Apple's Mac Pro - A True PowerMac Successor
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 16, 2006 12:27 PM EST- Posted in
- Mac
iWork '06 Performance with Pages and Keynote
Now let's shift our attention to Apple's iWork suite, with Pages 2 and Keynote 3. For the Pages test we simply timed how long it would take to export a 116 page document to PDF. This test is single threaded.
Pretty much all of Apple's applications fare very well on the new Intel processors, and Pages is no exception. With no benefit to quad cores over dual, the Mac Pro 2.0GHz is noticeably faster than the PowerMac G5 and the 2.66GHz model simply puts it to shame.
For Keynote, there are two tests that we ran, both involving exporting a presentation. The first test exports the presentation to a PowerPoint (.ppt) file, which is a task that is pretty common for Keynote users:
Once again we see a very strong showing by the new Mac Pro. If you're looking at shaving some cost off of the system, you can always downgrade to the 2.0GHz CPU and still come out faster than a high end PowerMac G5.
The next test is exporting a smaller presentation to a Quicktime file, using the default export settings. This test is multithreaded.
Quicktime encoding seems to be a strong point of the G5 as it gives the Mac Pro a good run for its money here. A quad core PowerMac G5 could probably compete with the 2.66GHz Mac Pro in this case, although it would not be able to touch the top of the line 3GHz Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is most likely limited by a couple of factors here: 1) the additional latency and lower usable bandwidth of FB-DIMMs aren't too great for its hungry architecture, and 2) Quicktime carries very few SSEn optimizations to begin with, giving the G5 a bit of a performance advantage here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
96 Comments
View All Comments
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - link
Could you show me how to get Dell to take $149 off for the monitor? Whenever I try to configure it if I select the "No Monitor" option it lists a cost of $0, meaning I don't gain or lose anything.The Dell protection plan is truly enterprise class however the point of the comparison was to look at things from a purely hardware/cost of components perspective, which is how these Mac vs. PC price comparisons are usually done. Once you go above and beyond that then you get into this slippery slope argument of how much you should tack on for the price of being able to run OS X, etc...
Take care,
Anand
delta53 - Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - link
The "they" was referring to Apple namely at the WWDC6, no offence Anand. The option is given under the Medium and Large business section, but your point is well taken that exact price is impossible in that section.Keep up the good reports,
Kyle
Furen - Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - link
I was under the impression that Cinebench had very light memory usage. It looks to me that what will make or break Woodcrest's "power efficiency" is going to be FBDIMM power so perhaps loading up the ram will paint slightly different numbers...TamarinMonkey - Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - link
Now that we can run both OSX and XP on the same hardware, I'd be interested to see some of the benchmarks run on both OSs and see how they do. Any plans to do this in a future article?~Tam~
retrospooty - Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - link
I am pretty sure this has been done, and OSX has been found to be lacking, especially in 3d games. The speed advantage of PC over MAC was not that Intel/AMD were so much faster than IBM G4, then G5, but the OS and drivers are much finer tuned.Tegeril - Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - link
It was definitely not so much about the OS/Drivers being finer tuned in regards to 3D gaming. It was definitely a DirectX versus OpenGL issue.psychobriggsy - Thursday, August 17, 2006 - link
More specifically, Apple's OpenGL implementation on PowerPC was/is severely lacking.I wonder if the Intel Mac OS X drivers are better - i.e., the ATI/Nvidia drivers ported to Mac OS X.
Konq - Monday, September 11, 2006 - link
I just played WoW last night on my Quadro 4500-equiped Mac Pro. An ATI version should be similar. I was in a 40 man raid for my guild. This thing screams in OS X. I get 30-40 fps in a crowded IF, 50-100 fps flying, and I peaked at 135 fps looking at the sky. All at 1920x1200. The drivers sure have improved and I think are better on intel. I have a 2.3 Ghz dual core G5 and this is twice as fast even thought the G5 had a 7800 GT card. Oh - and I never noticed the fans spin up during the raid even though I had low sound volume.Rumor has it that OpenGL will be much improved when it goes multithreaded in 10.4.8. We will see. :)
Konq - Monday, September 11, 2006 - link
I forgot to mention: the Mac Pro loaded the WoW AQ40 instance in about 2 seconds! Faster even the second time. I can't express how impressed I am with this machine.As a side note, I used Office in Rosetta, and it is as fast as my G5. Maybe 4GB of RAM helps here but I was worried after reading Anands' report.
Pirks - Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - link
Please use XP x64 benchmarks as well, since it's uberinteresting to see how both 64-bit OSes from MS and Apple compete. XP 32-bit is okay, but a bit boring.