Motherboards Memory Storage Cases/Cooling/PSUs IT Computing Displays Mobile Mac CPUs & Chipsets Video Digital Cameras Linux Gadgets Systems Trade Shows Guides Home Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Change Page Size
No more mysteries: Apple's G5 versus x86, Mac OS X versus Linux
No more mysteries: Apple's G5 versus x86, Mac OS X versus Linux
Date: June 3rd, 2005
Topic: Mac
Manufacturer: Various
Author: Johan De Gelas
Buy the IBM IBM/8104-R Desktop PC ThinkCentre
Blank
 eCost $250.99
 
 

The G5 as Server CPU

While it is the Xserve and not the PowerMac that is Apple's server platform, we could not resist the temptation to test the G5 based machine as a server too. Installed on the machine was the server version of Mac OS X Tiger. So in fact, we are giving the Apple platform a small advantage: the 2.5 GHz CPUs are a bit faster than the 2.3 GHz of the Xserve, and the RAM doesn't use ECC as in the Xserve.

A few months before, we had a quick test run with the beautifully designed and incredible silent 1U Xserve and results were similar, albeit lower, than the ones that we measured on the PowerMac.

Network performance wasn't an issue. We used a direct Gigabit Ethernet link between client and server. On average, the server received 4 Mbit/s and sent 19 Mbit/s of data, with a peak of 140 Mbit/s, way below the limits of Gigabit. The disk system wasn't very challenged either: up to 600 KB of reads and at most 23 KB/s writes. You can read more about our MySQL test methods here.

Ever heard about the famous English Plum pudding? That is the best way to describe the MySQL performance on the G5/ Mac OS X server combination. Performance is decent with one or two virtual client connecting. Once we go to 5 and 10 concurrent connections, the Apple plum pudding collapses.

Dual G5 2,5 GHz PowerMac Dual Xeon DP 3,6 GHz (HT on) Dual Xeon DP 3,6 GHz (HT out) Dual Opteron 2.4Ghz
1 192 286 287 290
2 274 450 457 438
5 113 497 559 543
10 62 517 583 629
20 50 545 561 670
35 50 486 573 650
50 47 495 570 669

Performance is at that point only 1/10th of the Opteron and Xeon. We have tested this on Panther (10.3) and on Tiger (10.4.1), triple-checked every possible error and the result remains the same: something is terribly wrong with the MySQL server performance.

SPEC CPU 2000 Int numbers compiled with GCC show that the G5 reaches about 75% of the integer performance of an equally clocked Opteron. So, the purely integer performance is not the issue. The Opteron should be quite faster, but not 10 times faster.

We checked with the activity monitor, and the CPUs were indeed working hard: up to 185% CPU load on the MySQL process. Notice that the MySQL process consists of no less than 60 threads.

We did a check with Apache 1.3 and the standard "ab" (Apachebench) benchmark:

Concurrency Dual Powermac G5 2.5 GHz (Panther) Dual Powermac G5 2.7 GHz (Tiger) Dual Xeon 3.6 GHz
5 216.34 217.6 3776.44
20 216.24 217.68 3711.4
50 269.38 218.32 3624.63
100 249.51 217.69 3768.89
150 268.59 256.89 3600.1

The new OS, Tiger doesn't help: the 2.7 GHz (10.4.1) is as fast as the 2.5 GHz on Panther (10.3). More importantly, Apache shows exactly the same picture as MySQL: performance is 10 times more worse than on the Xeon (and Opteron) on Linux. Apple is very proud about the Mac OS X Unix roots, but it seems that the typical Unix/Linux software isn't too fond of Apple. Let us find out what happened!

Mac OS X: beautiful but…   Next Page

 
  Index

Tools Share
Find lowest prices Find the lowest prices
Digg   del.icio.us   E-mail  
Print This Article Print this article  

112 Comments - Last by edchi, 959 days ago
Username:
Password:
No Subject by Methodical, 1712 days ago
I like anands articles way better.

Your drawing too many conclusions off of data you basically call untrustworthy, but I agree your basic conclusion. The OS still needs more work.

I really think leaving out After Effects was a bad idea. Its a perfect benchmark. Plugins that do the exact same calculations on the exact same workfiles. Its also one of the biggest things these macs are used for, but I understand your article to be a bit more server-oriented.

Reply
No Subject by ailleur2, 1712 days ago
Well that was interesting.

Im a big apple fan myself but even i never thought od putting osx server in a server room.
I think the g5 did quite well and had IBM delivered its promise of a 3ghz g5 (and that was supposed to be a year ago) the g5 would have won a couple of tests by a good margin.

If apple/IBM want altivec optimisations, i think theyll have to do it themselves since the interest level is pretty low.

One question though, why wasnt linux installed of the g5 if this was a cpu test? I dont know if it makes a damn of a difference but it whould have put them on equal bases.

Reply
No Subject by ailleur2, 1712 days ago
Oh and the graph on page 5 doesnt display correctly in firefox.

Reply
No Subject by wessonality, 1712 days ago
No Subject by wessonality, 1712 days ago
What about installing Yellow Dog Linux on the XServe?

Reply
No Subject by porkster, 1712 days ago
"Root Me" in Australian slang is the same as "Fxxk Me" in common language. Some people my find a picture in this review offensive.

Reply
No Subject by StuckMojo, 1712 days ago
yes, it seems you've left out a very good method of testing if OSX is the issue: run a powerPC linux distro with the mysql and apache benchmarks and see what happens!

i'd be _really_ interested in the results. see if you can update the article with them.

Reply
No Subject by StuckMojo, 1712 days ago

hmph. you say it yourself in the last paragraph...how come you didn't try it?

Reply
No Subject by JohanAnandtech, 1712 days ago
Porkster: It is a little geekisch Unix joke. Where is your geekish you man spirit?

Wessonality: Our next project if we can keep the G5 long enough in the labs.

Ailleur2: indeed, I agree. The G5 is a potent CPU with a lot of potential. Just give it a bigger L2 and a better memory subsystem. This is an architecture that could last very long by applying a few tweaks, like the P6.

Methodical: All of the benchmarks are trustworthy, they should be looked upon as a whole to get a good picture, not just pick one. About After affects, I indicate that the G5 does very well here (seen other reports on the web), I just didn't have the software in the lab.

I also warned that this was not about "should I buy an Apple or not?". It is just "if performance is what counts for me, where should I position the G5/Mac os X combiantion compared to x86/Linux/Windows ?".



Reply
No Subject by IntelUser2000, 1712 days ago
People, in case some of you misunderstand, the 10.8GB/sec Full Duplex bus means that its two 32-bit 1350MHz bus, rather than one 64-bit bus in the PCs. Its not, 10.8GB/sec x 2 =21.6GB/sec bus, its 10.8GB/sec bus(or more correctly stated 5.4GB/sec x 2). Plus, it says in Apple site that it has TWO(yes two!!!) of the 10.8GB/sec buses, per CPU.

Summary: Per CPU=10.8GB/sec
Per Dual Processor System=21.6GB/sec


Johan, about the AMD TDP number, they never state that its max power, they say its maximum power achievable under most circumstances, its not absolute max power.

Reply
Comments Page 1 of 12

Unlicensed Software at Your Last Company
Anonymously Report Unlicensed Software with Our Form Now. Get Up to $1 Million.
Special Offer from The Economist
Get 12 issues of The Economist for $12. US subscribers only.
Free Forrester Risk Management Report
Demystifying Enterprise Risk Management. Download Free With Registration.
DOWNLOAD vWire Today - FREE TRIAL
Take Control of Your Virtual Infrastructure. Manage VI Data & Prevent Problems.
Download Microsoft Visual Studio ® Team System
Streamline Dev processes, Reduce time to market. Try Microsoft Visual Studio Team System, FREE!




Latest news by
DailyTech

 February 9, 2010

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank

 February 8, 2010

Blank




pipeboost
Copyright © 1997-2010 AnandTech, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms, Conditions and Privacy Information.
Click Here for Advertising Information