The IBM CPU that goes in the G5 won against the Pentium 4

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dagenais
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    cpu
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the performance comparison between the IBM G5 CPU and Intel's Pentium 4 and AMD's 64-bit processors. Participants explore benchmarks, awards, and the implications of different CPU architectures, focusing on theoretical and practical performance aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how the G5 could win against the Pentium 4 and AMD CPUs, suggesting that it takes two G5 CPUs to match one Intel or AMD CPU.
  • Another participant provides benchmarks comparing a dual G5 to single Athlon 64 and Opteron processors, implying that the G5's performance may not be as strong as claimed.
  • A participant expresses confusion over the G5 winning "CPU of the year," noting that PC Magazine awarded the Opteron and AMD 64-bit CPU instead, and mentions claims of bias in the benchmarks from PC World.
  • One participant argues that there are processors outside of AMD and Intel that can outperform general-purpose CPUs, highlighting the G5's features such as being a 64-bit processor with error correction and low power consumption.
  • Another participant points out that the G5 used in benchmarks may differ from the one in Apple's computers, suggesting that differences in manufacturing processes (90 nm vs. 130 nm) could account for performance discrepancies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the performance of the G5 compared to Intel and AMD processors, with no consensus reached on the validity of the benchmarks or the reasons behind the G5's accolades.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific benchmarks and awards without providing detailed methodologies or definitions, leaving some assumptions and comparisons unresolved.

Dagenais
Messages
293
Reaction score
4
http://www.mdronline.com/events/dinner/

The IBM CPU that goes in the G5 won against the Pentium 4 and 64-bit from AMD?

How can that be!?

It takes 2 of those CPUs to even draw a fair comparison against a single Intel or AMD CPU.

[?]
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
That is kinda funny. Here are some benchmarks that show how a dual g5 comparies to a one processor athlon 64 and a one processor opteron:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp
 
Originally posted by dduardo
That is kinda funny. Here are some benchmarks that show how a dual g5 comparies to a one processor athlon 64 and a one processor opteron:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp

Yeah, I own a Mac so I go to Mac forums sometimes.

They were talking about how the G5 won CPU of the year, and I was astonished.

PC Magazine awarded the Opeteron and 64-bit AMD CPU of the year (much more logical).

They say the PC World benchmarks are biased, despite the real-world approach to them.

I don't really get how the G5 won. Someone please explain it to me.
 
You know there is more in this world than AMD and Intel processors. I know specialized DSPs that can process voice or image faster than any general purpose processor. Just because Intel and AMD have the largest processor market share doesn't mean everything they make is the best this universe has witnessed yet.
As for the G5 processor (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/processors/ ) he's a 64 bit processor (there are not many 64 bit processors today), it has cache with error correction (that's not performance boosting but it's a nice feature), and seems highly paralelized and low power from what I read so far...
You can take a look at the address above and if I have time I'll try to find some specs from whatever AMD and Intel you think can beat this processor and then we'll see if it's true...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The G5 that is used at the convention is not the one in apples computers btw as far as the links to the benchmarks. the FX is much better and will start to be shipped in the xserves. Anyway the FX that was tested isn't the same and there for is probably why it won, mainly probably due to the fact that the process of the cpu is now a 90 nm and not a 130 nm, you should look at the white papers/briefs about both cpus to see the hard differences in both chips.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
15K
Replies
6
Views
1K