PDA

View Full Version : imac 2-3x faster powerbook 3-4x faster what a load of rubbish




Macmadant
Jan 11, 2006, 01:24 AM
This is very unlikely apple was telling us the g5 was twice as fast as any pc now they moved to intel it's intel chips that are faster, it's proberly no faster.
:mad: btw i refuse to use the name "macbook pro"



MacTruck
Jan 11, 2006, 01:27 AM
They always say that. They can't say its slower. According to them its faster than the dual 2.3ghz G5. I am waiting for benchmarks. But what good is speed if you can't run any software. Good luck in doing the photoshop test. No these macs won't be good for anything but web surfing until January 2007.

dubbz
Jan 11, 2006, 01:29 AM
This is very unlikely apple was telling us the g5 was twice as fast as any pc

They did? (I don't remember). If so, that was ******** too.

And the chips the Apple in that case was comparing to are much different from the ones Intel have now.

And you should never believe what they say about performance. That's true for anyone who's trying to sell something. Wait for independent reviews and benchmarks.

bousozoku
Jan 11, 2006, 01:50 AM
Probably for most things, the new machines are faster. For Photoshop, they probably won't be, even after Photoshop is running natively.

unfaded
Jan 11, 2006, 02:35 AM
To be fair, I think it will be 2x times faster than the previous iMacs just based on the fact that there are TWO cores.

So one core being 1.5 times faster than a the one core of the G5 really isn't unbelievable, especially if you take the video card into consideration a well.

Little Endian
Jan 11, 2006, 03:58 AM
I believe the statements are true for both imac and Powerbook. True in the sense that they can be 2-3 x and 3-4 times faster respectively in the best possible case scenarios with certain applications. The Intel machines are Dual core Machines compared to Single cored G5 machines. Most of the benches that Apple Posted are optimized to take advantage of Multiple Processors or cores so the comparison to a single cored G5 is moot. Also they only post in house software benches and non-shipping beta benches.

The Graphics benches are also no real indication of intel performance in contrast to G5 performance. They are using X1600 in the new intel macs in comparison to the 9700Mobility and Radeon X600 in the G4/G5 machines. The Modo and Doom 3 benches are almost exclusively dependent on the GPU. X1600 automatically gives a 50%-100% increase in Graphics intensive Apps in comparison to the 9700 Mobility and X600 even in a machine with exact same processors.

So Apple's statements are true just twisted for sales benefits. I think the Single core G5 will still be faster when compared with applications not optimized for Multiple cores. Also Apps that are not Universal Binary will perform better on G5. Remember there are almost no shipping apps that are Universal binary. Finally even once Universal Binary Apps ship some of them may still have better optimization for Altivec than intel SSE2/3 and MMX.

I can't wait to get my first intel Mac to do benches I think we will finally see how both Intel and PowerPC performance have been widely misunderstood. Both architectures have their strong points and will be very interesting to compare.

iSaint
Jan 11, 2006, 04:03 AM
Watch the keynote...Steve showed two important benchmarks for both the new iMac and the MacBook.

devman
Jan 11, 2006, 04:47 AM
No these macs won't be good for anything but web surfing until January 2007.

Your definition of "anything" must be pretty narrow...

I think that's a ridiculous statement.

Lacero
Jan 11, 2006, 05:08 AM
Did you even bother to watch the keynote? I thought Steve explained pretty well the performance increase was about the processors themselves and not the entire system. Geez, if you're going rant, might as well base it on something solid. :rolleyes:

Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

bodeh6
Jan 11, 2006, 05:11 AM
So the iMac went from 64-bit to 32-bit correct. I did not see anything mentioned on Intel's website about dual core being 64bit.

Lacero
Jan 11, 2006, 05:14 AM
64-bit is so overrated. Nobody, outside of the scientific community requires double digit GBs of RAM. Apple really played the G5 off as some sort of superchip, but the move to Intel means 64-bit claims will be put off for several more years. Not until at least 16GB of RAM is affordable enough for the average consumer ~ I'm guessing in about 4 years.

Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

ortuno2k
Jan 11, 2006, 05:51 AM
Unless you're running specifit apps that require a G4 or G5 processor, the new Intel Macs should do it. Like in my case. I'm a student.
I really don't run any apps that require these processors. Maybe Final Cut from time to time, but that's not a big deal because they're releasing an update soon (as per Mr. Jobs on the keynote).
I'll get one mid-February, early March (depending when they're available).
I'm returning my recent 15" PB purchase today, and will wait 'till these are in.

Little Endian
Jan 11, 2006, 05:52 AM
Did you even bother to watch the keynote? I thought Steve explained pretty well the performance increase was about the processors themselves and not the entire system. Geez, if you're going rant, might as well base it on something solid. :rolleyes:

Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

I did watch the keynote all steve mentioned about performance was the SPEC benches which don't correlate to real world application performance and all I was doing was stressing that to the original poster. The SPEC benches Apple used were SMP aware. What I am ranting about though is comparing a Dual Core chip to a single core chip and the strong performance difference between GPUs. Look at Apple's homepage and what do you think the average lay person thinks when they see the advertisement of 4x faster for Macbook and 2x faster for imac? The average person translates that into real world application performance and thus the original poster posted.

mad jew
Jan 11, 2006, 05:54 AM
So the iMac went from 64-bit to 32-bit correct. I did not see anything mentioned on Intel's website about dual core being 64bit.


You'll have to build that 140 node supercomputer out of the old G5 iMacs then. :D

bodeh6
Jan 11, 2006, 05:58 AM
The current MacBook Pro is an awesome machine. If I upgrade anytime soon, then it will be now problem with Intel because the only software outside of what is already installed on from Apple (which is all native now to Intel in 10.4.4) I need is MS Office, PhotoShop Elements (very light use), and a few minor apps.

caveman_uk
Jan 11, 2006, 06:17 AM
No these macs won't be good for anything but web surfing until January 2007.
In a word - Bollocks.

Apple may have chosen the benchmarks to show the machines in the best possible light (can you blame them) but to claim they're only good for web surfing is complete hyperbole.

Will_reed
Jan 11, 2006, 06:22 AM
I think the benchmarks are bs as well.

MacRohde
Jan 11, 2006, 06:29 AM
I think the benchmarks are bs as well.

Hey eveyrbody, hold your horses. Close the thread. Discussion is over. Will_reed think's the benchmarks are bs. No need to pursue this any further. I'm gonna cancel my buy right now.

Why don't you all just relax and go take a crap or something instead of getting so worked up.

As Steve said he's not telling us that the overall system will perform 2-3 or 4-5 times faster than other Macs. The said numbers are reffering to specialised integer- and floating-points-bechmarks. Still, that's pretty awesome I'll say.

Or maybe it would have been better if they were slower? Or?

Relaaaaaaax y'all, let your hair down, and stop obessing over your computer. :p :D

toughboy
Jan 11, 2006, 06:35 AM
Apple couldnt do what they wanted with IBM's stuff.. Intel couldnt do what they wanted with boring "dull" pcs.. I think thats a perfect match.

I cant recall IBMs CEO to come to stage with moonwalk costume and say to an Apple CEO "we are ready Apple".. Apple found himself a colorful playmate, even that is fine with me..

Coming to software nag done by MacRumors readers, come on guys they didnt release a Powermac, its an iMac and a MacBook.. You whinned about how slow PowerBook was, thats replaced. The Man and his team gave you what you wanted 6 months before due, be satisfied once, ok?..

By the way, what does an home user, using his/her iMac do, that cant be done with dual core processor and Rosetta? 2-3 months later all apps will be native and this will all be solved. As I said, be satisfied once..

At least now we dont have to wait to buy a Mac just because this Intel transition.

And MacBook Pro is an awesome name. I guess iBook will stay same as iMac did.. Now I'm curious about the name of PowerMacs.. we'll hopefully see that in June too..

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 11, 2006, 07:56 AM
This is very unlikely apple was telling us the g5 was twice as fast as any pc now they moved to intel it's intel chips that are faster, it's proberly no faster.
:mad: btw i refuse to use the name "macbook pro"
Throw in a game of Doom or whatever and you will be amazed at the difference those frames make. G5/G4s are slow dogs in consumer gaming. All you have to do is look at Pc benches in gaming vs G5/G4 and its very clear. Apples new iMac is now 5 stars in my book and really only the the hardest core gamer might be upset but this opens up all PC gaming on the " iMac ":D Wow very cool, Apple is leaving the dog days of ppc:)

Lacero
Jan 11, 2006, 07:58 AM
Let's see what sort of Open GL optimization can be achieved now that they've moved over to x86. Doom rates should be higher than under PPC.

Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

bodeh6
Jan 11, 2006, 08:06 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Doom 3 compiled for the PowerPC and not universal? Thus if running it on one of the new iMacs or MacBook Pros it would have to go through Rosetta thus affecting performance?

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 11, 2006, 08:08 AM
Apple does have a history of spinning benches we will have to wait for those new reports and benches which should be anyday.

Morn
Jan 11, 2006, 08:16 AM
SPEC tests. I really don't think they compare well to any real world tasks. But it's not like they had anything else as a universal binary to test. *notes Jobs grumping about the lack of a x86 photoshop.*

I can't wait for the windows vs osx tests on the macbook.:D Both are microkernel OS's, well, really hybrid kernels. It will be really interesting to see which kernel has the most overhead.

jadekitty24
Jan 11, 2006, 11:06 AM
Why don't you all just relax and go take a crap or something instead of getting so worked up.



This really should be "Quote of the Year"!

Macmadant
Jan 11, 2006, 11:43 AM
Throw in a game of Doom or whatever and you will be amazed at the difference those frames make. G5/G4s are slow dogs in consumer gaming. All you have to do is look at Pc benches in gaming vs G5/G4 and its very clear. Apples new iMac is now 5 stars in my book and really only the the hardest core gamer might be upset but this opens up all PC gaming on the " iMac ":D Wow very cool, Apple is leaving the dog days of ppc:)

nobody needs relly fast frames a tv runs at 20 frames a second there is really nod need to go above this

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 11, 2006, 11:55 AM
nobody needs relly fast frames a tv runs at 20 frames a second there is really nod need to go above this
Get off the booze:cool:

Flowbee
Jan 11, 2006, 12:33 PM
No these macs won't be good for anything but web surfing until January 2007.

Your posts are getting more ridiculous as the hours go by... time to hit the ignore button.

Cheese
Jan 11, 2006, 01:00 PM
I still think of ANY G5 iMac as "new" ... but, in light of the posts about not running apps, I have yet to run any app on my iMac that was not already installed when I bought. I feel that for the vast majority of iMac owners, this will most likely be the case.

BlizzardBomb
Jan 11, 2006, 01:17 PM
I've never read so much crap in a single thread!

Once Macs use Universal binaries for third-party apps (which will be soon) it definately will be faster than the system it replaced.

Doom 3 was tested using a beta of the universal binary version, so it's pretty obvious gains are going to be big. With a dual-core and X1600, consistant 30FPS will be hit in almost any game with high settings.

brett_x
Jan 11, 2006, 02:01 PM
nobody needs relly fast frames a tv runs at 20 frames a second there is really nod need to go above this

You are obviously not a gamer. There is a huge difference when a game is running at 20 vs 40 or 60 + Fps. You never want below 20 (ideally never below 30) in any gaming situation. Todays games are so detailed, it is very hard to run them at a consistently high frame rate, but it makes all the difference in the world for gameplay.

risc
Jan 11, 2006, 02:10 PM
nobody needs relly fast frames a tv runs at 20 frames a second there is really nod need to go above this

LOL you must have a crap TV. :)

Bubbasteve
Jan 11, 2006, 02:19 PM
This really should be "Quote of the Year"!

I agree that was hilarious

generik
Jan 11, 2006, 02:21 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Doom 3 compiled for the PowerPC and not universal? Thus if running it on one of the new iMacs or MacBook Pros it would have to go through Rosetta thus affecting performance?

Yes, but it has been tested on Rosetta using the dev sets, and even on those junkers it was still faster than the G5 can ever imagine. Now imagine the iMac....

shambolic
Jan 11, 2006, 02:21 PM
I think Macmadant's trying to get quoted in the Financial Times (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/bbe20c46-d77a-11d9-9f43-00000e2511c8,ft_acl=.html) again... :D

But he's absolutely right about the name - it really grates with me. I think it's the harshness of the "double kuh" sound - MacBook, just doesn't roll smoothly off the tongue at all.

revisionA
Jan 11, 2006, 02:34 PM
Its a double Kore sound! Kuh kuh krazy fast! MacBook!

Artful Dodger
Jan 11, 2006, 02:42 PM
You know I hate to bring this up but here it is...Photoshop Elements4 came out for windows a few months ago but never came out with PSE4 for the Mac as they said they were working on one. Adobe also said it would be out around March/April. It just might be the first step for the new Macs for Adobe to workout the kinks without professionals screaming about problems that arise.
Just a thought as it would be nice as that's what I use (for now) ;)

Lord Blackadder
Jan 11, 2006, 03:24 PM
Yep, definitely some people talking out of their behinds here.

The benchmarks are typical Apple spin - but not that misleading if you take them for what they are.

Core Duo w/ a Radeon X1600 is no slouch for gaming - even with Rosetta a lot of the currently available games should be more than playable.

The MacBook might not have Alienware specs, but unlike the Alienware laptop it is actually usable as a portable and won't fry your nuts off when it's running full bore. I give it a thumbs up in the hardware department.

Not to mention that Apple is almost certain to release a 17" Macbook in a few months.

Software devs need to get off their butts and write universal binaries ASAP (most are doing just that as we speak), but even so I think this is going to be a smooth transition and Apple's best year ever for hardware.

d.f
Jan 11, 2006, 03:35 PM
Watch the keynote...Steve showed two important benchmarks for both the new iMac and the MacBook.

steve demo'd some iLife applications on the iMac. did you think to yourself, "wow that iMac is fast.... it must be an Intel"?

don't you think it was odd that after 'the biggest problem apple faced' (getting power in the power books) they demo'd.......a 1 minute iChat 2 way conversation.....? i'm sure these things are fast, but as a sales pitch i found it very very suprising.

scifiman
Jan 11, 2006, 03:57 PM
This is very unlikely apple was telling us the g5 was twice as fast as any pc now they moved to intel it's intel chips that are faster, it's proberly no faster.
:mad: btw i refuse to use the name "macbook pro"

First off let me just say that there is ALWAYS some exaggeration involved when telling just how fast one computer is compared to another. That's part of the whole marketing department.

Now, that being said, the Pentiums that were out when the G5 was first introduced are VASTLY different then the lastest Pentiums. If you following technology news, then you know how bad the Pentiums were since they were using the "NetBurst" architecture. They were so bad in fact that Intel has decided to entirely DROP that architecture in favor of the Pentium-M based architecture. Core Duo is the next evolution of that Pentium-M arch. that was so good and produced great performance/watt ratios and power saving features.

So it is quite possible that the new Macs are 3-4x faster than the current G5s that were 2-3x faster than the older Intels. Of course, they still don't compare to AMD but thats a whole different post.

disconap
Jan 11, 2006, 03:59 PM
nobody needs relly fast frames a tv runs at 20 frames a second there is really nod need to go above this


PAL--25fps
NTSC (US standard)--29.97fps

Interlaced HD can be as high as 60fps. And yes, some games require higher frame rates, and all look better with it.

maya
Jan 11, 2006, 04:06 PM
As the keynote has lost most of its Steve Jobs RDF illusion after a day since release, people will come to they senses and complain. Classic ;) :D


Well Apple has to start somewhere, I mean given that most developers are not ready to release they products now. However in the next 3-6 months it will be ready. Yes web browsing is faster and you have mail, and ilife 2006, etc..,native or universal code applications for the new x86 hardware. At least now developers can test they application on a consumer x86 Macintosh rather than a developer box, so why is everyone complaining. :rolleyes:

If you do not want to buy the x86 iMac or MacBook Pro, no one is forcing you too. :p

However Apple has to start somewhere, and in this regard people will always complain about something or the other. :eek:

maya
Jan 11, 2006, 04:09 PM
Your posts are getting more ridiculous as the hours go by... time to hit the ignore button.


MacTruck is just being impatient. ;)

People do not see this as a good thing. About 6 months back they were complaining they wanted a x86 notebook or desktop from Apple, and now that its released they complain that there is not enough software. You cannot please anyone without getting a slap in your face for trying. :rolleyes:

disconap
Jan 11, 2006, 04:12 PM
I don't know that people are complaining in this thread. Well, maybe a couple. But mostly they're just debating specs, and they are right to. It's a market untested new gen machine with essentially a PC processor. It's normal for Mac enthusiasts to be weary about change (remember, the G4 wasn't even completely solid until OSX).

Additionally, these specific machines are designed for work and casual home use, not graphics professional/processor or app intensive work, so testing the new Macbook (I hate the name too) against a dual 2ghz Powermac G5 would be pretty pointless, since they are built to do separate things. But yes, there are inconsistancies, and I'm sure it's not really 3-5X as fast as the latest Powerbook.

Lord Blackadder
Jan 11, 2006, 05:06 PM
You know, I didn't like the MacBook name when it was first announced, but now that I think about it I'm changing my mind.

It's a good name for creating a strong brand identity. Steve Jobs hinted at this when he mentioned that he wanted to see "Mac" in the name of the new laptops.

We already have PowerMacs and iMacs....so MacBook fits in well.

Additionally, while this name may seem over-obvious to us, it is an indication that Apple is aiming squarely at potential switchers by really emphasizing the Mac-ness of the new laptops.