G5 vs. G4
- Thread starter Jerry W
- Start date
KingstonRock
PC load letter?
they are two very different computers, the g5's 64-bit architecture is supposed to open up a new level of computing. If you're talking about raw effects type processing then it depends what processors are in each, but I would put my money on the dual g4
christiaan
Active member
This is what Apple has to say about it:
As part of Steve Jobs' keynote speech Adobe and Emagic demonstrated the incredible performance of the Apple G5 against PC rivals. Emagic's co-founder Gerhard Lengeling demonstrated Logic Platinum 6 running on the new G5 . The G5 runs far in excess of 1000 EXS stereo voices in 24-bit and over 800 ES2 voices! Over 500 simultaneous reverbs.
The design of the G5 clearly shows Apple have been listening to the needs of audio professionals. For example, the G5 has built-in digital SPDIF input and the machine is more than twice as quiet as the G4.
The Power Mac G5 supports more audio tracks with real-time effects and more software instruments than any previous desktop system in history, giving audio pros a wealth of creative resources in a native environment. In addition, Mac OS X Core Audio offers a scalable platform that supports 32-bit high-resolution audio, a single plug-in called Audio Units for DSP and Virtual Instruments, and plug-and-play connectivity for modern and legacy audio gear. And the built-in optical S/PDIF connects to other audio equipment for pristine sound quality - without those pesky ground loops.
To quantify the performance advantages of the Power Mac G5 for audio production, Apple tested two of the industry leaders in professional audio software: Emagic's Logic Platinum for the Macintosh and Steinberg's Cubase SX 1.051 for the PC. We created a processor-intensive workload of projects containing multiple unique audio tracks; assigned five default reverb plug-ins to each of the audio tracks; and tested each platform to see which could play more plug-ins. For Logic, we used the default settings for the Fat EQ, AutoFilter, Chorus, and Silver Compressor plug-ins. For Cubase, we used an equalizer and the default settings for the StepFilter, Chorus, and Compressor plug-ins.
The dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 with Logic Platinum 6.1 can play 115 tracks, compared with a maximum of 35 tracks on the Dell Dimension 8300 and 81 tracks on the Dell Precision 650 each with Cubase SX 1.051
More impressively, the 1.6GHz single-processor Power Mac G5 played 50 percent more tracks than the 3GHz Pentium 4-based system.
But I'd rather just wait for some independant benchmarks.
As part of Steve Jobs' keynote speech Adobe and Emagic demonstrated the incredible performance of the Apple G5 against PC rivals. Emagic's co-founder Gerhard Lengeling demonstrated Logic Platinum 6 running on the new G5 . The G5 runs far in excess of 1000 EXS stereo voices in 24-bit and over 800 ES2 voices! Over 500 simultaneous reverbs.
The design of the G5 clearly shows Apple have been listening to the needs of audio professionals. For example, the G5 has built-in digital SPDIF input and the machine is more than twice as quiet as the G4.
The Power Mac G5 supports more audio tracks with real-time effects and more software instruments than any previous desktop system in history, giving audio pros a wealth of creative resources in a native environment. In addition, Mac OS X Core Audio offers a scalable platform that supports 32-bit high-resolution audio, a single plug-in called Audio Units for DSP and Virtual Instruments, and plug-and-play connectivity for modern and legacy audio gear. And the built-in optical S/PDIF connects to other audio equipment for pristine sound quality - without those pesky ground loops.
To quantify the performance advantages of the Power Mac G5 for audio production, Apple tested two of the industry leaders in professional audio software: Emagic's Logic Platinum for the Macintosh and Steinberg's Cubase SX 1.051 for the PC. We created a processor-intensive workload of projects containing multiple unique audio tracks; assigned five default reverb plug-ins to each of the audio tracks; and tested each platform to see which could play more plug-ins. For Logic, we used the default settings for the Fat EQ, AutoFilter, Chorus, and Silver Compressor plug-ins. For Cubase, we used an equalizer and the default settings for the StepFilter, Chorus, and Compressor plug-ins.
The dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 with Logic Platinum 6.1 can play 115 tracks, compared with a maximum of 35 tracks on the Dell Dimension 8300 and 81 tracks on the Dell Precision 650 each with Cubase SX 1.051
More impressively, the 1.6GHz single-processor Power Mac G5 played 50 percent more tracks than the 3GHz Pentium 4-based system.
But I'd rather just wait for some independant benchmarks.
Yeah I have seen all the hype but I am interested in the real world. They keep talking about the G5 vs. Pentiums which is interesting but what I want to know exactly is how the dual G4 compares to the single G5.
Actually, when I really think about it, I come to the conclusion that by next year, or sooner, such questions will be acamdemic if not already. And, the obvious answer for audio is the dual G5 which, I trust ends the debate forthwith.
This is what I have concluded since posting this thread. If you have a different opinion, I would certainly like to hear (read) it.
Actually, when I really think about it, I come to the conclusion that by next year, or sooner, such questions will be acamdemic if not already. And, the obvious answer for audio is the dual G5 which, I trust ends the debate forthwith.
This is what I have concluded since posting this thread. If you have a different opinion, I would certainly like to hear (read) it.
HD I/O has alot to do with a machine's track limit. So does the resolution of the audio (sample rate/ bit rate).
Where the processing spead realy comes into play is when using plugins. It's ridiculous to talk about how many tracks a machine can handle based only on processor speed and with no mention of audio resolution and plugins being used.
Typical brainwashing of the ignorant.
Where the processing spead realy comes into play is when using plugins. It's ridiculous to talk about how many tracks a machine can handle based only on processor speed and with no mention of audio resolution and plugins being used.
Typical brainwashing of the ignorant.
OK, how goddam stupid is this? If they want to show a real comparison, they could EASILY have used the same application (Cubase SX runs on OS X) and then used the same plugins from a third-party (e.g. Waves), and therefore eliminated the bullshit results that they get when they use an app that they code, compile, and tune for their operating system and processor.
I'm sure they tried it that way, and I'm equally sure that the G5 probably did marginally better or marginally worse. In any case, the results obviously weren't impressive enough to publish.
Jerry W said:
You're not understanding the difference between the two processors.
Its not only about horsepower, but the fact that a 64bit architecture can address more physical RAM and break the 4Gb limit of current 32bit processors.
Even if the G5 is faster, no 32bit DAW software has be re coded yet for the 64bit processor and will not make good use of it.
KingstonRock
PC load letter?
brzilian makes a very important point, a 64-bit processor requires 64-bit programs to run at its full potential
What about the future?
Now that the G5 has introduced 64 bit processors and PCI-X slots (1.0 or 2.0?), what will be the new standard. Will many off the future audio apps take advatage off the 64 bit processor, and what about the PC market, I've read that intel wont release a 64 bit processor until 2008.
What about the future PC seriell PCI bus, 3GIO, that will be introduced during the spring 2004. For which PCI bus will the future soundcards be designed for?
Just some thoughts.
Now that the G5 has introduced 64 bit processors and PCI-X slots (1.0 or 2.0?), what will be the new standard. Will many off the future audio apps take advatage off the 64 bit processor, and what about the PC market, I've read that intel wont release a 64 bit processor until 2008.
What about the future PC seriell PCI bus, 3GIO, that will be introduced during the spring 2004. For which PCI bus will the future soundcards be designed for?
Just some thoughts.