NASA Benchmarks the New G5 Powermac 751
sockit2me9000 writes "Well NASA's Langley Research Center recently benchmarked the new G5 dual 2ghz Powermac against a dual 1ghz Xserve, a dual 1.25 ghz Powermac, a Pentium4 2 ghz, and a Pentium4 2.66 ghz. To make things fair, the second processor in the G5 was switched off, as well as the other dual sysytems. Then, they all ran Jet3d. Even with un-optimized code and one processor, the G5 performance is impressive."
NASA Verifies Apple Benchmarks? (Score:5, Interesting)
By adding a second processor, the MFLOPS/Mhz output only dropped from 0.127 to 0.125 MFLOPS/Mhz. This chip can definitely perform in a multi-processor environment. The P4 scored 0.096 MFLOPS/MHz with a single processor.
Apple's benchmarks [apple.com] which were highly criticized by some, gave the Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 a 194.5% performance advantage over a 3GHz P4 in SPECfp_rate_base2000. The G5 getting a score of 15.7, and the P4 getting an 8.07.
NASA's study found the Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 to score 498 MFLOPS for their Jet3D performance. A P4 running at 2.66GHz scored 255 MFLOPS: a 195.3% performance advantage for the G5 in this test. If we assume a direct correlation between MHz and MFLOPS for the P4 (which would actually overstate the performance of the P4) and increase the P4's score by 12.782% this would give the 3GHz P4 a score of 287.594 MFLOPS. This is still a 173.16% performance advantage for the G5, and NASA states that a 20% increase in performance for the G5 would be reasonable "when G5-aware compiler tools become available."
So it would seem NASA's benchmarks go a long way in validating the benchmarks for the G5 that Apple released last month at the WWDC. In fact, NASA appears to be giving the G5 even better scores than Apple and Veritest did.
The vector tests that NASA performed to test the G5's AltiVec instruction set produce some even more impressive results, and would be a good indication for why the G5 outpaced the Xeon and P4 by such dramatic amounts on real world tests (at times more than 700% faster than a 3GHz P4). "The vector version of Jet3D runs an order of magnitude faster than the scalar version (speedups of 10X-13X are typical)." The dual 2GHz G5 was benchmarked at 5177 MFLOPS (a 1040% increase over the scalar test) and 1.29 MFLOPS/MHz. This also seems accurate considering Ars Technica's claim that the AltiVec engine wasn't as well integrated into the G5 as it was in the G4. The 2GHz G5 (single cpu) scored 2755 MFLOPS, or 1.378 MFLOPS/MHz, which shows a slightly larger performance hit for vector operations than floating point operations when moving to a dual G5.
Dak
MFLOPS/MHz? No AMD, Old P4, Old Redhat. (Score:3, Interesting)
Why a Pentium 4 2.66mhz?
Why no Athlon?
Why no Opteron?
Why an old old version of RedHat 7.1?
and so on....
Portland compiler (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting choice of processors (Score:5, Interesting)
G5 is really a full-blown workstation (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple has just created a new market for itself among the hardcore engineers who use workstations for numerical simulations like HSPICE, etc. Steve Jobs lucked out -- again.
By the way, the bell tolls. It tolls ominously for Sun Microsystems.
Interesting Thought (Score:5, Interesting)
There's also one benchmark I'de love to see. Power Mac G5 vs Sun UltraSPARC III. It's fair: they're both 64-bit procs, and it would really make people look at it in businesses that only look at supercomputers as viable. Then maybe people would start giving Apple and IBM some credit.
My 2 cents (Canadian). Thanks.
MFLOPS per $ (Score:5, Interesting)
This seems to confirm my belief that most mac people don't buy their own hardware, but get it through work or school.
Re:G5 is really a full-blown workstation (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, yeah, sure is lucky Apple found the G5. I'm sure they had nothing to do with its development. It's not like Apple has been involved with development of the whole PowerPC architecture since the early 90s.
OS X 10.2.7 (Score:5, Interesting)
Additional Notes: The G5 system was running Mac OS X 10.2.7 and
I'm only running 10.2.6, and Software Update says nothing new is available. What's up with that?
Re:Costs (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll make that argument any day of the week if you want to consider TCO. My family got a Powermac G4 in 1999, and it is still the daily use computer for them. (I have my own Cube, which is basically the same for performance comparisons.) That thing still does everything that they can ask of it and then some. Hell, it can still play all the games that I want to play, save UT2k3. The great part is that it is still humming along perfectly, and I don't see any reason why it won't last two or three more years. Find me a PC that you will still be using daily 6 or 7 years later.
This doesn't even take into account all the time and headaches that have been saved from using a Mac. Taking out the "Did you accidentally kick the power cord out?" type phone calls I've gotten to help them, I can think of maybe twice that they have had to call me and troubleshoot. There is no pricetag on this peace of mind.
Because ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Every Mac test to mee of late seems unfair tsarkon (Score:1, Interesting)
What about Dual Opteron?
Why do people tests Macs that aren't even out yet against CPUs from the competition that are several speed increments below the top?
Damn Dude, RTFA (Score:4, Interesting)
With a single G5, the 2ghz got a 254, and the 2.66ghz P4 got 255 MFLOPs...
Please read the article more clearly, this DOES NOT IN ANY WAY validate apple's earlier claims... here's the quote that was misread
"Though dual processor benchmarks are not presented in detail here, it is worth noting that the G5 system benchmarked at 498 MFLOPS and 0.125 MFLOPS/MHz for scalar Jet3D performance when two processors were used."
Followed by a chart showing the P4 2.66ghz with 255MFLOPS at the top and a G5 2ghz with 254MFLOPS at the bottom...
So you could guess that a dual 2.66ghz would get about 499-500MFLOPS which would be a 0% performance advantage to the G5, and the P4 3.2ghz would be even faster...
Interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
It's spelled A-M-D (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And before anyone asks... (Score:2, Interesting)
You're comparing apples to oranges. Do you feel that putting Windows on a fast computer is better? Would you consider a Windows XP vs Mac OS X a equivalent trade off? Are you out of your mind?
Even at twice the price Mac OS-X beats Windows. (and I'm not even a Mac person!) These are the same type of arguments Mac people must have to put up with every day. I would buy a Mac. Just like I would buy a Corvette instead of a Chrysler.
Re:5177 MFLOPS 288 MFLOPS (Score:5, Interesting)
They're not, which is what makes this whole benchmark so entirely useless.
Look at it: The conclusion, basically, is that there's no point in running CFD code using scalar FP. So why didn't they port their code to SSE2? P4's, and particularly the new 800MHz FSB P4 get data through SSE2 code like there's no tomorrow.
Nah, I'll listen when someone compares SSE2 and AltiVec properly. Until then it's just more blah. Don't get me wrong, I'm rapidly turning into the biggest Mac fanboy you've ever seen (Cocoa, since you ask) but the G5's are not the quantum leap Apple are making them out to be. Back in contention? Sure, but I promise you a dual Opteron 2GHz will blow the doors off a dual G5.
Dave
Re:And before anyone asks... (Score:1, Interesting)
For crying out loud, if you can't afford a Mac, keep it to yourself and buy a Dell. And don't give me any more of this "in this economy" B.S.. People are still buying brand new gas-guzzling SUV's "in this economy."
Re:MFLOPS/MHz? No AMD, Old P4, Old Redhat. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Wrong. (Score:2, Interesting)
furthermore, you can add on other FREE apps such as imovie, itunes, idvd, iphoto, ical. all are excellent and in some cases have no PC equivalent of similar high quality at the same cost, FREE. nor are any of them (besides QT) built into the OS, your free to delete any of them with no harm to your system.
That policy has the added advantage for the users that they rarely have to upgrade their OS to get new apps, in contrast to the situation on windows were the os is locked out if you dont call Microsoft. to register it.
Re:And before anyone asks... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, but it's worth $1000 to me to have a computer with a better ROI and no Windows.
Re:MFLOPS per $ (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not show a "just works"/$ chart?
Re:If I remember right... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Turn the optimizations on first. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the thing that most people on /. seem to keep missing is this: MacOS X and Linux both use GCC as their primary compiler. The Linux kernel is compiled with GCC, as is Darwin. Most software for each platform is compiled with GCC.
Now, with all these Linux-heads around here insisting that Linux is faster than Windows on x86, you'd think GCC for x86 might be a good compiler. Certainly the SPEC tests Apple (and Veritest) did with GCC on the G5 with OS X and the dual Xeon Dell with Red Hat had to have been a valid comparison between those two situations.
I also keep seeing all these comparisons to Dell computers without full specs of the Dell. The base configurations for the PowerMac G5 is positively loaded. How many $500 Dells come with Gigabit Ethernet? How many have the same level of engineering into the thermal managment?
Only time will tell for sure. In the mean time, remember that IBM will be producing blade systems with the 970. We'll get a chance to compare those as well eventually.
My Hyundai is faster than your Porsche... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:NASA Verifies Apple Benchmarks? (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously a comparison against the Opteron or Itanium is not fair at this time, as they're not intended for the desktop but rather workstation audience. When the Athlon 64 comes out though, benchmarks of those vs. the G5 would be of interest as well.
Re:5177 MFLOPS 288 MFLOPS (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Summary (Score:3, Interesting)
Like you said, time will tell.
yes, thanks but (Score:1, Interesting)
The g5 is 64 bit and can address a shitload of memory. Can we please see comparison against 64 bit apps ? Compare to t5he Itanium or Opteron please.
Apps were not optimized for the g5, in real world of 3d graphics, engineering, and science, optimized apps would be used.
It's unfair to apple to have people benchmark it without utilizing the full capabilites and feature set of the processor.
Re:The G5 (Score:4, Interesting)
You might have been able to do it, but you also might have just fed into the MS myth of "everybody pirates our stuff".
Re:NASA Verifies Apple Benchmarks? (Score:3, Interesting)
1.) it is 95.3% greater than...
2.) it is 195.3% of...
Re:The G5 (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple offers top-notch hardware and a great OS, and is priced with that in mind. My el cheapo homemade computer has "somewhat decent" hardware, and a great OS that is a bit "not all that" when it comes to desktop (debian unstable).
*I* for one wouldn't mind owning one of those G5's.
Re:Single Processor Mode (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree totally that we need to see benchmarks of one dual system against another. But bear in mind that the use of dual processors depends a lot upon the specific code being run and also the operating system. I think the general problem here is that the G5, while fast, is not like 10X faster than the competition and at this point it is difficult to tell what scores where.
Whats the difference? Distinction died long ago (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Turn the optimizations on first. (Score:2, Interesting)
gcc + g++ for MacOS X on G5 platform = $0
Intel's C++ compiler for pentium based platforms = $399
prices [shop-intel.com]
Now factor in Operating Systems prices, and general software.
MacOS X 10.2 $129 Windows XP Professional $143
iTunes $0 MusicMatch Jukebox Plus $19.99
AppleWorks $0 WindowsXP Office $297
Software Total: MacOS X: $129 WinXP: $459.99
(prices taken from www.newegg.com)
Intel, oh Intel, where art thou? (Score:2, Interesting)
By the way, no, I don't benchmark systems I use, as that, in my mind is like putting a car on a dynometer. I mean, who realy cares how much horsepower a machine has, if it's gearing is completely mis-calculated? Based upon actually using systems, I find that G3s seem very slow to use, G4s not bad, P4s a little better, and AMD Athlons wicked quick. Yes, all systems were slightly different clock speeds, but all had 256MB of RAM, except the P4, it has 512MB of RAM. In just normal usage, nothing I've come across can touch the Athlons for performance. However, I also do NOT do video editing, sound editing, etc. I just play a few games, do programming for school, the internet, and such. So no, I do NOT care about how fast something can open Photoshop, or if these systems can do real time video editing. I didn't build/purchase them for that.
There's my two cents, could I use that for a down payment on a new dual G5?
Re:Single Processor Mode (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, according to the author of the article, Jet3D is 99% double precision, but he was able to reformulate 10 lines of code to take advantage of AltiVec and gained 10 to 13 times in speed. SSE2 may handle double precision, but it's not a true vector processor like AltiVec, and there is absolutely no evidence that it can even double the speed.