“Rick Bernstein, sent in a link to a great discussion at Luxology’s forums about render tests done with a new Quad. Apparently the company had one for testing purposes. No surprises there, Luxology folks are big Apple supporters. However, the test render results for the Quad were definitely surprising and pleasing to many,” Architosh reports.
“Alan Hastings of Luxology posted a test rendering image taken from the new Quad G5 with modo 201. The scene included 244,000 polygons with 8 sample antialiasing and 200 indirect rays. The new Quad G5 finished the image — which looks extremely good by the way — in 17 seconds flat. That bested a score of 38 seconds flat on a Luxology Power Mac Dual G5 at 2.5 Ghz,” Architosh reports. “Alan also tested the same render on a Dell 530 workstation with dual 2.8Ghz Xeons. The result? 49 seconds. There are no Opteron results to compare to yet so at the moment we are not sure if the new Apple Quad G5 is the new heavy weight champion of the world when it comes to rendering.”
Full article here.
Luxology article and image here.
[UPDATE: 2:15pm ET: Revised headline.]
Related MacDailyNews articles:
AnandTech: Apple new Power Mac G5’s biggest improvement is the move to PCI Express – October 21, 2005
Photos of new dual core Apple Power Mac G5 interior, ports, and more – October 19, 2005
First benchmark tests of Apple’s new Power Mac G5 dual-core machines – October 19, 2005
Apple introduces Power Mac G5 Quad and Power Mac G5 Dual – October 19, 2005
Dell sucks
Come on it can’t better a PC.
For fun I use a Mac
At work I am forced to us a PC.
Come on it can’t better a PC.
For fun I use a Mac
At work I am forced to us a PC.
Come on it can’t better a PC.
For fun I use a Mac
At work I am forced to us a PC.
There are no Intel comparisons for the new dual core G5’s. Only comparisons to the older single core dual processor machines. Guess they didn’t want to embarrass their new partner. The results for the dual Xeons prove it….
It will be a while before the pro machines get an Intel processor….
MW: months
I think that the headline should read: “Apple’s new Power Mac G5 Quad supercharges rendering by over 100 percent”…
Very cool though!
http://dms.tecknohost.com/macrumors/i/ihome/
has this been debunked? I have been out of the infinite loop for a while
Hey, how does he have one already? Mine didn’t ship until this morning!?
please ignore my previous post – i didn’t look at the date on that rumour.
Now, does anyone own one of those iPod iHome radios? I am looking at buying one for someone as a gift.
mike k.
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000110026534/
http://www.theappleblog.com/2005/01/07/ihome/
Read the comments there, they point out many flaws with it. The whole “iHome” thing was just based on speculation that ended with the reliece of the mac mini, which turned out to be much much smaller than the iHome was rumored to be.
If you want an “iHome”, go here http://www.apple.com/macmini/
BTW, anyone notice that you can’t get the eMac from apple anymore? Just the new iMac and mac mini. Weird…
I wonder how much ram these G5’s were holding. I know on mine, I am running 2.5 GB’s of ram and would wonder if putting another 1.5 GB’s would help.
Editor:
Nick has math correct, you don’t.
actually, i think if you are comparing something new to something that already exists and the new thing takes half the time, then it is 50%; if it were 100% then it literally wouldn’t take any time at all, and 200% would somehow allow you to go back in time.
What the hell is iHome… not the iPod speakers… the one in that pic? Apple does not make that!
MW: those
ABQ Peter: Thanks a lot dude. That got a nice chuckle out of me. Very funny.
If a perfect score is 100%, then twice as fast is 100% faster. But since nothing is better than perfect, a score twice as fast is really twice as perfect, right? Or, in other words, 200% better than what was already a 100% score.
Right?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”confused” style=”border:0;” />
In this case of percentages, we’re talking about improvements. 0% is the original score. 100% doubles it, 200% triples it, etc.
So if your original score is 50, a 100% improvement would give you a score of 100.
To test: Open Calculator. type 50+100%=
You’ll get: 100
Tommy – What did you order? I ordered a Quad yesterday and my expected shipping date is 2-3 weeks. I added Airport/Bluetooth to it, so that made it a BTO I suppose.
MW = hell
So now the word machine is cussin at me?
Oh, meant to mention this….. I went to Dell’s web site this morning and configured a quad Xeon to match the quad Mac (as best I could). By “match” I mean configure it with similar hardware — no way will it “match” in performance. Anyway, it was anywhere from $1100 to $2000 MORE than a Quad G5! I don’t really know what graphics cards Dell offers that are the equivalent of what’s in the G5 so that’s why my figures are so crude. Also, there was no way to compare the bundled software in the Dell to the software in the G5, cause the Dell doesn’t come with any (other than the OS).
MW=numbers, as in, how do you like my …
joking…
belated ….
Though the headline is technically wrong, it is adirect copy from the linked article. So the original article had the math wrong.
So we can’t completely blame MDN. (though maybe they should have noted the error in the original?)
MW = over, as in “This argument is over.”
OK.
If you are looking at things from the point of view of the old thing (O) relative to the new thing (N), and the old thing (O) takes longer, then you have (O – N) / N; so the old thing takes 100% more time in this case (the article).
If you are viewing it from the point of view of the old thing as the standard, and the new thing takes less time, then you have (O – N) / O so the new thing takes 50% of the time that the old thing took. You can’t get a 100% improvement (reduction) because this gets you to zero.
If the old thing took 200% more time, then the old time would be 3 times as long because (3*N – N) /N = 2 or 200%. So no matter how you want to view it, you can’t say a “200% supercharge” for the new thing, given the times shown in the article.
Of course, anyone reading this has no idea what I am talking about because the headline has been changed.
corduroys.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cheese” style=”border:0;” />
Macs are so fast… we have plenty of power and speed that makes the
rest of the industry drool. Somebody knows the value of our time.
Thanks Apple!
CT =====]———- Sparing the grunt work
Haha. Going on to the modo 101 site, it says “runs great on Pentium 4″…..the question is HOW great? If the Dual core G5’s beat out the Xeons, it makes you think how “great” it runs on the P4……
get them while they’re hot! It’s great to watch the beast that the
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”LOL” style=”border:0;” />
Power Mac G5 has become. Granted…these G5 Quads won’t hold
the speed title for too long, but of course…we appreciate what they
do and know Apple will continue to churn out the best systems for
our computing dollar. Labor/Speed = Brilliance. How low can we go???
CT =====]———– Aces High & Low (way to go)