Disappointed with my G5 Quad (poor Xbench)???

Haven2020

Thanks again for the help everyone....

those benchs make me feel better.... alot better....

haven2020

Jmain

I am not sure why you would need Bench Marks to verify this. I would assume that (In Darth Vader Voice) YOU WOULD FEEL THE POWER OF THE QUAD!

I know I felt a huge difference going from my G4 933 to my Intel CoreDuo. I imagine that doing any Media Encoding with a Quad would eat through it like my dog eats table scraps.

__________________
Macbook 2.4 160 GB HD, 4 GB RAM
iMac 17" 1.83 GHz Duocore, 160 GB HD, 2 GB RAM
PowerMac G4 933 Quicksilver, 120 GB HD, 1 GB RAM
iPod mini 4 GB
iPod Video 30 GB
iPod Nano 8 GB
iPod Touch 16 GB
iPhone 3GS 16 GB on Bell Mobility

http://johnmain.wordpress.com

mguertin

It will really shine doing big rendering/number crunching/filtering sort of stuff. For day to day OS operation you may not notice all that much. Think I'll have to track down a quad for my studio one of these years .. imagine all the altiverb instances I could run LOL.

Kosh

Thing is, again, it depends on what you run on the Quad to compare. If you run a non-SMP game like UT2004 (hey, I'm a gamin' guy) you'll be disappointed, because it won't use the second processor (and the two cores in that processor) for much except the sound and maybe some OS tasks. If however you take out an SMP aware game like Quake III, it'll wipe the pants off any other system, guaranteed. Now that Intel has gone multi-cores, we should see more and more applications which support multi-core and multi-processor computers since most applications that are cross-platform are written for Windows machines first and Mac machines second. If the SMP support is there on the Windows side it makes it that much easier to port that over to the Mac side.

If you can find an app that is Altivec optimized and optimized for SMP the Quad will fly by any other machine.

The Quad machine is a hard machine to keep busy unless your doing video rendering or some other intensive things.

__________________
-- Mac Pro Dual 3.0 Dual Core, 4GB RAM, 150GB Raptor HD, 500GB HD, Superdrive, Radeon X1900XT, Bluetooth, Airport Exteme, Logitech Z-5500 5.1 Speakers, 30" ACD
-- PowerMac G5 Dual 2.5, 2.5GB RAM, 160GB HD, Superdrive, Radeon X800XT, Bluetooth, Airport Extreme
-- Macbook Pro 2.53 15", 4GB, 320GB HD, SuperDrive, Bluetooth, Airport Extreme
-- iBook G4 1.33 14", 768MB RAM, 60GB HD, Combo Drive, Airport Extreme

MacDoc

We've found that as well - the 2.5 duals do well more most clients but when you really need crunch the Quads are delightful - we've traded a number of video editors up and really the gain for the money is superb.
If you figure it's 45-70% faster than a 2.7 dual then the gain over say a 2.0 dual is enormous.

uselessobserver

i googled my way here looking for someone who could help me find a replacement apple hardware disk, as mine is scratched to hell and wont even load anymore, and found this post, so i tried geekbench, but after running it it come up saying that ive got a 32-bit ppc instead of 64bit? did i get ripped off or is geekbench wrong?.

TrevX

What kind of Mac do you have?

Trev

__________________
-Macbook Pro 2GHz Core Duo 15.4", 2GB, 100GB, Superdrive, Airport, BT, 256MB ATI x1600
-iPhone 8GB

uselessobserver

sorry, i put the model number, its the g5 2.3....

and i was right, it is 64bit i did wonder.... im halfway through downloading the 64bit version of yellowdog linux 5, so i would be well unhappy if i had the wrong version (its taken 3 days to download so far....


while i was out looking i found a whole load more mac benchmarking tools...
Intel PC Health Check – tools for benchmarking, security and cleaning and tweaking

uselessobserver

...lol, im going to get in trouble for spamming, but now i look at my original post i can see that i didnt even put a model number (powermac 11,2)
*sigh* its been a llllloooooonnng nite (honest)