Who's your daddy, Mac G5? Dual core, dual cpu Opteron?

[BJ_M]

In several of the After Effects and Cinebench comparisons, the Opteron was twice as fast as the 2.7 GHz Dual G5 Mac. They tested both WinXP and WinXPx64, the latter being dramatically faster:



Mac vs. PC VI: Boxx 7400 Dual Opteron 275 Workstation

6/13/05) Boxx Technologies is now shipping its first dual processor, dual-core AMD Opteron workstation, the Boxx 7400 ($5669 as tested). It’s equipped with two Opteron model 275 processors, each using AMD’s newest dual core technology and running at 2.21 gigahertz. Since we now have the newest PC and Mac machines in the same place at the same time—both so fresh that they still have that new-car smell—we decided to pit them against each other in the sixth edition of our ongoing series, Mac vs. PC. If you’re one of the Mac faithful, the results might surprise you.

Even though we will compare the performance of this dual core Opteron box against that of the fastest Mac, the Power Mac G5 dual 2.75 processor machine, this article is primarily a review of Boxx’s new workstation and the difference between its performance and the Mac’s. If you’d like to see a detailed assessment of the fastest Mac G5 workstation that we reviewed just two weeks ago, take a look at this article first. It was a positively glowing review, and it was my opinion that it would be difficult for any manufacturer to beat the high-quality industrial design of its hardware and the friendly usability of the Mac OS X operating system within. But we’re not going to be concentrating on operating systems or software applications in this article. We’re going to be talking about raw speed. We’re going to compare these machines in the context of what would be needed most by a content creator who has clients breathing down his neck, waiting for layered composites and 3-D graphics to render. We used the most processor-intensive application for content creators available in both Mac and PC versions, Adobe After Effects 6.5.1. In addition to our eight real world After Effects benchmarks which test every aspect of its capabilities, we also ran CineBench 2003, which has been optimized separately for the Mac G5, Windows XP 32-bit, and Windows XP x64 edition.

Before we get started, I’d also like to remind some readers who in the past have had objections to using After Effects on the Mac as a benchmarking tool that Apple itself, on its own Web site, declared After Effects optimized for both OS X and Windows XP when it cited benchmarks using a comp called Nightflight, a narrowly-hewn rendering routine that tests just one specific aspect of the system, one that—no big surprise here—favors the Mac’s rendering characteristics. Given Apple’s implication that the Mac G5 2.7GHz machine is faster than the fastest PC using Nightflight, we obtained a copy of that benchmark and tested the veracity of that as well. Sure, that claim might have been true when Apple tested the dual Intel Xeon 3.6 machine, using a processor that was released nearly a year ago, but that’s not the fastest PC chip any more, as you will see. In fact, you’ll finally get to see the up-to-date, whole truth here in this report.

First, let’s take a look at the Boxx 7400. Although its form factor is pleasant enough, it’s boxy-looking (pun intended) and doesn’t have the same sleek lines of the Power Mac G5. Built of aluminum, the Boxx 7400 gives an impression of understated, unfettered power. I didn’t much care for its flimsy door with its anachronistic thumbscrews, but even so, it was still easy to open. Once I got inside (see graphic below), I was impressed with its construction and components. Included is a workstation-class graphics card, the ATI FireGL V3100 as its bare minimum configuration. Then there are the numerous slots, including two PCI Express x16 slots (not available on the Mac), a PCI-X 133 MHz slot, two PCI-X 100 MHz slots and for old time’s sake, a PCI Legacy 32-bit 33 MHz slot. A big plus is the option to equip the six slots with all kinds of exotic graphics cards, up to a dual arrangement of two NVIDIA Quadro FX 4400G 512MB GDDR3 cards, for $3787 extra. And if you want to stoke it with RAM, it’ll hold 16GB of DDR-400 (versus a maximum of 8GB on a Mac G5). That’s power, and it gives this platform a variety of choices that simply aren’t available on a Mac. The lack of this freedom of choice and next-generation power is probably why Apple sidesteps calling any of its products “workstations.”

read the rest of these article here:


http://www.dmnforums.com/cgi-bin/viewarticle.cgi?id=32951-0

[shelbyGT]

you can get a dual G5 for much less than $5700, so I'd hope the AMD wins.

[BJ_M]

you can get a dual G5 for much less than $5700, so I'd hope the AMD wins.

the mac price as configured was $6,474.00

price it out yourself without displays

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/71201/wo/hM699ZBLhrp72...2.0.11.1.0.6.3

[rallynavvie]

What about the dual-core Intels? They are out you know. Dual-core Xeons are due out next quarter IIRC.

[BJ_M]

i think they wanted to test something you could buy now and use with winXP64

[shelbyGT]

I know you can GET high priced macs (They are generally more high priced to begin with). Hopefully you can get both a dual G5's and dual AMD's and dual Intel's for a lot less than these guys are testing. Test a machine down in the 1500-2500 range for more real-world people.

I guess my comment should have been "for that much money you better get some good performance". To me, those are both high priced, but then again I don't use a computer for much intensive stuff.

[BJ_M]

Those are typical prices for a high end NLE or 3D graphics machine ... In fact low if you use a wildcat video card - which will almost double the price ...

add in dual cinema displays and a few extra tB of storage in raid and Human Interface controller .. easy to spend 10k +

[shelbyGT]

Yeah, but I don't use all that (as stated). I need a review that will let me know how these suckers perform in day-to-day situations (games, internet, video encoding stuff, etc).

But don't get me wrong, I read the article and enjoyed it! Kinda surprised me.

[rallynavvie]

Wait a few months, I'll let you know