Match these G5 Specs

[imgod2u]

Well, if you wanted to demonstrate that the G4 could at least win one test, why not just run 2 instances of RC-5? It'll completely rip through the P4. Does that mean it's not horribly slow in practically everything else? No.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.

 

[Solstice]

I think you should give us Tasks this system is to perform.

I know for games I can build a 32 bit based machine that will eat the G5.

Tell us tasks it all comes down to what you use it for.

The Rig
2.4c @ 3.0
OCZ pc3500
Asus P4C800-E
4 Maxtor 250gig serial ata drives
Enermax 465watt
Viewsonic 17" tft
ATI 9800Pro @ stock

 

[slvr_phoenix]

Here are the <b>Photoshop Gaussian blur and @ 250. Pixel Radious results</b>

You do realise that Photoshop is one of the few pieces of software that seems to be intentionally written to run better on a Mac than on a PC?

Personally I just blame it on bad porting by lazy/ignorant Mac-centric software engineers. I've met plenty of such animals. Most of the Mac programmers that I've met have a very anti-PC view of the world.

There are others than myself however who are not so nice and would call Photoshop an intentional act in an anti-PC conspiracy to justify the existence of a Mac, since once PCs started kicking Mac arse it became one of the only three justifications for the existence of a Mac. (Those being ease-of-use, better stability, and graphical arts software. And <i>all</i> of these justifications are debatable at that.)

But again, I'm nice and just like to blame lazy Mac-centric programmers who couldn't have been bothered (or didn't know enough about PCs) to port Photoshop well.

And either way the cookie crumbles it <i>is</i> a fact that other graphical softwares run much better on a PC than Photoshop does (proving that Photoshop could run better on a PC if the software engineers wanted it to) and thus that most PC enthusiasts throw any Photoshop benchmarks right out the window. (Much in the same way that most AMD enthusiasts will throw Lightwave benchmarks right out.)

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>

 

[cdpage]

First off i did this test for Myself and a Friend and thought that it applied here with these on going debates. many people here would understand that tpye of test. <b>that test is VERY much a 'Real World' test</b>

Secondly, i I do not know what <b>RC-5</b> is or what types of instances there are. If they are real world, sometihng everyone can or does do, then let me know and maybe we'll do that test too.

----- "Does that mean it's not horribly slow in practically everything else? No." -----

sorry but i am not sure what you are saying here.

i am not trying to put down my P4 nore am i trying to up the G4, I am Simply stating some facts

Per/Hz the G4 is far better then a P4 at THIS <b>ONE</b> task.




ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.

 

[cdpage]

hmm that is interesting to know...sometihng i haven't thought of.

i'll look in to trying a similar test in say macromedia then?

as Corel draw sux ASS

ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.

 

[cdpage]

blame it on bad porting by lazy/ignorant Mac-centric software engineers

OK, i am not a software engineers or anything, but i do have some understanding in how it all works.

IF porting is the 'software engineers' Fault for not make Photoshop run correctly then fine...
(PS runs beautifully for me on the PC, more stable even then on a mac, but w/e)

However a FILTER/(gaussian Blur) is a mathimatical algarithm if i am not mistaken. And if that is the case then why blame the programmer for copying an algarithm... If they deside to change the Algerithm for say 'Gaussian Blur' then would it not need a new name...like say 'Not Gaussian Blur' or 'Gaussian Blurish' or 'Gaussian Blur imposter'

the way i see it.. it is not the PS team... its it the engine/calculator (i would guess the CPU) that is slowing things down.

I of coarse could be wrong. but it makes sence none the less, that a filter is the same on both PC and Mac...or anywhere for that matter.

And either way the cookie crumbles it is a fact that other graphical softwares run much better on a PC than Photoshop does

FACT EH? that is pretty odd... im not going to discount you on that. but i would like to see some proof.

PS is Standard (not that standard means best, we all know that there are man cases of this). Corel Sucks ASS, anything Microsoft does sux and marcomedia is Buggy...but still realy good.

Photoshop 'MIGHT' be slow on a PC redering, but it does what people want to do and easily.

PLEASE tell me what programs you use that you feel are better.

ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.

 

[Unseen]

If you just want to compare with a 64 bit cpu with 32 compatibilty there is really no other choice than an opteron. A xeon probably could overperfom that mac easily in 32 bit app for lot cheaper! But anyhow, here is a dual opteron spec:

2* opeteron 246 (2.0 ghz) ($779*2)
Thunder K8W (S2885) $506
512 DDR333 registered (2*256) $116
Maxtor 160GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm $149
ATI Radeon 9600 Pro 256 MB $134
Pinoeer 106 (A06) DVD-RW/+RW oem $160
Wireless card- $60
Modem- $15
PS/case/keybooard etc $250
win xp pro oem $150

The tyan Thunder K8W (S2885) has:
2 firewire ports
build in giga lan
Support for up to 16 GB of ram
Two 100/66/33MHz PCI-X slots (PCI-X A)
Two 133/100/66/33MHz PCI-X slots (PCI-X B)

Total: $3098

I am willing to bet that this plaform will outperform BY ALOT that mac in nearly all applications for $50 lower But as other said a 32 bit machine for alot cheaper could kill that mac in many things! You probably could pull out a specific benchmark that mac is better, but thats just one thing. You to all at all the other stuff Those mac are over priced really. However if you want to stick to specs wait a few months and than opteron will cpu should be alot more cheaper than mac!

 

[cdpage]

it will be nice once that is out...

HOPEFULLY!!!!! Toms will review it, HOPEFULLY Toms will review it WITH the G5

ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.

 

[imgod2u]

First off i did this test for Myself and a Friend and thought that it applied here with these on going debates. many people here would understand that tpye of test. that test is VERY much a 'Real World' test

I don't know what kind of Photoshop work you do but my daily use does not include running filters on solid colors.

However, what happens when you use actual complex images, which is more like real situations is quite "<A HREF="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc23.htm" target="_new">different</A>" (Pun with Apple's Reality Distortion Marketing intended).

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.

 

[silverpig]

A lot of this has to do with software builds and differences. Someone should custom compile a gentoo install for a PC and a G5, compile all software from source, and then run tests.

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.

 

[silverpig]

Dude, of COURSE no one can match those specs right now (maybe an opteron system could do it?).

The thing is, try building a mac matching these specs:

3.0 GHz
...

That is all. You can't do it. It's about performance, not specs.

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.