PDA

View Full Version : To be honest... (Intel iMac vs. Power Mac)




dwd3885
Jan 23, 2006, 05:21 PM
After using my intel imac and subsequently taking a few days off from my powermac dual core 2ghz, I thought it couldn't get any better. The intel imac has isight, front row!! How cool!?!

Some of it might have been that I just had the 512MB RAM on it, but I could not do it anymore. I thought it was going to work out but the intel imac was just sluggish, especially while running apps in rosetta. To say, I CAN do most of the things on the intel imac as i can with the powermac (azereus won't run, Flip4mac is troublesome) i went back to the powermac g5 and it is lightyears ahead. It really isn't a close one here folks.

As smooth as I THOUGHT everything was just wasn't the same after going back to the dual core G5.

I just wanted to take back all my statements saying the intel imac is as good as a dual core powermac. The Powermac IS $500 better.



joebells
Jan 23, 2006, 05:30 PM
thats really not completely fair though how much ram is in your g5?

dwd3885
Jan 23, 2006, 05:40 PM
thats really not completely fair though how much ram is in your g5?

it has 512 as well. that's the thing. i had 1.5 gigs then i took it out and the powermac still fairs better

unixfool
Jan 23, 2006, 08:00 PM
it has 512 as well. that's the thing. i had 1.5 gigs then i took it out and the powermac still fairs better

Is your G5 DC Powermac emulating with 512MB of RAM?

Your comparision seems a bit flawed, as (correct me if I'm wrong) Rosetta needs lots of RAM. When those univeral binaries are released, are you willing to bet that your iMac will still be slow? When you put 1.5GB of RAM into the iMac, are you willing to bet that your iMac will still be as slow? When emulation is taken out of the picture, will you still be thinking the iMac is slow? Did you reinstall the OS?

There are tons of factors that affect benchmarking. You didn't mention how you benchmarked, so I'm assuming you didn't. Comparison by seat-of-the-pants isn't benchmarking.

It's well known that the iMac is a new product that is still being worked. Your G5 Powermac has been baking a few years.

dwd3885
Jan 23, 2006, 08:03 PM
Is your G5 DC Powermac emulating with 512MB of RAM?

Your comparision seems a bit flawed, as (correct me if I'm wrong) Rosetta needs lots of RAM. When those univeral binaries are released, are you willing to bet that your iMac will still be slow? When you put 1.5GB of RAM into the iMac, are you willing to bet that your iMac will still be as slow? When emulation is taken out of the picture, will you still be thinking the iMac is slow? Did you reinstall the OS? There are tons of factors that affect benchmarking. You didn't mention how you benchmarked, so I'm assuming you didn't. Comparison by seat-of-the-pants isn't benchmarking.

It's well known that the iMac is a new product that is still being worked. Your G5 Powermac has been baking a few years.

i did benchmark and the benchmarks turn out positive for the imac (read my other threads). I AM betting the imac still won't be up to par with the powermac even if it has 1.5 gigs ram.

thestaton
Jan 23, 2006, 08:31 PM
I have a 20" intel iMac with 256Video ram and 2gigs of ram and this thing flys. You are not comparing apples to apples.

unixfool
Jan 23, 2006, 08:32 PM
i did benchmark and the benchmarks turn out positive for the imac (read my other threads). I AM betting the imac still won't be up to par with the powermac even if it has 1.5 gigs ram.

If not even, it should come close. The iMac is pretty much a dual proc machine, only its cores are on one die. Others have already did their own benchmarking (dunno if they benchmarked against a G5 Powermac though) with very good results. They also took into consideration Rosetta emulation.

Also, it woulda been nice if you'd have said that you've other threads on your benchmarking. :)

Anyways, the comparison is pretty much apples and oranges. Your G5 is a professional machine and even though the iMac is dual-core, it isn't a pro system. In fact, there's not much to compare against the iMac, as Apple doesn't yet make other non-pro dual-core/dual-proc systems (again, correct me if I'm wrong).

If you don't like your iMac, I'm pretty sure someone will be willing to take it off your hands. :)

dwd3885
Jan 23, 2006, 09:21 PM
If you don't like your iMac, I'm pretty sure someone will be willing to take it off your hands. :)

Somebody already did

Koodauw
Jan 23, 2006, 09:34 PM
I think the main point here is that until more software is ported to the new chips, the advantages of switching from IBM to Intel will not be truly known. Everyone is really hyped up for comparisons, but it really can't be done accurately at the moment. (in most cases.)

NNO-Stephen
Jan 24, 2006, 08:49 AM
I'm running an intel iMac right now and it does indeed fly. only problem is that I only have half a gig of RAM. I WILL have more at the end of the week (2GB) but that is the one limiting factor. doing basic basic stuff EVERY DROP of RAM is being used and I'm not even running anything in Rosetta!

BakedBeans
Jan 24, 2006, 09:14 AM
OK, a few things - get more ram, please. My iMac is fast, really bloody fast and even emulated photoshop results show how fast it is with 2GB RAM in it - its easily beating dual core 2ghz powermacs etc.

Get more ram and wait 6 months for all your apps to be native and then you will see how fast this thing really is.

andiwm2003
Jan 24, 2006, 10:25 AM
i actually hope that many people will be disappointed. and with the new merom chips coming soon they will sell off their imac's for cheap. that's how i'll go "intel core duo".:D

MacsRgr8
Jan 24, 2006, 04:27 PM
We should know by now that an iMac Core Duo is not any faster than a G5 "Core Dual" ( :D ) running the universal apps like iLife '06.
But it IS faster than the "Core Single" G5 which is now present in an iMac G5.

The idea that a new iMac (Intel) runs the universal binaries at the same speed as a Power Mac G5 Dual, is good. But we have to wait until Rosetta is not needed anymore, before the new iMac can be truly compared to Dual Core Power Macs.

The G5 still is a very, very fast processor. That wasn't the direct reason for Steve's switch to Intel. It was more about the PowerBook's problem....
The G4 simply had... to... go... !

shrimpdesign
Jan 24, 2006, 04:30 PM
i actually hope that many people will be disappointed. and with the new merom chips coming soon they will sell off their imac's for cheap. that's how i'll go "intel core duo".:D
G4 < G5 < Core Duo < Merom

In went from G4 to Core Duo, so I'm pretty happy. I wouldn't be able to afford a new PowerMac anyways.

Ja Di ksw
Jan 24, 2006, 04:44 PM
iMac = Consumor
PowerMac = Professional

What's the big deal?

MacsRgr8
Jan 24, 2006, 04:51 PM
iMac = Consumor
PowerMac = Professional

What's the big deal?

There is no big deal.

Problem is that people can be disappointed wth the iMac Core Duo's performance.
But that is quite logical.

bugfaceuk
Jan 24, 2006, 05:09 PM
I have a 20" intel iMac with 256Video ram and 2gigs of ram and this thing flys. You are not comparing apples to apples.

Well you know, techinically... he is...

johnnybluejeans
Jan 24, 2006, 05:19 PM
Well you know, techinically... he is...

:D

unixfool
Jan 24, 2006, 06:18 PM
There is no big deal.

Problem is that people can be disappointed wth the iMac Core Duo's performance.
But that is quite logical.

The big deal is that people keep trying to benchmark and compare, not taking into account that the comparisons aren't gonna be of any real value. The reasons have been hashed all over these forums, yet people just can't seem to grasp that there's nothing wrong with the Core Duo (or the G5 systems).

Too much hype and not enough understanding...and that's not quite logical.

SiliconAddict
Jan 24, 2006, 06:40 PM
You really should give it a few months. Seriously the Intel Macs are future proofing you. The OS and the apps are only going to get better over the long run. Also I've read on arstechnica that Rosetta is a hungry sucker. You should really have 1GB of RAM in that thing. That's why I ordered 2GB for my MacBook Pro.

rhashem
Jan 24, 2006, 08:35 PM
After using my intel imac and subsequently taking a few days off from my powermac dual core 2ghz, I thought it couldn't get any better. The intel imac has isight, front row!! How cool!?!

Some of it might have been that I just had the 512MB RAM on it, but I could not do it anymore. I thought it was going to work out but the intel imac was just sluggish, especially while running apps in rosetta. To say, I CAN do most of the things on the intel imac as i can with the powermac (azereus won't run, Flip4mac is troublesome) i went back to the powermac g5 and it is lightyears ahead. It really isn't a close one here folks.

As smooth as I THOUGHT everything was just wasn't the same after going back to the dual core G5.


OS X Intel, especially Rosetta, seems to be very memory hungry. Try the iMac with 2GB of RAM and reconsider your impression. I consider 512MB on a PowerMac G5 to be painful. 512MB on an Intel Mac is just plain unuseable.

rhashem
Jan 24, 2006, 08:43 PM
We should know by now that an iMac Core Duo is not any faster than a G5 "Core Dual" ( :D ) running the universal apps like iLife '06.
But it IS faster than the "Core Single" G5 which is now present in an iMac G5.


There are a couple of points to remember.

1) The iApps have been very heavily optimized for the G5 over the last two years. If they are performing comparably in the first month of the Intel Mac era, then that's saying quite a lot about the Core Duo. The situation will get better (I expect it'll all be ironed out by the time Leopard comes out). To get an idea of the potential of the Core Duo system, look at the XCode benchmarks. Apple developers are reporting that XCode on the Core Duo 2.0 is just a bit slower than XCode on a G5 Quad. That's to potential that lies in the processor architecture, once applications are properly optimized for it.

2) The 970MP isn't a reasonable competitor to the Core Duo. Its a much larger (ie: more expensive to manufacture) chip, and it uses several times the power. The fact that the Core Duo competes with it in many benchmarks says quite a lot about it.

Lastly: using a Mac, especially an Intel Mac, with 512MB is stupid! It seems to me that a lot of the people who report being dissapointed with the new Intel Macs' performance are using the stock 512MB configuration. Rosetta is *very* memory hungry. See this article for numbers: http://hailstonesoftware.com/articles/2006/01/22/rosetta-memory-overhead
It's really not fair to spend almost $2000 for a brand new Intel Mac, then totally destroy its performance by being too cheap to spend another $200 for a decent amount of memory.

unixfool
Jan 24, 2006, 08:43 PM
OS X Intel, especially Rosetta, seems to be very memory hungry. Try the iMac with 2GB of RAM and reconsider your impression. I consider 512MB on a PowerMac G5 to be painful. 512MB on an Intel Mac is just plain unuseable.

He sold his iMac already.

iSee
Jan 24, 2006, 09:03 PM
G4 < G5 < Core Duo < Merom

In went from G4 to Core Duo, so I'm pretty happy. I wouldn't be able to afford a new PowerMac anyways.
No, a dual G5 is faster than a Core Duo at similar clock speeds (and G5's are currently available at higher clock speeds) running universal binaries. The intel iMac is faster than the G5 one (at running univeral apps) because of the extra core... G5 PowerMacs are still king... at least until Merom comes out...

dwd3885
Jan 25, 2006, 01:36 AM
It's really not fair to spend almost $2000 for a brand new Intel Mac, then totally destroy its performance by being too cheap to spend another $200 for a decent amount of memory.

Hey, I just bought a BRAND NEW COMPUTER!!!

What are you going to do? Play with it?!? Mess around with some iApps?!?

WHY NO! I HAVE to BUY some MORE RAM before I can use it!!

Superdrive
Jan 25, 2006, 02:39 AM
Hey, I just bought a BRAND NEW COMPUTER!!!

What are you going to do? Play with it?!? Mess around with some iApps?!?

WHY NO! I HAVE to BUY some MORE RAM before I can use it!!

That goes in Mac/PC and Intel/PPC worlds. RAM is king. Upgrade it, use it, live it.

dwd3885
Jan 25, 2006, 07:41 AM
That goes in Mac/PC and Intel/PPC worlds. RAM is king. Upgrade it, use it, live it.

Ram is king in both areas, but pc manufacturers actually give you enough RAM to start with!

thestaton
Jan 25, 2006, 09:35 AM
Whats the argument with ram? If you are buying a new iMac how in the heck can you not afford to opt for the 1gig of ram upgrade for 90 dollars? On mine I upgraded the 512 to a 1gig stick then got my other 1gig stick from Ramjet.

If people want to complain that photoshop is running slow on 512 megs of ram and rosetta compared to there dual g5 that's hillarious. I'm so tired of this bickering, when photoshop & all the pro apps are convereted to universal there will be nothing to discuss these iMacs are going to win hands down.

But please keep comparing the iMacs with 512 ram running photoshop in rosetta against your dual g5 with 2gigs of ram!

SiliconAddict
Jan 25, 2006, 10:20 AM
Ram is king in both areas, but pc manufacturers actually give you enough RAM to start with!

FYI most windows OEM's default amount of RAM is 512MB just like Apple's. Honestly though 512 is perfectly fine as long as you remember to close out your apps when you are done with them to free up that RAM. AFAIK OS X itself takes up somewhere from 128MB-256MB. Right there you've eaten a good portion of your RAM and while you can get by with the remaining +/- 256MB; as I said before Rosetta is supposedly very RAM intensive.

rhashem
Jan 25, 2006, 10:27 AM
Hey, I just bought a BRAND NEW COMPUTER!!!

What are you going to do? Play with it?!? Mess around with some iApps?!?

WHY NO! I HAVE to BUY some MORE RAM before I can use it!!

It's been this way for awhile. OS X on 512MB is neigh unuseable. I nearly returned my PowerMac DC (2.3 GHz) because it was so slow. Luckily for me, I waited until my ram upgrade came in.

topgunn
Jan 25, 2006, 10:28 AM
Ram is king in both areas, but pc manufacturers actually give you enough RAM to start with!
Obviously you are not considering budget machines from Dell, Gateway, and others that only give 256MB of Ram.

dwd3885
Jan 25, 2006, 10:32 AM
Obviously you are not considering budget machines from Dell, Gateway, and others that only give 256MB of Ram.

No I'm not considering budget PCs, I'm considering PCs comparable to the Dual Core iMac or PowerMacs. You ALWAYS get 1gig. You should not have to buy more RAM for a perfectly new computer to get it to function properly. That is utter crap

I have no doubt that it would run better with 2gigs of RAM than 512. I should sure hope so! But making a purchase on a brand new computer shouldn't lead to buying more ram immediately. RAM is something you buy on an older computer to speed it up. Newer computers like the iMac should be good to go "right out of the box."

bigfib
Jan 25, 2006, 03:18 PM
I'm considering PCs comparable to the Dual Core iMac or PowerMacs. You ALWAYS get 1gig.

I just looked at dells website. Most of their computers come as standard with 512mb, many with 256, so stop talking crap.

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/entnb_600m?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&~tab=specstab#tabtop
"256 MB DDR SDRAM standard, upgradable to 2 GB maximum
2 SoDIMM sockets, both are user-accessible"

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/entnb_9300?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&~tab=specstab#tabtop
"512 MB of DDR2 dual-channel SDRAM standard, upgradable to 2 GB maximum"

The new imac runs perfectly in it's cheapest config (512mb). I know, I'm using an intel imac with 512.
Simplly, if you have a specific needs like running photoshop under rosetta then you'll need to spend a hundred dollars more and get a gig. So what? Big deal.

rocketpig
Jan 25, 2006, 03:58 PM
No I'm not considering budget PCs, I'm considering PCs comparable to the Dual Core iMac or PowerMacs. You ALWAYS get 1gig. You should not have to buy more RAM for a perfectly new computer to get it to function properly. That is utter crap

I have no doubt that it would run better with 2gigs of RAM than 512. I should sure hope so! But making a purchase on a brand new computer shouldn't lead to buying more ram immediately. RAM is something you buy on an older computer to speed it up. Newer computers like the iMac should be good to go "right out of the box."

It seems like you either don't know much about computers or you have a real hard-on against the Core Duo.

Here's a similarly-equipped Dell machine:

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=DXPS400F1&s=dhs#logicerror

$1059. 17" screen, STOCK 512 RAM, ATI X16 card, 160 GB harddrive...

And it comes with a Pentium D. A Pentium D that I wouldn't touch if given the option of a Core Duo in its place.

And that's not even bringing up the nice form factor in the Mac...

So for an additional $250, you get a better chip with the iMac and a vastly superior form factor... I'll take it.

gunm
Jan 25, 2006, 03:59 PM
Meh, if the OP is happy with G5, then let him go; he obviously made up his mind a while ago.

I love my Intel Imac, though, and his experience won't change that.

truz
Jan 25, 2006, 04:19 PM
I have to say.. I got my INTEL iMac last friday (20th) and I installed the adobe photoshop tryout for mac and it runs much smoother on this mac this is does my hp amd64 3200+, 15.4" HD with 768mb ram laptop. I ended up getting a INTEL iMac with 2gigs of ram and 256mb vram. The extra memory might be helping on the mac but its not even supported with intel macs so this is a BIG PLUS on my end. I can restart this intel mac almost 3 times before my windows box even loads up once from a restart. I'm a first time mac user as of the 20th. Last time I used a mac was back in middel school around the time the new color emacs or imacs came out whatever they were called. I'm currently 20 years old going on 21 and I have to say I have been missing alot. I should have gotten a g5 a year ago rather then this intel now :) I'm very happy with my switch and once everything is supported on the intel macs I will be closing my windows world up. My major issue with mac is gaming. I'm really into HL2 counter-strike. I can always get down with another first person shooter tho so sorry valve ;) I don't think I can wait 4 months for cod2 tho :)

tomacintosh
Jan 25, 2006, 04:27 PM
What's with all this capital exaggeration, it being used too much

DVK916
Jan 25, 2006, 04:40 PM
Funny how you compare native software on the G5 to emmulated stuff on the Intel Macs. When the software is native for Intel mac it will blow your G5 away.

Marvy
Jan 25, 2006, 04:41 PM
It seems like you either don't know much about computers or you have a real hard-on against the Core Duo.

Here's a similarly-equipped Dell machine:

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=DXPS400F1&s=dhs#logicerror

$1059. 17" screen, STOCK 512 RAM, ATI X16 card, 160 GB harddrive...

And it comes with a Pentium D. A Pentium D that I wouldn't touch if given the option of a Core Duo in its place.

And that's not even bringing up the nice form factor in the Mac...

So for an additional $250, you get a better chip with the iMac and a vastly superior form factor... I'll take it.

Why do we have to compare everything to Dell?? :confused: I agree with the OP, it would be nice if Apple gave us more RAM right from the beginning, because yes, it obviously does give a big improvement. And especially now, during the transition, where RAM is very important due to a memory-hungry Rosetta, it would be nice to not have to worry about such an issue.
And another thing: Just because people have enough money to buy an iMac, does not make $90 cheap. I bought the iMac with pretty much all the money I have as a student. I'll have to save up for that extra RAM.

jamesi
Jan 25, 2006, 05:36 PM
the new intel imacs are fast but b/c most users will have to use rosetta, they will think the systems are slow. any emulator sacrifices firepower, and rosetta is no exception. wait until intel os x native software comes out and run the identical software on your old powermac. the G5s are good for whats out there in the macworld now, but in a year they wont be looking too hot

shrimpdesign
Jan 25, 2006, 05:50 PM
Ram is king in both areas, but pc manufacturers actually give you enough RAM to start with!
RAM is more expensive from the computer manufacturers than self installed RAM. I'd rather get a $1300 computer with only 512 than get a $1400 computer with 1GB. I can install my own friggin cheap RAM.

jamesi
Jan 25, 2006, 06:01 PM
for quality ram, a gig should be a lil over a $100. apple is famous for overcharging on that

boombashi
Jan 25, 2006, 06:05 PM
RAM is more expensive from the computer manufacturers than self installed RAM. I'd rather get a $1300 computer with only 512 than get a $1400 computer with 1GB. I can install my own friggin cheap RAM.

And that sums it all up, thank you shrimpdesign. If you don't do your research before you make a purchase, you cannot blame anyone but youself. I think it is common knowledge that 512MB is pretty standard minimum stock RAM accross the board (yes higher end PC systems have more stock, so does Apple). There is a reason Apple offers RAM as a BTO option, as well as Hard Drive, etc. Are you going to blame Apple that you filled your Hard Drive with a few iMovie Projects, and now you don't have anymore room? Will an iMac boot and run a couple Applications at once, sure thing, that's where Apple's job stops and your begins.

BTW if you click "learn more" on the BTO page of your order you will see this as the VERY FIRST SENTENCE, "The more memory your computer has, the more programs you can run simultaneously, and the better performance you get from your computer."

I've said it before, there is no cure for ignorance.

hulugu
Jan 25, 2006, 06:18 PM
No I'm not considering budget PCs, I'm considering PCs comparable to the Dual Core iMac or PowerMacs. You ALWAYS get 1gig. You should not have to buy more RAM for a perfectly new computer to get it to function properly. That is utter crap

I have no doubt that it would run better with 2gigs of RAM than 512. I should sure hope so! But making a purchase on a brand new computer shouldn't lead to buying more ram immediately. RAM is something you buy on an older computer to speed it up. Newer computers like the iMac should be good to go "right out of the box."

Did the iMac work the minute you booted it up? Is the interface fast, can you use all the iApps? If yes, than the iMac is good to go "right out of the box." The machine works better with more RAM, just like any other CPU, this is not a flaw, but a realistic way of looking at the market. Furthermore, since your last machine was a Powermac G5, I would suggest that your minimum standard is placed rather high, considering I get ridiculous amounts of work done on a .55ghz TiBook.

hulugu
Jan 25, 2006, 06:24 PM
the new intel imacs are fast but b/c most users will have to use rosetta, they will think the systems are slow. any emulator sacrifices firepower, and rosetta is no exception. wait until intel os x native software comes out and run the identical software on your old powermac. the G5s are good for whats out there in the macworld now, but in a year they wont be looking too hot

Most users will use the iApps, Safari, and Word. These apps will kick ass on these machines.
Pro-users should know better, and should either buy a G5 or wait until the other apps are ported directly to Universal Binaries. The G5 will continue to be a powerful and useful chip for the next couple of years. The G4, however, is like the G3 was, doomed and ready for EOL.