Slashdot Log In
G5 vs Opteron, Finally
Posted by
timothy
on Sat Dec 27, 2003 11:44 PM
from the gracies-v-japan dept.
from the gracies-v-japan dept.
metfoo writes "It's been months since the G5 and Opterons have been available for purchase. When the G5 systems were first released, many Mac bashers and AMD nuts discredited the G5's performance. They always ended their comments with 'Wait until its compared to an Opteron, then we'll talk.' Well, it's finally time to talk. Barefeats has posted an article comparing the two systems. The G5 line was compared to a Dual 2GHz Opteron and the results are impressive. In gaming, the Opteron system proved to be superior, which is partly due to the superior 9800XT over the base Radeon 9800. The G5 spanks the Opteron in many of the non-gaming tests, except for the Photoshop tests."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Except (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Except (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Except (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Except (Score:3, Informative)
It should be noted that 32-bit darwin runs 64 bit apps just fine (and fast!
Re:Except (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Except (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Except (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Except (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Except (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Except (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Except (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Except (Score:3)
Absolute speed is largely irrelevant.
So benching with Linux is all fine and good, but will that matter to most end users who are trying to decide between the two? Possibly, but simply because it wasn't used doesn't mean that the app isn't fair within its own context.
Re:Except (Score:5, Funny)
Then it isn't Slashdot.
Parent
Re:Except (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Except (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Except (Score:5, Informative)
The only "piece" of OSX that is 64 bit is the memory access - to allow a G5 to use up to 8 GB of ram.
No, the math libraries and kernel support 64 bit goodness too. While the G5 chip is fully 64 bit, OSX is taking each 64 bit instruction (from 64 bit apps like Photoshop, for example) and breaking it into two 32 bit instructions which it sends one after the other to the CPU.
No, it runs as a single 64 bit instruction through the chip!IBM is working to provide Apple with a much optimized PPC970 compiler tailored for the G5 - this is expected to give a large performance gain for this platform.
This I agree with, in fact it should be pointed out that the compiler is available now as a beta on IBM's web site.
Parent
Re:Except (Score:4, Informative)
The measure of the processor 'bitness' is when addressing memory, whether you are limited to a 32 or 64 bit address space. In effect the size of a pointer will tell you. Now the impact of moving to a 64 bit address space is usually detrimental to the speed of the application (I would expect that the G5 will be slower in 64 bit mode) due to the increased memory bandwidth required (if pointers are wider, you need more stack/memory to store them, so you have, say, a 10% increase in memory requirement for an application). If I remember correctly, the HP PA RISC systems were slower running 64 bit code than 32 bit. I'm thinking back a couple of years here, so it may be different for the latest generation of their processors.
It isn't all bad for the Opteron though - the instruction set has been altered to provide more processor registers. This may mean the compiler can do a better job of optimising code, reducing the number of load/store instructions, so increasing the IPC.
So, just don't assume that if the Opteron gets a performance benefit from 64 bit code, so will the G5. As other people have mentioned, you need to test both with a 64 bit OS to really know the results - extrapolating won't get you the answers.
Your comment about the IBM compiler is spot on. With any luck the IBM changes will make it into the gcc code for other non-apple PPC platforms.
Parent
I wonder what the results would have been... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I wonder what the results would have been... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I wonder what the results would have been... (Score:5, Insightful)
a) Not many people have heard of.
and
b) Even fewer people use.
Parent
Old Tests... one issue (Score:5, Interesting)
It's much, much faster. Several optimizations have been made, lots of Altivec code has been added, and the entire sound subsystem has been rewritten. Performance improvements of 25% or more over the original retail version are typical, with single CPU systems achieving a more noticible gain.
This may sound like flamebait or a troll... (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I just an exception?
Re:This may sound like flamebait or a troll... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:This may sound like flamebait or a troll... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Mac vs. PC Flamewar in 5... 4... 3... 2... (Score:3, Funny)
(a) Mac only has one mouse button
(b) PC is like a Dodge Neon, Mac is like a BMW
(c) Mac has no games
(d) Windows XP: DRM
(e) Linux has no games
(f) X windows sucks
(g) etc.
Price? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Price? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am very curious as to how you got an Opteron price from Dell, which doesn't Make an Opteron system.
I've read this sort of argument before, and what it comes down to is the difference in price between a comsumer system (G5) and a pro workstation (dual Opterons are not for the avergae consumer). The manufacturers making dual Opteron systems provide very heavy support - because their market (Engineering, 3d modeling, rendering) demands it. You pay for said support. The G5, however, comes with typical Apple support - which, while very nice, is not at the same level.
Also of note, the manufacturers making Opteron workstations tend to put on very high end graphics cards - not the game-use 9600 pro that comes standard on a G5.
Unfortunatly, no one makes a dual opteron that isn't targeted at a professional user currently - instead you have to cobble one together yourself. The price point drops considerably when you do this, becoming on par with that of the G5, but you wind up with 5+ warrenties to keep track of, and no central org to get service from.
Parent
Re:Price? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the G5 is Apples Pro Line. Their consumer line consists of the iBook, iMac, and eMac. Their Pro line consists of the PoweBook and Power Mac. Maybe the naming gives it away too... POWER Mac, POWER Book.
Parent
PC configuration a little funky (Score:5, Informative)
For some reason they configured the Opteron with an add-in Serial ATA RAID controller, supposedly in order to better match the configuration of the Mac (which doesn't support RAID, but I digress). This added $117 to the price. However they completely ignored the motherboard upgrade option that added SATA support (no RAID) and 1394b support together for only $35.
They could also have shaved another $37 off the price by using a software modem instead of a hardware modem (though the HW modem might be a good idea for Linux users that need dial-up) or $72 off the price by not including a modem at all for those of us with broadband connections.
In the end though, the Mac is still a bit cheaper. Macs are not expensive for what you get, the problem is that you don't have much choice but to get top-end. To price out a dual-processor Opteron with similar specs to a dual-processor Mac, you'll be easily over $3000 and possibly up closer to the $3938 of the Xi computer system. However, if you don't need all those features you can easily configure yourself an Athlon64 system for SIGNIFICANTLY less.
I have absolutely no need for a modem (got an old external kicking around in case of emergancies) and have never owned any 1394b devices. Therefore, if I were configuring a PC for myself I would never bother adding either of those two options. I might also configure a cheaper video card and I probably wouldn't bother with a DVD-RW drive, though I would prefer to have two optical drives (one CD-RW and one DVD). These are all easy options on most PC configurations, but often they aren't on Mac configurations. Simply put, you have more choices on PC configurations than on Macs. If you desired setup matches that of a Mac closely, then they often offer good value for your money. If not, then they can be quite expensive for what you want.
Parent
Re:Price? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or I can hope Jobs hasn't discontinued the model of Mac that I had started to like. Apple proved they're not ready to be anything but a niche vendor when they got cold feet and killed their second source vendors (the Mac clone business)
Parent
Re:Price? (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what: It got faster.
Show me one PC Manufacturer (not alone Microsoft) who can manage something like that?
I have a five year old Dell Notebook.... XP I guess might run on it, or not. But the reality is I wouldn't even want to run XP on that thing.
I didn't own an Apple until I bought an iBook a year and a half ago (together with an iPod). But I can tell you right now that my next one will be an Apple again, because "It just works" and I don't feel completly abandoned by Apple once I walk out of the door.
This might be the case because Apple is still relativly small in comparision to other Computer companies, but at this point in time I don't really care, I get what I paid for, if not more so.
Parent
Re:Price? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Price? (Score:4, Funny)
Yes Bob, but that was a Beige G3, circa 1997. I know for a fact you're not using a 6-year-old x86 system.
See you on IRC!
Parent
Not a Processor Comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
D3D vs OGL (Score:3, Interesting)
If a G5 running in OGL gets such low scores something is wrong. D3D renders slower and requires more processing power than OGL.
Re:D3D vs OGL (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
w00t. Like this is something new! (Score:5, Insightful)
They're close in price, too (if you go PC white box then the PC is still less than half the price, but for a Xeon system or something from Dell it's fairly close).
I don't think this benchmark is going to make up ANYBODY's mind one way or another, though -- it's an emotional debate rather than a logical one.
The good thing is the Mac's numbers are no longer embarrasingly crappy, as they were in the latter G4 days.
Remarks (Score:5, Interesting)
- comparisation of artificially low memory systems as Apples prices are where Apple makes the most on. On the one hand claiming 'we don't want to build ourselves as Apples can't be build, and then going to another store to add memory, just isn't fair when comparing prices.
- Boot-testing the Mac for performance difference with other the HD is a good thing, but the test in the other direction (booting the PC with the other HD might reveal that the bottleneck is in the other direction).
- MacOS X is certainly better in 64bit environments than not wanting to run beta software on a system bought for performance.
- The problem with the Mac is also that the graphics subsystem is already dated. The release cycle of Macs is just too long. When they're first released they -arguably- beat most of the fastest PC's. But the next version is only released at quickest 6 months later, if you compare at that time with latest hardware. Macs just can cope up.
- I also assume that near the end of the cycle, Apple's profit margins are incredible high. It's a very good marketing tactic to keep hardware and software tied to each other, keeping it all under control.
- As I'm typing this on my top-equipped 12" PowerBook, I must admit that MacOS X is a good OS and the hardware is very good (this laptop was cheaper than any comparable hardware at the time I ordered it - not any more at the time when it got delivered)
- And as a rule of thumb, I always say it's better to buy a less expensive system and upgrade it quicker than to go for the fastest and be stuck with it for an extra year.
- Macs also have a better second hand value, and that shouldn't be forgotten when taking the price into account.
- But most performance comparisations clearly SUCK because they tend to be optimised for a certain system (because of lack of knowledge of the party), or highly dependent on release schedules of involved hardware or software.
Macworld Dec 2003 Issue (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Macworld Dec 2003 Issue (Score:5, Informative)
Macworld isn't making the article available on their website, but you piqued my curiosity enough to go looking for it. Alienware [alienware.com], which makes the Athlon and P4 systems that Macworld apparently used for its testing, has made excerpts available here [alienware.com].
Who should I believe - Macworld, or some guy with bare feet? Hmmm............
Parent
Mac fanboy? (Score:5, Informative)
First, lets examine the statement The G5 spanks the Opteron in many of the non-gaming tests, except for the Photoshop tests. I see five tests in this review, and there are two wins for G5, two wins for Opteron, and one tie. So I really don't see either chip spanking the other. On the second page Opteron wins two, G5 wins one.
Second, the configuration notes section was pathetic. It doesn't really give a very good description of the real configuration of the systems. Anyone that views benchmarks regularly knows that the devil is in the details. Still, this is equally a problem for Opteron and G5.
Third, I wonder what kind of comparison is really valid. Anyone familiar with the AMD/Intel world knows that you can't just grab two 2Ghz chips and run them head to head. The architectures are not the same, it wouldn't be a valid comparison. So with two entirely different ISAs, what chips should be run head to head? The only obvious comparison would be each manufacturer's fastest...in this case I believe the 2GHz G5 is Apple's current fastest, but AMD does have a 2.2Ghz part that is available (see pricewatch) and that wasn't tested.
Lastly, let me address the importance of compilation. I can't speak for G5, but you would get a substantial boost in performance on most applications just with a recompile for AMD64 chips. This is because Opterons have 32 GPRs instead of 16, which can make a big difference (especially in multimedia apps like photoshop). Obviously these products aren't commercially available, but people should be aware that a substantial performance boost for AMD64 could come just from optimized releases of software once it reaches a wide enough audience to make it worthwhile for software vendors.
I guess this has turned more into a "notes about AMD64 architecture" post than anything else. It looks to me like this review is interesting but doesn't really settle much. Both Opteron and G5 performed well.
pcworld did this a little while ago. (Score:4, Informative)
[pcworld.com]
Athlon 64 vs. Apple G5 Systems: Not Even Close
Now i can't say whether these tests are any less or more objective, but they do draw a completely different conclusion.
-Jon
Re:pcworld did this a little while ago. (Score:5, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=82342&cid=721
Parent
Top500.org (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Top500.org (Score:5, Informative)
Some scientific computing does closely resemble Linpack's workload. Basically any time you're dealing with matricies you are almost always going to be doing lots of FP mult-adds. However, this is a VERY narrow benchmark of CPU performance.
A much better benchmark of raw CPU power is SPEC CPU2000 (though the compiler and memory subsystem play a major role here). Unfortunately Apple has chosen not to grace Spec with it's precense. So far it's only numbers released have been from the Veritest results which "proved" that the G5 was faster than a Pentium4. These results were rather unimpressive and SIGNIFICANTLY slower than the results for Opteron and P4 systems.
All benchmarks have their limitations, Linpack (used by Top500) just tends to be more limited than most. Rumor has it that a new set of high-performance computing benchmarks is in the works to replace plain old Linpack.
Parent
How are we going to explaing something this subtle (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me try to make this simple: neither Windows XP nor OS X are 64-bit OSs, and neither was running 64-bit programs. This is a much better situation for the G5 than the Opteron. 64-bit mode on the G5 really only allows for 64-bit instruction execution, and 64-bit pointers. On the Opteron, 64-bit mode enables a host of non-64-bit-related improvements, notably a doubling of the visible register set.
The bottom line is this:
The G5 will run 32-bit code just as fast (or faster, because of better cache utilization) than 64-bit code. The Opteron will run 32-bit bit code about 20% slower than 64-bit code, because of the architectural improvements in X86-64 long mode.
Note that none of the apps here would really benifet from 64-bit processing. Floating point is already 64-bit (actually, 80-bit) in both processors, and the only program that could concievably use 64-bit integer math would be Photoshop. Neither machine had more than 4GB of RAM, so 64-bit memory addressing was a non-factor.
That said, the G5 beat the Opteron by more than 20% in most of the benchmarks. I fully expect that with both CPUs running optimized 64-bit code, the G5 would still be faster, though the performance delta will be less.
Its not the hardware its the software (Score:5, Interesting)
Answer this question: will final cut pro run on an x86 based machine?
To me, and most Mac users, gaming is irrelvant. Most people that use Macs are in a profession such as desktop publishing, video production, or graphic arts. Sure they may play a game or two, but their machine is used for work.
I do a little bit of everything with my G3 700Mhz 14.1" iBook, but mostly its MS Office, Mail, Safari, and Quark that I use. Along with Final Cut Pro and Photoshop when need be.
Our office is 95% Mac and 5% FreeBSD, which we run on Althon white boxes, and we have beat out competition because of productivty. We are not spending loads of time with viruses and patching security issues on a weekly basis. Our machines rarely lock up, none have crashed (knock on wood), and that helps with the bottom line.
Does it help in video rendering to have the extra speed and power of the 64-bit G5? Yeah, the faster a project is rendered, the quicker we move on to the next. But for everyday business use, our older G4 500's, 867's, and Dual 1.25gz will serve us for years to come and even though Apples cost more up front, we know we have saved time and money by using macs for our desktops.
Apple's prices aren't bad considering (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as the pricing on the Apple machines, it may seem a bit steep at first but when you look at the total package (sexy aluminum case, sweet fan setup, SATA hard drives, Firewire 800, 64bit PCI (even as far back as the old B&W G3 I recently picked up) and especially the resale value you really aren't doing to poorly. I love the comparisons where people say "I can build an x86 box for half the price". Well, the problem is that the x86 box is worth crap 3 months after you build it while the Apple boxen seem to hold their values long after your half priced x86 box becomes a machine you cannot even give away except maybe to a buddy who wants an old machine to use as an IPCop firewall box.
The G5 definitely isn't a slow machine, you will be able to resell your G5 without taking a bath on your investment, and OSX is damned slick....I mean...REALLY slick.
All in all I would have to say that the G5 machines are holding their own. Slower on some things, faster on other things, but nevertheless holding their own. The price/performance thing really depends on what you want the machine to do for you. I personally play games on a Playstation 2, listen to music on a real live stereo system and use a computer for browsing the web and checking email. So for me, OSX is a really nice environment to work in and the price of admission for OSX dictates Apple hardware. For others that play games I guess x86 and Windows is the way to go, and for those that like a total lack of intergration of their various UI components and appreciate a plethora of different "widgets" and toolkits all crammed together in a hodgepodge of a UI with no unified look or feel from application to application (wanrning, run-on sentence) and an almost unrelenting requirement to be tweaked and fiddled with then I guess a Linux x86 desktop is the way to go.
I guess where my rant is going is that the hardware playing field seems to be fairly level these days and therefore your choices in systems would have almost entirely to do with how you plan on using your machine and/or which particular environment you prefer to work or play in.
we've had benchmarks for months (Score:4, Informative)
If you check the published SPEC benchmarks [spec.org] for the Opteron 148 against Apple's claimed SPEC results [apple.com] for the G5, you'll see that a dual G5 is not faster than the Opteron. It is pretty telling, incidentally, that Apple still has not actually submitted official SPEC results for the G5's--they really don't seem comfortable with the comparison on a real benchmark.
Of course, a dual Opteron will have other advantages for many users: you can get it in 1U rack mounts, it runs a lot more application software, and it's cheaper.
Running five application programs does not constitute a meaningful benchmark of the CPU. We don't know how those applications are written, what CPUs they are compiled for, what compilers they used, etc. Most likely, none of those applications have been tuned for Opteron, wherease they have received extensive tuning for PPC and AltiVec over the years. The differences may be something as trivial as cache conflicts. All those "benchmarks" tell you is that if you must run the current version of Bryce and AfterEffects, you may get more bang (but not necessarily more bang-for-the-buck) out of a G5 for the time being.
Very True. (Score:3, Informative)