PDA

View Full Version : iMac Performance Claims Challenged


MacBytes
Jan 24, 2006, 02:12 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Benchmarks
Link: iMac Performance Claims Challenged (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060124031218)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

ZildjianKX
Jan 24, 2006, 02:33 AM
When they say "older iMacs," I assume that is the last revision G5 iMacs?

10 - 25% is a horrible boost considering all of the iApps are multi-threaded and take advantage of the second core. Is there a way to disable one of the cores to do a raw compare of horsepower? Just curious.

Like someone said in a thread in the games section, the intel Macs are future-proof, just not now-proof.

robbieduncan
Jan 24, 2006, 02:44 AM
When they say "older iMacs," I assume that is the last revision G5 iMacs?

10 - 25% is a horrible boost considering all of the iApps are multi-threaded and take advantage of the second core. Is there a way to disable one of the cores to do a raw compare of horsepower? Just curious.

Like someone said in a thread in the games section, the intel Macs are future-proof, just not now-proof.

Assuming the CHUD tools work as per PPC Macs on the Intel Macs then yes you could disable 1 core.

oingoboingo
Jan 24, 2006, 02:50 AM
When they say "older iMacs," I assume that is the last revision G5 iMacs?

10 - 25% is a horrible boost considering all of the iApps are multi-threaded and take advantage of the second core. Is there a way to disable one of the cores to do a raw compare of horsepower? Just curious.

Like someone said in a thread in the games section, the intel Macs are future-proof, just not now-proof.

You can disable one of the CPUs in a dual processor PowerPC system by using Apple's CHUD tools. I wonder if the same thing can be achieved with the new dual core Intel Macs. Any Intel iMac owners want to try it out?

d.f
Jan 24, 2006, 03:02 AM
this does not bode well for the Cole Solo chips, expected to be used for iBooks...

BakedBeans
Jan 24, 2006, 03:19 AM
In a series of tests - My imac is a TON faster than my 2.1 g5 imac
In a series of tests - Steve even said in the keynote that not everything will be 3 times faster
In a series of tests - People who listen to these ****** reports are dumber than the people who make the reports
In a series of tests - STOP TESTING MACHINES WITH 512 RAM IN THEM

solvs
Jan 24, 2006, 03:20 AM
this does not bode well for the Cole Solo chips, expected to be used for iBooks...
Except that it would be replacing a very slow G4. Anything is better than that.

Analog Kid
Jan 24, 2006, 03:27 AM
Is that the ugliest picture of a Power... er... MacBook ever?

atari
Jan 24, 2006, 03:31 AM
When they say "older iMacs," I assume that is the last revision G5 iMacs?

10 - 25% is a horrible boost considering all of the iApps are multi-threaded and take advantage of the second core. Is there a way to disable one of the cores to do a raw compare of horsepower? Just curious.

Like someone said in a thread in the games section, the intel Macs are future-proof, just not now-proof.

Only a few of the tests MacWorld has conducted take advantage of the second core. Just compare the IMovie "scores" between the IMacG5 and the PowerMacG5.
Overall the Intel IMacs are already showing promise (particulary in compiling stuff).

24C
Jan 24, 2006, 03:36 AM
Steve did say "2-3X", but wasn't he referring to SPEC performance, and didn't he qualify this further in his keynote " now everything is not going to run 2-3X, the discs aren't 2-3 times faster etc"

Didn't they see the Photoshop Rosetta demo, and it was slower than an iMac G5? So there are no secrets here. IMO the newer iMacs are only an issue for folks with legacy software that will never get an universally binary (OS9 apps especially) and for the rest, just using the supplied software, expect way better performance than before.

edesignuk
Jan 24, 2006, 03:43 AM
IMO Apple shot themselves in the foot (as always) by touting it as so much faster in the first place, there's no doubting they're quick, and for UB apps quite a big step up. It's the same with anything though, over-hype just breeds criticism and disappointment.

j_maddison
Jan 24, 2006, 04:00 AM
IMO Apple shot themselves in the foot (as always) by touting it as so much faster in the first place, there's no doubting they're quick, and for UB apps quite a big step up. It's the same with anything though, over-hype just breeds criticism and disappointment.

Spot on, couldn't agree with you more. Mind you I can't help but wonder how much faster a dual core G5 running at the same clock speed would have been, especially if Apple had stopped crippling the frontside bus and allowed it to run at half the processors speed in the iMac.

Jason

iJaz
Jan 24, 2006, 04:04 AM
Why do they (Steve/Apple) always make these stupid claims?
Why not say "Up to 2x/4x faster" instead of "2x/4x faster"?
You always need some wiggle room.

BakedBeans
Jan 24, 2006, 04:05 AM
Steve did say "2-3X", but wasn't he referring to SPEC performance, and didn't he qualify this further in his keynote " now everything is not going to run 2-3X, the discs aren't 2-3 times faster etc"

Didn't they see the Photoshop Rosetta demo, and it was slower than an iMac G5? So there are no secrets here. IMO the newer iMacs are only an issue for folks with legacy software that will never get an universally binary (OS9 apps especially) and for the rest, just using the supplied software, expect way better performance than before.

Spot on, couldn't agree with you more.

iJaz
Jan 24, 2006, 04:25 AM
Steve did say "2-3X", but wasn't he referring to SPEC performance, and didn't he qualify this further in his keynote " now everything is not going to run 2-3X, the discs aren't 2-3 times faster etc"

Didn't they see the Photoshop Rosetta demo, and it was slower than an iMac G5? So there are no secrets here. IMO the newer iMacs are only an issue for folks with legacy software that will never get an universally binary (OS9 apps especially) and for the rest, just using the supplied software, expect way better performance than before.

Go to apple.com there you will see a picture of a MacBook Pro with the text "4x faster" and an Intel iMac with the text "2x faster". Of course some people (most people?) don't read the fine print of the tech specs or didn't watch the keynote and will end up beleiving that they actually are 2x/4x faster all around.

asthma
Jan 24, 2006, 04:37 AM
In a series of tests - My imac is a TON faster than my 2.1 g5 imac
In a series of tests - Steve even said in the keynote that not everything will be 3 times faster
In a series of tests - People who listen to these ****** reports are dumber than the people who make the reports
In a series of tests - STOP TESTING MACHINES WITH 512 RAM IN THEM

My thoughts exactly, you cant do a fair test on the new iMac unless it has a minimum of 1Gig of ram. I'm not 100% sure but i don't think that an OS that requires a minimum of 256Mb and has two cores, is going to run all that great with 512Mb of ram.

Asthma

BakedBeans
Jan 24, 2006, 04:37 AM
Go to apple.com there you will see a picture of a MacBook Pro with the text "4x faster" and an Intel iMac with the text "2x faster". Of course some people (most people?) don't read the fine print of the tech specs or didn't watch the keynote and will end up beleiving that they actually are 2x/4x faster all around.

These claims refer to SPEC tests, its really that simple - its the truth. what people think is up to them.

iJaz
Jan 24, 2006, 04:47 AM
These claims refer to SPEC tests, its really that simple - its the truth. what people think is up to them.

I am not going to argue about that, I know that!
It's just that the press has told a different story and I don't think Apple has made enough to tell the real version.
It's sad because people will probably be angry at Apple when they don't feel a 2x/4x speed enhancement.

BakedBeans
Jan 24, 2006, 04:50 AM
I am not going to argue about that, I know that!
It's just that the press has told a different story and I don't think Apple has made enough to tell the real version.
It's sad because people will probably be angry at Apple when they don't feel a 2x/4x speed enhancement.

Im not up[set because I feel it :)

I sent the 2.1G5 back (the noisiest fan ever) and got the intel..... great move

Photorun
Jan 24, 2006, 06:50 AM
In a series of tests - My imac is a TON faster than my 2.1 g5 imac
In a series of tests - Steve even said in the keynote that not everything will be 3 times faster
In a series of tests - People who listen to these ****** reports are dumber than the people who make the reports
In a series of tests - STOP TESTING MACHINES WITH 512 RAM IN THEM

I'll add to this...
My PentiumIII could CLOBBER my PentiumIV (which was hyped as faster than the PIII)
My G3 ccould beat the PIV which had twice the clock speed
My G5 tower wasn't that much faster than my G4 tower
MY girlfriends G5 iMac is as fast as my dual G5 tower which has slightly faster clock and two CPUs and more RAM.

Point being your computer is a tool for the job, does it work? Yes? Good, SHUT UP ALREADY!
Point two, it's progress people, when all the coding is done for the Intel it will be faster, just like it took a long time for coders for peecees to make the crap for Microsuck Windoze run faster on a P4 than a P3 it's the same thing here, and this held true for G4 over G3 (wasn't immediate) and for G3 over 604, 60x over 680x0, etc. Welcome to the world of advancing computers.
Point three, Jobs loves razzledazzle, he's part shuckster but not as bad as Microsuck ("Vista offers a new world of security" - Bill Gates meanwhile virus writers have already propegated over 100 new viruses for it), you think Microsuck lusers get worked up about their sh***y OS? No, they don't, they should, they don't though! And Jobs DIDN'T lie, he said "not everything," pay attention, stop whining and trying to find ways to twist words.
Point four, embrace the future or go curl up in a ball and become a hermit.

Thank you.

plastique45
Jan 24, 2006, 08:23 AM
Apple lying on their benchmarks??


*Noooooooooo!* :rolleyes:

plastique45
Jan 24, 2006, 08:24 AM
"My G3 ccould beat the PIV which had twice the clock speed
My G5 tower wasn't that much faster than my G4 tower"


Lol, yeah, right. Pull those fairies and elves out of your computers, please?

Peace
Jan 24, 2006, 08:44 AM
From the macworld article :

One application, however, constantly disappointed us during our testing: iMovie 6. Not only was this brand-new version of Apple’s video-editing application equally buggy on both platforms, but it was dramatically slower at compressing and exporting video on the Intel-based system than on the G5—so much so that we suspect iMovie’s poor performance is the result of a bug within iMovie rather than any intrinsic failure of the iMac.
We used iSquint to compress the same movie for iPod video playback

why wouldn't they just use iMovie to export it to iPod ?

road dog
Jan 24, 2006, 09:59 AM
why wouldn't they just use iMovie to export it to iPod ?

because they said it was buggy... and i don't disagree... every new ilife introduces new bugs and doesn't fix the old ones... and oh yeah... where the upgrade price... oh, doesn't exist.

btw - how many times can faster performance of large iphoto libraries be the main new feature in iphoto... um... for the last 3 years that's what they've been hyping as the new iphoto improvements.

Peace
Jan 24, 2006, 10:07 AM
because they said it was buggy... and i don't disagree... every new ilife introduces new bugs and doesn't fix the old ones... and oh yeah... where the upgrade price... oh, doesn't exist.



I have found no bugs in iMovie yet..

tk421
Jan 24, 2006, 10:09 AM
"My G3 ccould beat the PIV which had twice the clock speed
My G5 tower wasn't that much faster than my G4 tower"

I believe it. I've had similar experiences.

BakedBeans
Jan 24, 2006, 10:13 AM
I have found no bugs in iMovie yet..

I've Found VERY few bugs (none yet - but give it time :P) in the new OS on my intel iMac.

All this hyped crap, its driving me mad. all the native apps are pretty much perfect, rosetta is really good but things are a little laggy and sometimes apps under rosetta crash.

no big deal - click reopen works a treat

Peace
Jan 24, 2006, 10:45 AM
I snipped this from Macworlds comments concerning their tests..

Just got some of our Doom 3 test results, using a Doom 3 Universal beta. We tested twice, once using standard demo 1 and once with the "skiprender 1" setting.

Basically, Doom 3 has given us the best results we've seen so far. Standard demo was (drum roll) 2.1x, and "skiprender 1" test was 1.7x.

Much, much more to come next week--probably a full review of the iMac PLUS a load more lab data. But until then... have a good weekend, everyone.

Jason Snell, Editorial Director, Macworld




It seems Jason is revising his benchmarks almost on a minute by minute basis..

nagromme
Jan 24, 2006, 11:01 AM
Benchmarks found in marketing materials--from ANY company, not just Apple--are to be taken as best-case numbers. What company would publish anything less than that?

In reality, you will always find a lot of variation--but now, with Rosetta in the mix, you'll find even more variation than normal in a computer.

It's a transition we'll survive: Universal Binaries are coming. "Wait and see" will make sense for some, while others can jump on Intel now. All you can do is look for tests on the same tasks you intend to do--tests from multiple sources, because even tests can vary with the details.

nagromme
Jan 24, 2006, 11:12 AM
My PentiumIII could CLOBBER my PentiumIV (which was hyped as faster than the PIII)
I defintely recall reading at the time that the P4 did not live up to the hype in terms of adding actual speed--although over time of course faster and faster Mhz versions came out.

Intel family tree note:

P3 -> P4 (marketing driven design: performance matters less than a GHz # on paper... too much power use and too much heat, bad for laptops)

So Intel had to scrap the P4 (which will finally be laid to rest later this year), and go back to make a fresh successor to the P3:

P3 -> Banias (Pentium M) -> Dothan (Pentium M) -> Yonah (Core)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M

superwoman
Jan 24, 2006, 11:31 AM
I think there's a difference between CPU or computational performance, and system/application performance. What Steve claimed was CPU performance. He was directly comparing Core Duo to the G4 or G5 CPUs.

What the report tested was more like system performance in a particular application setting. iMovie and iPhoto? Some mitigating factors to consider:
1) These apps can be heavily disk I/O intensive (thus the performance is I/O-bound), even with gigs of RAM.
2) Even the new RAM technology itself may not be 2-3X the performance of the previous RAM technology, so there's another bottleneck.
3) iMovie and iPhoto may be Core Image aware, so it may be utilizing the GPU, instead of solely relying on the CPU. I'm not sure if the new GPU is 2-3X faster than the previous GPU.

As someone pointed out, such discrepencies between CPU performance and system performance is not new. The problem is that people confuse the two together, and marketeer don't differentiate the two.