Apple's Mac Pro - A True PowerMac Successor
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 16, 2006 12:27 PM EST- Posted in
- Mac
Rosetta Performance (or lack thereof)
With no Universal Binary versions of Adobe or Microsoft applications, you're bound to run into something that isn't native on the Mac Pro. Of course if there's performance to be lost, we're there to benchmark it.
First off, let's look at our Word HTML conversion test. Note that this test used to crash on earlier builds of OS X, but Apple has thankfully fixed the problem so it now completes. The only other problem is that it takes a long time to complete:
The fastest Mac Pro configuration we tested took about three times as long to complete this test as the PowerMac G5, and that's about how things feel when you're running a Rosetta application. The application is always bearable, but it feels like everything takes 2 - 3x as long as it would if it were native.
Next up we ran PSBench under Photoshop CS2 and came away with some more interesting results:
| Apple Mac Pro 2.66GHz (Quad) | Apple Mac Pro 2.66GHz (Dual) | Apple PowerMac G5 2.5GHz (Dual) | |
| Rotate Clockwise - 90 degrees |
0.6
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
| Rotate Clockwise - 9 degrees |
2.2
|
3
|
1.2
|
| Rotate Clockwise - 0.9 degrees |
4
|
4.1
|
3.6
|
| 1 pixel Gaussian Blur |
2.2
|
2.3
|
2.1
|
| 3.7 pixel Gaussian Blur |
2.5
|
3.4
|
2.8
|
| 85 pixel Gaussian Blur |
3
|
4.2
|
3.1
|
| 50%, 1 pixel, 0 level unsharp mask |
2.3
|
3
|
2.2
|
| 50%, 3.7 pixel, 0 lever unsharp mask |
3.4
|
4.3
|
3.6
|
| 50%, 10 pixel, 5 level unsharp mask |
3.2
|
4.6
|
4
|
| Despeckle filter |
2.2
|
2.4
|
2.5
|
| RGB to CMYK |
3.8
|
5.2
|
3.4
|
| 60% Reduction |
1.4
|
1.6
|
1.4
|
| Lens Flare |
5.3
|
5.3
|
4.9
|
| Color Halftone Filter |
21.5
|
23.1
|
9.2
|
| NTSC Colors Filter |
5.9
|
5.9
|
4.1
|
| Accented Edges Brush Strokes |
13.3
|
13.7
|
10.7
|
| Pointillize Filter |
31
|
36.9
|
15.8
|
| Watercolor Filter |
28.8
|
31.2
|
20.8
|
| Polar Coordinates |
2.1
|
2.9
|
1.6
|
| Radial Blur Filter |
7.3
|
11.3
|
17.1
|
| Lighting Effects Filter |
3.5
|
4
|
2.9
|
| Total |
149.5
|
172.9
|
117.5
|
The PowerMac G5 is still faster, overall it completed all of the tasks about 32% faster than the dual core Mac Pro 2.66GHz but comparing it to the shipping quad core configuration closed that gap even more. There were even some tests that the non-native Mac Pro could complete quicker than the PowerMac G5, which bodes well for how fast the Mac Pro will be when Photoshop CS3 eventually comes out.
Overall, Rosetta has gotten better in terms of stability, but performance is still no where near native G5 performance on average (nor did anyone expect it to be). You can get by using Rosetta, but it will irritate you especially if you're using any Universal Binary applications on a regular basis as the difference in performance is fairly apparent.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
96 Comments
View All Comments
michael2k - Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - link
1:) Well, according to Anandtech's calculations, it's cheaper to buy a quad CPU Mac than to build one.2:) iLife is better than "free crap"
3:) Macs can run Windows, BSD, Linux, and OS X all at once; PCs cannot
4:) Drive sleds
5:) Ram risers
6:) Quiet case
7:) 6 SATA connectors
8:) 4 PCIe slots and 8 monitors
retrospooty - Thursday, August 17, 2006 - link
Yes, in general, good quality components cost more than cheap crap... This is why Acura and Lexus cost more than a Ford, even though they are all built in hte USA. Would you rather get the mobo, memory, HDD, and video card that some kind and caring (cough cough) company landed a mulimillion dollar cotract to buy 10's of thousands, or pick your own?What is your point?
nexcom - Saturday, November 28, 2009 - link
yes good and quality also mater aswell ok.michael2k - Thursday, August 17, 2006 - link
My point was that you got better build quality than the average DIY case:You get HDD sleds, cablefree installation, 2 gigE ports, 6 SATA connectors, etc, etc, etc.
Not everyone has the skill, time, or resources to do their own research, shopping around, and haggling, you know.
Are you arguing against, similarly, mass produced cars, TVs, homes, fridges, and furniture over DIY solutions?
Or do you shop at Target and Walmart too?
retrospooty - Thursday, August 17, 2006 - link
MAybe I am dense, but I am still missing your point... Anyhow, Apple's MAC's, or Dell, or any other vendor for that matter are not of high quality parts. The CPU's are great, most of the rest is cheap deal based components. Yes, most people lack the knowledge to build thier own systems, and they buy Dell's, and MAC's and such. All I am saying is that those systems arent at all using all the best high quality/high performance parts.michael2k - Thursday, August 17, 2006 - link
So I'm asking if you are consistent.Do you refuse to buy at Walmart and Target because they sell mass produced furniture, clothing, and household goods because they don't happen to use the highest quality materials? Do you, instead, build your own furniture, make your own clothes, grow your own produce, and make your own electronics?
I don't see your point, because you haven't proven it, that Macs use "cheap deal based components". The case is definitely not "cheap deal based components" because it is crafted of aluminum ONLY for Apple, and it is quite nonstandard compared to the average PC case. Then there is the Mac motherboard, which as far as I can tell is also unique, being a Xeon EFI based motherboard, crafted singularly for Apple, most likely by Intel itself. The video card, yes, it is cheap, but that saves the user money too, and is no worse than an off the shelf NVIDIA video card.
Where is your proof that the Mac Pro has cheap, unreliable, components?
retrospooty - Friday, August 18, 2006 - link
you're wearing me out... I give. Long live the MAC, may Apple break thier 10 year rut and finally get more than 3% global marketshare, maybe even 5%. Whoopdeedoo. Yippee skip.BTW, Apple's beautiful aluminum cases are a total ripoff (if not an out right purchase)of the Lian Li design. EFI is an average/cheap mobo maker at best (not to say unreliable, just average in function, and performance). They are no DFI, or ASUS, not even close.
Maury Markowitz - Friday, August 18, 2006 - link
You really are trolling...> total ripoff of the Lian Li
Well I've actually used one of these, which I really doubt you can claim, and they're certainly nothing at all like the Apple case. Or are you overheating those two brain cells because both cases happen to use aluminum? I guess, by that brilliant logic, that Apple stole the design of their cases from the Dornier Dr.I from World War I. After all, that used aluminum too.
For the record, the Lian Li design doesn't show a single one of the features that the Apple industrial design team put into the Mac Pro. They are, quite simply, bog-standard PC cases made of aluminum instead of stamped steel. That's it. For instance, the drives slide in from the front through a removable panel, are fastened into place with tiny little screws, and connected to the mobo with cables. Does this sound like the Mac Pro in any way whatsoever? Well pictures are worth a thousand words:
http://silverpcs.com/product_info.php?products_id=...">http://silverpcs.com/product_info.php?products_id=...
> EFI is an average/cheap mobo maker
Stop! Please, stop! My ribs are aching!
Hey brainiac, EFI is not a company.
> They are no DFI, or ASUS, not even close.
I hope not, considering it's an acronym for a boot standard.
If this is the basis of your "Apple is cheap" argument, you really are a moron.
Maury
retrospooty - Friday, August 18, 2006 - link
Sorry to all, my bad, I read too quickly and I thought the post above was stating that EFI (the company) made Apple's new mobo's.Anyhow, I was not saying they are particularily bad, or cheap, I was saying ALL manufacturers use "average" parts in thier systems, including Apple. Aplle may well be at or very near the best of the list of major manufactureres, but its still not like hand picking your own motherboard, ram, v card, HDD etc. In other words, if Apple was an open standard, and any manufacturer could make parts for it, you would see alot of higher quality parts from some of those vendors.
Any Yes, the case appearance is a TOTAL ripoff of Lian Li. The interior is certianly not, bute the look and feel externally, is identical, right down to the holes.
Anyhow, I am done on this one, I have riled up enough MAC fanboy anger for now :D LONG LICE MAC, may their marketshare double to a whopping 6% !
michael2k - Friday, August 18, 2006 - link
Right, a total ripoff... you sound like a broken record. Look at Anand's review here:http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2040&p...">http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2040&p...
It was introduced in April of 2004... almost a full year after Apple introduced their PowerMac G5 in June of 2003. The case design, with the cooling zones, grill face, and inverted motherboard all debuted in an Apple design and then was copied by Lian Li. This has nothing to do with being a fanboy and everything to do with being right.
You believe Apple ripped off the Lian Li... fine, link the Lian Li that preceeded the PowerMac G5 case!