Apple's Mac Pro - A True PowerMac Successor
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 16, 2006 12:27 PM EST- Posted in
- Mac
Rosetta Performance (or lack thereof)
With no Universal Binary versions of Adobe or Microsoft applications, you're bound to run into something that isn't native on the Mac Pro. Of course if there's performance to be lost, we're there to benchmark it.
First off, let's look at our Word HTML conversion test. Note that this test used to crash on earlier builds of OS X, but Apple has thankfully fixed the problem so it now completes. The only other problem is that it takes a long time to complete:
The fastest Mac Pro configuration we tested took about three times as long to complete this test as the PowerMac G5, and that's about how things feel when you're running a Rosetta application. The application is always bearable, but it feels like everything takes 2 - 3x as long as it would if it were native.
Next up we ran PSBench under Photoshop CS2 and came away with some more interesting results:
| Apple Mac Pro 2.66GHz (Quad) | Apple Mac Pro 2.66GHz (Dual) | Apple PowerMac G5 2.5GHz (Dual) | |
| Rotate Clockwise - 90 degrees |
0.6
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
| Rotate Clockwise - 9 degrees |
2.2
|
3
|
1.2
|
| Rotate Clockwise - 0.9 degrees |
4
|
4.1
|
3.6
|
| 1 pixel Gaussian Blur |
2.2
|
2.3
|
2.1
|
| 3.7 pixel Gaussian Blur |
2.5
|
3.4
|
2.8
|
| 85 pixel Gaussian Blur |
3
|
4.2
|
3.1
|
| 50%, 1 pixel, 0 level unsharp mask |
2.3
|
3
|
2.2
|
| 50%, 3.7 pixel, 0 lever unsharp mask |
3.4
|
4.3
|
3.6
|
| 50%, 10 pixel, 5 level unsharp mask |
3.2
|
4.6
|
4
|
| Despeckle filter |
2.2
|
2.4
|
2.5
|
| RGB to CMYK |
3.8
|
5.2
|
3.4
|
| 60% Reduction |
1.4
|
1.6
|
1.4
|
| Lens Flare |
5.3
|
5.3
|
4.9
|
| Color Halftone Filter |
21.5
|
23.1
|
9.2
|
| NTSC Colors Filter |
5.9
|
5.9
|
4.1
|
| Accented Edges Brush Strokes |
13.3
|
13.7
|
10.7
|
| Pointillize Filter |
31
|
36.9
|
15.8
|
| Watercolor Filter |
28.8
|
31.2
|
20.8
|
| Polar Coordinates |
2.1
|
2.9
|
1.6
|
| Radial Blur Filter |
7.3
|
11.3
|
17.1
|
| Lighting Effects Filter |
3.5
|
4
|
2.9
|
| Total |
149.5
|
172.9
|
117.5
|
The PowerMac G5 is still faster, overall it completed all of the tasks about 32% faster than the dual core Mac Pro 2.66GHz but comparing it to the shipping quad core configuration closed that gap even more. There were even some tests that the non-native Mac Pro could complete quicker than the PowerMac G5, which bodes well for how fast the Mac Pro will be when Photoshop CS3 eventually comes out.
Overall, Rosetta has gotten better in terms of stability, but performance is still no where near native G5 performance on average (nor did anyone expect it to be). You can get by using Rosetta, but it will irritate you especially if you're using any Universal Binary applications on a regular basis as the difference in performance is fairly apparent.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
96 Comments
View All Comments
rockinphotog - Saturday, August 19, 2006 - link
AS a matter of fact, I often use my apple keyboard for my digital camera, printer, syncing my treo and even my wacom tablet.aaronlyon - Friday, August 18, 2006 - link
In next week's article, please evaluate Parallels Workstation for running Windows apps simultaneously with Mac OS. If this works smoothly, why not use Windows versions of Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator? That would be a good solution while waiting for Universal Binary updates.Zebo - Friday, August 18, 2006 - link
Great pics and article Anand.What a deal for such a clean system. They don't build PCs that pretty and this is the best yet from Apple's industrial design squad. I definity want one but don't need four cores.
Can I run Windows fully with this machine? Or maybe I should wait until a single processor (dual core) version comes. If Apple sells $1500 Conroe boxes and it ran windows they counld'nt keep them in stock.
plinden - Friday, August 18, 2006 - link
There's an issue with the speed of SATA hard drives, as Anand mentions here: http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/default.aspx#287">http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/default.aspx#287
It will probably be fixed eventually but if you're relying on this to run Windows, you should wait.
FutureMedia - Thursday, August 17, 2006 - link
You are not comparing the Quad G5 Rear Ports to the Mac Pro Rear Ports. Quad G5 has 3 USB 2 ports as well as 2 Gigabyte Ethernet ports just like the Mac Pro. IE the Quad G5 rear set of ports is IDENTICAL to the Mac Pro rear set - just laid out differently. Only the front adds a fifth USB 2 and second FW800 port not on the Quad G5 which is the same layout as what you show from OLDER not last generation October 2005 PowerMac G5s.Moreover I was looking forward to a Quad G5 comparison with the 2GHz and 2.66 GHz Mac Pros. That is what I want to know. Especially Is even the 2GHz Mac Pro faster than the Quad G5? Is the problem that you don't have a Quad G5 in house to compare it to? I am so bummed out that you didn't compare Mac Pro two bottom speeds with the Quad G5. Please can you do it after next week? I would really appreciate it. Thanks.
PhilG5 - Friday, August 18, 2006 - link
Thank you so much for pointing that out! In fact, Anandtech uses mid-2004 PowerMac G5 (still using AGP graphics and DDR-400 memory!) and doesn't take into account the whole "late 2005" series (which first supported DDR2, PCI-E and had the "Antares" PPC970 core). If you look at Barefeats benchmark results ( http://barefeats.com/quad06.html">http://barefeats.com/quad06.html ) the Quad G5 still seems to be pretty much competitive with the new Mac Pros.Anand Lal Shimpi - Friday, August 18, 2006 - link
We did not have a Quad G5 on hand, however the performance results woult not have been that different. The benchmarks that show little or no scaling between the Dual and Quad Mac Pros would show the same scaling between dual and quad G5s (which were most of the benchmarks). None of our tests were GPU bound, so difference in graphics interfaces should also minimally impact performance. The only real variable that could have changed things is DDR2, however seeing as how none of the DDR-DDR2 transitions we've seen on the PC side have done anything for performance, hopes aren't too high for a tremendous impact on G5 performance.Take care,
Anand
Konq - Thursday, August 17, 2006 - link
Anand - I think something is wrong with the 2 vs. 4 core Xcode test. As with gcc, you can tell it to compile with as many threads as you like. This will compile 4 source files at the same time for instance on 4 cores (multitasking). Perhaps the code was too small to really see a difference, or the environment was not set right?Konq - Saturday, August 19, 2006 - link
OK, now another interesting 4-core note: MacWorld did a test with iTunes and a quad core, 2.5 Ghz G5 beat a dual-core, 2.7 Ghz G5 system when converting 45 minutes of AAC files to mp3. Maybe this was due to having multiple files to work on? AAC->mp3 vs. Wave->mp3?One thing I am interested in now: An article that covers how to get the most out of 4-core systems. Which software benefits and how. Since 4-core processors are coming out soon, this will be needed in purchasing decisions.
Konq - Friday, August 18, 2006 - link
I verified on the Apple Xcode users list that Xcode can indeed take advantage of every core. You might want to modify the test you do and configuration if needed.Great article btw. I enjoy reading reviews from you that can be counted on for true pro's and con's instead of overly rosey approach from fan sites.
In spite of "horrid memory system", it sounds like the system kicks butt! One is in my future...