dual processor, dual core, quad, blah blah blah

[Jeff Carpenter]

The new machines have faster RAM and can hold twice as much as before. They’re also offering larger hard drives and better video cards.

In addition to thaat, the first reports from people who’ve tested them seem to indicate that a dual-core chip is slightly faster than two single-core chips of the same speed.

So…good enough to replace a recently purchased G5? Not at all. But if you’re someone who still owns a G4 then upgrading is now an even better idea this week then it was the last. It’s a mild progression, yes, but that’s how it usually works, isn’t it?

[Chris Poisson]

“This week than it was last”

Oh brother, does that just not say it all!!! Jeff, you’re killin’ me!

[Mitchji]

Hi,

One more issue is PCI-express. This is a much better technology than the PCI-X on the older G5’s so in that way for some users it will be a plus. On the other hand if you have some expensive PCI-X cards that won’t work in the new machines or you need a card that currently is only available as a PCI-X card its a problem.

Best Wishes,

Mitch

[Jeff Carpenter]

Well, I did use “than” correctly in the second paragraph. I’d like a reward cookie for that, please.

Although I also spelled “that” wrong in that same paragraph. So it can be a bad cookie…coconut or something…

[Mitchji]

Hi,

These benchmarks don’t mean as much as tests using actual applications but they give some idea:
https://media.99mac.se/g5_dualcore/

Some excerpts:
As you can see the 2.3 GHz Dual Core machine is marginally faster than a water-cooled 2.5GHz Dual G5 with a souped-up graphics card. The largest difference is in memory performance, not in the actual processors according to our tests with Xbench. We want to point out that this testing method isn’t completely failsafe but should mostly be seen as a hint of the new machine’s performance.

Performance-wise, one Dual Core processor doesn’t make for a large difference compared to two old G5 processors. We predict that the new Quad 2.5GHz Powermac will make for a performance increase of 70% or more.

Best Wishes,

Mitch

[Bret Williams]

If you look at the apple site, they have a little section that says “need pci-x?” where they offer a pci-x machine.

[Bret Williams]

Apple themselves quote that it’s a 69% increase.

[Dom Silverio]

Adding a core does not necessarily increase computing 100% per core. This is because the core will share the same memory and depending onchipset design other resources like memory controller, cache, different system buses, etc, etc.

Also, codes must be written to take advantage of the cores – meaning the application must support more ‘threads.’
If not, the extra horses will remain in the stable.

Ideally, you would have an increase of 40-75 percent performance on computing intensive task like rendering and encoding.

HTH

[Rob Gee]

Good point. Buried in these advances always seems to be (obviously, I guess) an opportunity for Apple to sell upgraded software as well as hardware, and they’ll have you believing that you are not happy with either, despite the fact that six months ago you were!

I’ve got FCP 4.5, the “old” (from 2003) dual G5 2.0, 4GB RAM, and I’ve been happy. And dammit, I’m STILL happy!

Christ, any of you guys ever edit on a Steenbeck? – Rob

[Mitchji]

[mpe] “Also, codes must be written to take advantage of the cores – meaning the application must support more ‘threads.’ If not, the extra horses will remain in the stable.”

Hi,

Most of the applications that are important to us (FCP for example) already support multiple processors. Unless the programmers intentionly cripled their code programs that support dual processors will also support 4.

Best Wishes,

Mitch