“The standard configuration of the Mac Pro outperforms its PowerPC-based G5 predecessors by a wide margin, helping to justify Apple’s 2005 decision to switch to processors from Intel. What’s more, the system powered by two dual-core 2.66GHz Xeon chips narrowly missed becoming the first machine to ever record a Speedmark score of over 300,” James Galbraith reports for Macworld.
Galbraith reports, “We’ve ordered Mac Pros in a few different configurations and will test them as they arrive. The first machine to come in was the standard configuration—the $2,499 Dual-Core Mac Pro with two 2.66GHz Xeon processors, 1GB of Fully-Buffered DDR2 RAM, a 250GB hard drive, a 16X SuperDrive with double-layer support, and an Nvidia GeForce 7300GT graphics card. This out-of-the-box Mac Pro configuration earned the highest Speedmark score ever recorded in our tests.”
Benchmarks here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Island Girl” for the heads up.]
Related MacDailyNews article:
Benchmark duel: Apple Mac Pro vs. Power Mac G5 – August 10, 2006
The G5 still won a few tests. I wonder if its because of Altivec.
Mark
Looks like the 3 ghz machine will be the first then to go beyond 300… I wish I had 3 grand!
When G5 was released, Intel came out with pentium D, later, the Core Duo and then, Core 2 Duo, so XEON is beating a processor from a 3rd generation ago. The only upgrade it has received was from single core to dual core, but XEON only beat G5 for a small difference, I am quite sure that if G5 get to 3Ghz, not even the XEON 3.2Ghz will beat then. The problem is that IBM does not push their processor speed to much.
Other issue is that Apple only change to intel not because faster processor, but for Performance per watt and also to increase their market share making the Mac “PC compatible”. It is like a “Trojan Horse”, once the PC user tastes the superior OS in Mac, they will never go back to windows.
How much of a rosetta hit was there when running PPC only applications? Would the extra speed only have served to even the playing field?
Apple changed from the G5 because they couldn’t get it into a laptop and Apple’s laptop performance was lagging. Also, heat was an issue. Surely you’ve heard of the problems from the G4 wind tunnels and the G5 fans taking off? There were some problems with the higher-speed G4s and G5 and IBM was doing NOTHING about it. They said in public that Apple wasn’t important, so Apple made the change to Intel.
http://www.geekpatrol.ca/blog/135/
This link tells the truth!
Wait for the Dual Kentsfields and BlueRays!
http://www.geekpatrol.ca/blog/135/
This link tells the truth!
Wait for the Dual Kentsfields and BlueRays!
It doesn’t matter what you wait for. There will always be a more powerful processor on the horizon. Buy what you need when you need it. Let the rest take care of itself.
the fact that less heat means more space for dvd drives, hard drives, and slots in the quad intel, means Steve is a Genius!!! good move!!!
Clyde, from my understanding the Rosetta hit is substantial. Adobe Photoshop is still faster on a G5 than a Mac Pro.
woooweeee! Mac P beat old G5 like a stepchild! Hey, Gow-here you go, take it-ain’t doin’ me no good…
$3,000.00
I would not trust any benchmark test for the Mac Pro that is not compiled to run as a native Intel app. Isn’t there some LinPack equivalent test suite that can be compiled on the Mac Pro. It does come with gcc. We need a Rosetta free comparison.
just my $0.02
Okay, so let’s summarize.
The mid-2006 Mac Pro is slightly faster than the late-2005 PowerMac G5. The biggest differences were in test which were more dependent on the GPU and disk speed than the CPU.
Don’t get me wrong–The Mac Pro is a great machine. So is the PowerMac G5 Quad. This isn’t that radical a shift, though, in my mind. I think that’s one reason that the Mac crowd isn’t overwhelmed with the Mac Pro. It’s about as fast. There’s none of this 2x, 3x, 5x as fast stuff. It’s about the same…
So what if the speed gains aren’t huge. It’s still cheaper and offers much more expansion. I understand why some people are in love with the G5 but it has no future and we must move on. My MacPro is enroute and now I have a machine just as powerful as the G5 Quad, room to expand, and an extra several hundred dollars in my pocket. Seems like a no brainer to me!
There’s none of this 2x, 3x, 5x as fast stuff. It’s about the same…
——–
First of all, the test is comparing the high end machine from the previous generation with the mid-range machine from the current generation. For more impressive results, they should’ve compared the G5 to the 3.0 XEON and you’d have your 2X faster. (Apart from Rosetta apps of couse.)
Secondly, the 3x to 5x jumps were because the new mini’s, MB and MBP’s were replacing the G4 chip which was two generations old. The quad G5, was still relatively new.
The Quad G5 was the top-of-the-line G5, while the mid-range Mac Pro is NOT. That’s comparing apples to oranges. Heck, why not compare the Quad G5 with the 2 GHz Mac Pro? Maybe even the Mac Mini??
The proper comparison is between the Quad G5 and the high-end, 3 GHz Mac Pro. I bet there will be a BIG difference.
One, this shows just how good the PowerPC 970 architecture was. Too bad IBM decided to drop further development and focus on console chips. Even after all these years, the old G5 still competes performance-wise with the latest and greatest Intel chips.
Second, this also show that Apple made exactly the right move by moving to Intel. If Apple hadn’t made the switch, we’d be still looking at the Quad G5 as the top-of-the-line machine today while toting around G4 PowerBooks. Pretty scary if you think about what Mac sales would have been like!
Third, it’s only going to get better – much better – from here on out. Note that every one of these Mac Pro test also involve a lengthy section on how well it runs Windows. It won’t be long before many, many more people realize that Macs can run Windows natively, and Dell or HP will have nothing to offer to stand up to that feature.
Now if Apple can only resolve the “irregularities” that’s keeping a bad vibe on its stock price!
I would point out that if you saw the innards of the G5 with its mini-car radiator, you’d know why Steve had to switch. We’re bumping up to the thermal limits of performance, and performance/watt, then becomes the new frontier. Lower the watts, cram in more chips, for the same watts.
There is no doubt that the newest Mac Pros are fantastic machines. But the Power Mac G5s are still great machines. The Mac Pro is a worthy successor to the last Power Mac G5. No one should be disappointed that the Intel version is not 5x faster in this case; the machine being replaced was one of the fastest desktop computers ever produced.
I have the recent Power Mac G5 (2.0 GHz dual-core, not a Quad), and it seems to have plenty of life left in it. I even can’t imagine a time when THAT will not be enough power for my use (but I’m sure that time will come sooner than I expect).