Apple's Mac Pro - A True PowerMac Successor
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 16, 2006 12:27 PM EST- Posted in
- Mac
iLife '06 Performance with iPhoto, iMovie HD and iDVD
One of the benefits of OS X and Apple's application suites is that most of the applications are already properly threaded. Even though you wouldn't expect it, iPhoto is threaded quite well and thus our import photos test gets a speedup from going to quad cores.
The test is simple; we timed the import of 379 photos into iPhoto which, believe it or not, is quite CPU intensive and not as I/O bound as you'd think. After we got the time we divided it into 379 to get the number of pictures imported per second. We included the performance of a hypothetical dual core Mac Pro in addition to the native quad offerings in order to provide a good point of comparison to the dual processor PowerMac G5s.
Although there's a slight performance boost when going from dual to quad core (6.9%), this test is largely dependent on clock speed within a single microprocessor architecture. Comparing the Woodcrest based Xeons to the older G5s is no contest, at 2.0GHz the Mac Pro is already 14% faster than the 2.5GHz PowerMac G5; even if we account for the dual vs. quad core comparison, the 2.0GHz Mac Pro is still noticeably faster than the G5.
The next application we looked at was iMovie HD. There are two primary focuses for performance in iMovie HD, video import speed (if you are dealing with a non-DV or non-iSight video source) and effect rendering speed. We focused on the latter, measuring the time it takes to render the most CPU intensive transition and video effect in iMovie HD.
Our Macs have gotten a little too fast for the billow transition test, as the Mac Pro 2.66GHz can now complete the test in 3 seconds flat. All of the Mac Pros here are faster than the PowerMac G5s, which is what we'd expect given what we learned in the iMac Core Duo vs. iMac G5 article.
Rendering the "Electricity" Video FX sees no benefit going from dual to quad cores, but the Mac Pro doesn't need it as the 2.0GHz configuration is already 26.5% faster than the PowerMac G5 2.5GHz.
Finally we've got iDVD, an application that you can use to create DVDs that are playable on any consumer DVD player. There are once again two aspects to performance in iDVD, video encoding performance and menu encoding performance. Since we've already looked at video encoding performance with Quicktime, this test is predominantly limited by how long it takes to encode the menu system in our test DVD. There is a small 13 second iSight video and audio that's encoded in the process but it adds a matter of seconds to the overall time. The image is written to disc instead of sent to the DVD burner for obvious reasons. The results are expressed in seconds, lower being better. This workload is multithreaded.
The benchmark gets just under 11% thanks to the 4 cores in the Mac Pro, but even without them the Mac Pro 2.66GHz is able to outperform the PowerMac G5 2.5GHz by just under 13%. The Xeon seems to scale much better with clock speed in this test than the G5.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
96 Comments
View All Comments
michael2k - Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - link
1:) Well, according to Anandtech's calculations, it's cheaper to buy a quad CPU Mac than to build one.2:) iLife is better than "free crap"
3:) Macs can run Windows, BSD, Linux, and OS X all at once; PCs cannot
4:) Drive sleds
5:) Ram risers
6:) Quiet case
7:) 6 SATA connectors
8:) 4 PCIe slots and 8 monitors
retrospooty - Thursday, August 17, 2006 - link
Yes, in general, good quality components cost more than cheap crap... This is why Acura and Lexus cost more than a Ford, even though they are all built in hte USA. Would you rather get the mobo, memory, HDD, and video card that some kind and caring (cough cough) company landed a mulimillion dollar cotract to buy 10's of thousands, or pick your own?What is your point?
nexcom - Saturday, November 28, 2009 - link
yes good and quality also mater aswell ok.michael2k - Thursday, August 17, 2006 - link
My point was that you got better build quality than the average DIY case:You get HDD sleds, cablefree installation, 2 gigE ports, 6 SATA connectors, etc, etc, etc.
Not everyone has the skill, time, or resources to do their own research, shopping around, and haggling, you know.
Are you arguing against, similarly, mass produced cars, TVs, homes, fridges, and furniture over DIY solutions?
Or do you shop at Target and Walmart too?
retrospooty - Thursday, August 17, 2006 - link
MAybe I am dense, but I am still missing your point... Anyhow, Apple's MAC's, or Dell, or any other vendor for that matter are not of high quality parts. The CPU's are great, most of the rest is cheap deal based components. Yes, most people lack the knowledge to build thier own systems, and they buy Dell's, and MAC's and such. All I am saying is that those systems arent at all using all the best high quality/high performance parts.michael2k - Thursday, August 17, 2006 - link
So I'm asking if you are consistent.Do you refuse to buy at Walmart and Target because they sell mass produced furniture, clothing, and household goods because they don't happen to use the highest quality materials? Do you, instead, build your own furniture, make your own clothes, grow your own produce, and make your own electronics?
I don't see your point, because you haven't proven it, that Macs use "cheap deal based components". The case is definitely not "cheap deal based components" because it is crafted of aluminum ONLY for Apple, and it is quite nonstandard compared to the average PC case. Then there is the Mac motherboard, which as far as I can tell is also unique, being a Xeon EFI based motherboard, crafted singularly for Apple, most likely by Intel itself. The video card, yes, it is cheap, but that saves the user money too, and is no worse than an off the shelf NVIDIA video card.
Where is your proof that the Mac Pro has cheap, unreliable, components?
retrospooty - Friday, August 18, 2006 - link
you're wearing me out... I give. Long live the MAC, may Apple break thier 10 year rut and finally get more than 3% global marketshare, maybe even 5%. Whoopdeedoo. Yippee skip.BTW, Apple's beautiful aluminum cases are a total ripoff (if not an out right purchase)of the Lian Li design. EFI is an average/cheap mobo maker at best (not to say unreliable, just average in function, and performance). They are no DFI, or ASUS, not even close.
Maury Markowitz - Friday, August 18, 2006 - link
You really are trolling...> total ripoff of the Lian Li
Well I've actually used one of these, which I really doubt you can claim, and they're certainly nothing at all like the Apple case. Or are you overheating those two brain cells because both cases happen to use aluminum? I guess, by that brilliant logic, that Apple stole the design of their cases from the Dornier Dr.I from World War I. After all, that used aluminum too.
For the record, the Lian Li design doesn't show a single one of the features that the Apple industrial design team put into the Mac Pro. They are, quite simply, bog-standard PC cases made of aluminum instead of stamped steel. That's it. For instance, the drives slide in from the front through a removable panel, are fastened into place with tiny little screws, and connected to the mobo with cables. Does this sound like the Mac Pro in any way whatsoever? Well pictures are worth a thousand words:
http://silverpcs.com/product_info.php?products_id=...">http://silverpcs.com/product_info.php?products_id=...
> EFI is an average/cheap mobo maker
Stop! Please, stop! My ribs are aching!
Hey brainiac, EFI is not a company.
> They are no DFI, or ASUS, not even close.
I hope not, considering it's an acronym for a boot standard.
If this is the basis of your "Apple is cheap" argument, you really are a moron.
Maury
retrospooty - Friday, August 18, 2006 - link
Sorry to all, my bad, I read too quickly and I thought the post above was stating that EFI (the company) made Apple's new mobo's.Anyhow, I was not saying they are particularily bad, or cheap, I was saying ALL manufacturers use "average" parts in thier systems, including Apple. Aplle may well be at or very near the best of the list of major manufactureres, but its still not like hand picking your own motherboard, ram, v card, HDD etc. In other words, if Apple was an open standard, and any manufacturer could make parts for it, you would see alot of higher quality parts from some of those vendors.
Any Yes, the case appearance is a TOTAL ripoff of Lian Li. The interior is certianly not, bute the look and feel externally, is identical, right down to the holes.
Anyhow, I am done on this one, I have riled up enough MAC fanboy anger for now :D LONG LICE MAC, may their marketshare double to a whopping 6% !
michael2k - Friday, August 18, 2006 - link
Right, a total ripoff... you sound like a broken record. Look at Anand's review here:http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2040&p...">http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2040&p...
It was introduced in April of 2004... almost a full year after Apple introduced their PowerMac G5 in June of 2003. The case design, with the cooling zones, grill face, and inverted motherboard all debuted in an Apple design and then was copied by Lian Li. This has nothing to do with being a fanboy and everything to do with being right.
You believe Apple ripped off the Lian Li... fine, link the Lian Li that preceeded the PowerMac G5 case!