet Earth.....on slow boil Posts: 28,080	Exactly, Parousia that's what I'm wondering how much that card impacted the testing - I imagine the Luxology testers had that workstation card as well. Still even 40% gain which is very likely for just about anything processor intensive is decent for 30% more $$. __________________ Are you backed up??? if not why not? - Superduper is FREE!! Find out more here Support Green- buy Bullfrog Power http://www.bullfrogpower.com/

Oct 29th, 2005, 04:44 PM	#5
PosterBoy Honourable Citizen Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 6,472	Small note: It's PCIe and PCI-X, not PCiE or PCiX. __________________ "Putting clients first by putting employees first, immediately after prioritizing fiscal responsibility and leveraging profitability toward exceeding by empowering our employees to put clients (and themselves) first, in a diverse and respectful environment of only those that come first, first."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Oct 29th, 2005, 12:41 AM	#2
MacGYVER Full Citizen Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 746	I have to tell you, I am more confused by your post then actually the difference between a G5 Dual and a G5 Quad. To me, there is no confusion between the processors or the models that Apple came out with the other week. Anyone who thought the Quad G5 would be slower then the Duals, would also think that a Pinto could out speed a Ferrari You're getting a heck of a lot of power for the value of the Quad G5 over the G5 Duals. So, I'm not sure what to make of your post, except I have already read the review that you posted above from Apple and Luxology.

Oct 29th, 2005, 04:26 AM	#3
parousia Full Citizen Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Vancouver / BC/ Canada Posts: 216	There is a caveat to that particular test by Apple though, they are using the new Quatro card on the QuadG5 and just the stock card on the dual 2.7.. thats really no competition. If you look at the downloadable spec sheets it lists the 2.7 as bone stock, and the Quad as having the Quatro gfx card. Parousia