Apple's Mac Pro - A True PowerMac Successor
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 16, 2006 12:27 PM EST- Posted in
- Mac
Professional Application Performance with Final Cut Pro, Xcode and CineBench
Our first "Pro" application test uses Apple's famed Final Cut Pro 5.1.1. The test is simple, we are just rendering a video we dragged into our project:
If you spend a lot of time in Final Cut, you can't get faster than the Mac Pro. At 2.0GHz it's already faster than the PowerMac G5 (even when you extrapolate out the performance of the 2.7GHz G5).
Our next test is for all you developers out there, we're simply measuring build time using Xcode 2.4 and building our favorite OS X IM client: Adium. Compiling is very disk intensive but it's also quite CPU bound as well; while there's no benefit to quad processors when only compiling a single application there is a benefit to higher clock speeds.
The Mac Pro completely demolishes the PowerMac G5 in build time, cutting the time to build Adium almost in half. The performance improvement is tremendous and it echoes some of the feelings we've had when using Intel based Macs; anything involving I/O seems to be faster and smoother.
Our final professional benchmark is CineBench 9.5, which measures 3D rendering performance. Two versions of the benchmark are run, one that's single threaded and one that spawns as many threads as you have cores.
The single threaded test shows a reasonable advantage over the PowerMac G5, about 8% at the same clock speed. The PowerPC G5 architecture was no slouch and floating point performance was its strong point, thus even the almighty Woodcrest can't really put it to shame too much.
The multithreaded test shows the advantages of having four cores, as the Mac Pro maintains a significant lead. Note that the Mac Pro 2.66GHz held a 15.4% performance advantage over the PowerMac G5 in the single threaded test, but that grew to 19.4% in the multithreaded test. The performance scaling shows one of the advantages of Intel's shared L2 cache, making for better performance scaling when going from one to two cores.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
96 Comments
View All Comments
DigitalFreak - Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - link
Is there a 64bit version of OS X for the Intel platform? I didn't think there was, considering that until now all of the Intel Macs have only had 32bit processors.kelmon - Thursday, August 17, 2006 - link
Depends on what you mean by 64-bit. OS X has, I believe, had a 64-bit UNIX layer since 10.3 (I don't think it was introduced with 10.4) but the only applications that can take advantage of this are command-line tools. Leopard will introduce 64-bit everywhere but I'm still struggling to find a reason why that will impact me in a good way. That said, the new Mac will have a 64-bit processor so that I can feel future-proof.Pirks - Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - link
Good question. I don't know, maybe OS X on those Mac Pros is patched to 64-bit or something.. if not than I should shut up and wait till Leopard.Snuffalufagus - Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - link
it should factor in at least a 25% - 35% discount code on the Dell :).I have never bought anything off the Dell site without getting a substantial discount from a current promotion.
trivik12 - Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - link
Does Dell offer 25-35% off for Dell Precision Workstation?MrPIppy - Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - link
The last generation of Power Mac G5s also had dual GigE ports: http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html">Apple's G5 specs pageOne difference though, the G5s (and the GigE G4s before them) used Broadcom 57xx chips for Ethernet, while the Mac Pro now uses an Intel 8254x chip.
Josh7289 - Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - link
But what is so good about Macs? Why would I want a Mac instead of a PC? What can a Mac offer me that a PC can't? I don't like trolling, but I seriously am asking these questions and want to know what the answers are.phaxmohdem - Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - link
I used to be a mac hater because All the macs I've ever used truely were Pieces of $h!t. Old single cpu G4 towers with no Hard Drive Space or RAM, and way too much student crap spread on them. HOWEVER recently I had the pleasure of using a REAL mac (Quad G5) for a video project, and it made me think of macs a little differently. Plenty fast, and stable. My biggest problems were learning all the new Mac hot keys and keyboard shortcuts.. but once you master those you'll fly on the mac. (Some of Macs shortcuts still seem pretty stupid and complex to me though).However I serioualy don't understand the keyboard and mouse that Apple gives their cusotomers... The new mighty mouse is an improvement, but still an uncomfortable POS to me. Ditto for the mushy fugly keyboard that is standard. I've found that a proper Logitech (or similar) Kybd/Mouse combo makes the mac experience feel 10x better. (One more side-gripe... OS X does not have adjustments for mouse acceleration, and for me the stock acceleration speeds are wretched and piss me off... Hopefully this is something to be updated in the next release of the OS)
So, moral of my story is... if you're going to Mac it up, do it right with proper input devices and some decent specs, and you'll have an enjoyable experience under OS X. I personally still choose Windows for its versatility w/ software and hardware... but to each his own.
Maury Markowitz - Thursday, August 17, 2006 - link
Agree. I find it somewhat ironic that the only MS products I really like are their keyboards, mice, and joysticks. What's particularily maddening is that Apple used to, years ago, make the best keyboard money could buy. Seriously, solid as a rock and typing feel you'd kill for. Now they peddle crap that looks nice. Not good.timelag - Thursday, August 17, 2006 - link
Apple used to, years ago, make the best keyboard money could buy.Ah yes, the extended keyboard II. Better even than the famous IBM and Sun keyboards of yore. If it weren't for my Kinesis (the One True ergo keyboard), I'd be using mine through an ADB to USB connector.