Visit our Expo show page for full coverage of all show announcements
Tech Industry

07/07/2003, 8:40am, EDT

Monday, July 7th

[::FROM::] [::SiteName::]

NASA benchmarks G5 processor

[::related_name_google::] [::related_name_google1::]
[::related_stories_google::] [::related_products_google::]
MacNN reader Derek Kent writes: "NASA recently benchmarked Apple's dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 at its Langley Research Center in Virginia. The main purpose of the tests was to compare the G5 to the G4 for 'computational fluid dynamics applications" however they also compare it to the Pentium 4. The test was well documented and concludes that "the G5 has about 22% better scalar floating point performance per clock cycle than the G4 systems tested and 32% better floating point performance per clock cycle than the P4 systems tested.' Even more interesting is that NASA's benchmarks come close to mirroring Apple/Veritest's results for SPECfp_rate_base2000. Apple's benchmark lists the dual 2GHz G5 as having a 194.5% performance advantage over a 3GHz Pentium 4."

[::digg_button::]

[::news_tags::]

, [::delicious::][::slashdot::][::digg::][::buzz::] [::twitter::], 


[::doclix::]


[::boottext::] [::bootmark::]

[::layout::]

[::google::]
56 comments
Reader Reactions

subscribe to comments
for this article




118376 07/07, 8:44am, EDT Nice to hear...
Regardless of it "beating" the P4, I'm just happy to be back in the race with our hardware. Naturally we all want to be on top, but I'm willing to be take second place if second place isn't 1/2 as fast...

NASA doing benchmarks? That's a first...

posted by MacNN.com Reader

118379 07/07, 9:00am, EDT cool
this is the first "real world" non apple benchmark.. and it's a good one :)

posted by MacNN.com Reader

118381 07/07, 9:11am, EDT nice
read the article. The benchmarks weren't even optimized for the G5. The figured that a single unoptimized 2ghz G5 would run the benchmark 20% slower than an optimized 3.2ghz pentium4.

This f***ing rocks! Optimized this should catch up and surpass the 3.2ghz P4 with a single proc.

posted by MacNN.com Reader

118382 07/07, 9:18am, EDT NASA Has lots of Macs
I know some people at NASA and they have been using Macs for years. They love houw easy it is to secure and how easy it is to write software, especially software that run a lot of math equations. They run these benchmarks a lot mostly so they know what the machines are capable of.

posted by MacNN.com Reader

118385 07/07, 9:25am, EDT Re-Read it
Re-Read the article... the PC was running old linux with unoptimized code, possibly i386 ver of redhat. OS X is highly optimized for Macs, so before you go off declaring G5 ubber-winner, remember benchmarks can change significantly based off who is doing the test, and how the test was done. This is clearly not a very scientific (or fair) test for either machine.

posted by MacNN.com Reader

118387 07/07, 9:28am, EDT RE: NASA Has lots of Macs
That is true, but their Microsoft security app sucks! It makes their Macs crash continuously and bootup very slowly, especially when disconnected from the Network.

posted by MacNN.com Reader

118388 07/07, 9:29am, EDT Not scientific?
How can NASA "not be scientific" when what the do is high-level computations? Sheesh, you PC types will always try to rain on a Mac parade.
Seriously though, using "NASA" and the phrase "Not a very scientific test" in the same sentence is laughable, man. C'mon.

posted by MacNN.com Reader

118389 07/07, 9:33am, EDT i don't see a 3GHz P4
I see a single 2.66 GHz P4 in this test but nothing faster. The G5 wins, but its not all that impressive.

posted by MacNN.com Reader

118390 07/07, 9:38am, EDT Re: I don't see a 3Ghz P
So? How many of your God's Intel Chip do we need to crush? The battle is over and the war is nearly won. Get used to it. Now pC users have NOTHING over macs. Except, thousands of crappy titles that collect dust in office supply stores because no one wants them.

posted by MacNN.com Reader

118391 07/07, 9:51am, EDT Re: I don´t see a 3GHz P4
They conlcuded that the G5 was, on average, a 32% faster than a P4 on a per clock cycle basis. So it would have been 32% faster than a 3.0GHz too!!

In reality, the 2Ghz G5 was on par with the P4 (2Ghz+32%=2.64GHz). A 3.0Ghz P4 would be indeed faster than the top G5 when it came down to single processor operations. In any case, the G5 is the top dog to beat as MAcOS X uses intensively a second processor (a minimum of 40%). Therefore a dual 2GHz G5 will be equivalent to a 3.7GHz P4 (as a minimum), that is without any special optimizations and with apps that do no use heavily a second processor.

When Panther comes out, the gains will be even more dramatic. Stay tunes folks!

posted by MacNN.com Reader

additional comments:..1..2..3..4..5..6..Next
Your Comments

In order to post comments: If you are a registered member, please login with your MacNN Forums username and password otherwise please uncheck the checkbox below.


Registered Member? (uncheck if you wish to post without logging in)
 
macnn forums login:

macnn forums password:

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.
Want To Sell Your Laptop? Any Condition - receive Top Cash. Get an instant quote. Free shipping www.CashForLaptops.com

Internet Marketing School - 100% Online: Master SEO, SEM, E Commerce, Media & More with a U of San Francisco Certificate.

Buy from The Apple Store, iTunes.com, Amazon.com, TechDepot, OfficeDepot, Computers4Sure, or donate.