PDA

View Full Version : G5 vs Rosetta




sintaxi
Feb 16, 2006, 04:13 AM
I know it is more important to compare the G5 with Intel running Native. But I want a good machine now. and want to know exactly how a Intel jacked with RAM would compare against the G5. All Rosetta. If the performance is reasonable I may go for an intel machine.

So, anyone know any good links for this comparason or have some personal experience they can share?



cnakeitaro
Feb 16, 2006, 12:17 PM
an intel iMac is a GOOD machine. It may run the non-native apps a little slower with Rosetta, but its plenty fast atleast for me coming from an iBook G3. And when all the apps you use are universal, that Intel Machine will be better than an iMac G5.

There is nothing wrong with the machine, infact its much better than the iMac G5 and will last you much longer. The iMac G5 will depreciate much quicker than an intel machine.

AJBMatrix
Feb 16, 2006, 12:22 PM
Why dont you look at the Photoshop Benchmarks posted here in the forum. Most people are finding that it is just as fast as a G5 Duel Core.

jacobj
Feb 16, 2006, 01:34 PM
Why dont you look at the Photoshop Benchmarks posted here in the forum. Most people are finding that it is just as fast as a G5 Duel Core.

I must have missed that. According to most reviews they are generally running non-native apps at 35-45% of a G5 imac. Please post links if I am wrong, but even SJ said it was slower.

AJBMatrix
Feb 16, 2006, 01:42 PM
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=136593&page=24&highlight=Photoshop+iMac+Intel


Test ran in Adobe Photoshop CS.

Intel iMac (2Ghz Core Duo) w/ 2GB Ram & 256mb VRAM = 51 seconds
Power Mac G5 (Dual 2Ghz) w/ 4GB Ram & ATI 9600 128mb VRAM = 53 seconds

All I can say is... wow.

Mmmm. Photoshop CS2

Intel iMac 2GHz w/ 2GB Ram & 256 VRAM = 56 secs
Powermac G5 Dual 1.8Ghz w/ 2.5 Gb Ram & ATI X800XT 256 = 55 secs


OMG Does Cs2 add those extra 5 sec's... That's 5 sec's of my life I'm never going to get back... Added to the 15 that is takes me to write that I'm never going to get the 5... Added to the .... Aghhh stuck in a time loop

AJBMatrix
Feb 16, 2006, 01:48 PM
Thought you might want another tester.

I'm amazed - I just got my Intel iMac (2.0 GHz 1.5GB ram, 256vram) and ran the test - 49:02!!! I was expecting Photoshop CS to c-r-a-w-l but it's performing 2.5x better than my previous powerbook! I'm extremely impressed, I can't wait to see how it performs once Adobe releases UBs - I bought this system to be my pro mac for years to come, looks like it will be doing a superb job

20" iMac Core Duo 2.0GHz, 256 vram, 1.5GB , 250GB/7200rpm

FarSide
Feb 16, 2006, 01:58 PM
Some Professional Benchmarks & Tests:

Nothing against those homemade-tests, but I do prefer professional opinions...

NON-UNIVERSAL [scroll down]

http://www.barefeats.com/imcd.html

risc
Feb 16, 2006, 02:06 PM
arstechnica reviewed (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/imac-coreduo.ars/1) the iMac Core Duo here are the rosetta (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/imac-coreduo.ars/6) results, don't believe the hype here rosetta is very very slow! Photoshop is HEAPS slower than running on a Power Mac G5 Dual Core.

AJBMatrix
Feb 16, 2006, 02:08 PM
Well, I would rather have the results from real people using them on a daily basis. I would like to see it in action and judge based on a user not a score given by some company.

risc
Feb 16, 2006, 02:10 PM
How does some filter test here show you anything? All of the professional Photoshop benchmarks are saying the machines are heaps slower, if the computer actually feels slower to you is very subjective _BUT_ compared to the Power Mac G5 Dual Rosetta sucks that's life move on...

Unless you are buying an iMac Core Duo to run pro apps I doubt you'll notice, but it is something to consider when purchasing the machine. Photoshop universal binaries may not be here until 2007, it all comes down to what you do with your machine.

FarSide
Feb 16, 2006, 02:13 PM
arstechnica reviewed the iMac Core Duo here are the rosetta results, don't believe the hype here rosetta is very very slow! Photoshop is on average 4 to 6x slower than running on a Power Mac G5 Dual Core.

[http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/imac-coreduo.ars/1

Thx for this post! This is one of the best reviews I've seen so far - regarding PowerPC vs. Intel
AJB Matrix - I do think all test done by professionals showed the same results.
It's a hype going on...PowerPC 970 is worthless. That's just not the fact.

Lord Blackadder
Feb 16, 2006, 02:14 PM
Emulators always slow things down, so I find it hard to belive that Photoshop under Rosetta runs at the same speed as native, especially against a Dual Core G5.

If you need to do heavy Photoshop work RIGHT NOW, there is only one option: the PowerMac G5.

seabass069
Feb 16, 2006, 02:15 PM
I just bought the iMac G5. I added 1 gb of ram and rocks. Don't waste your money on a machine that is already having problems. Why pay extra for a little bit of speed when you need to use Rosetta just to run MS Office and Adobe, which runs slower than the iMac G5. Save yourself some money and go to an Apple Store and get iMac G5 w/sight.

AJBMatrix
Feb 16, 2006, 02:26 PM
But did you notice that the machines that were running Photoshop in your bench marks were running with the following specs:

iMac Intel: 512 RAM
iMac G5: 512 RAM
PowerMac: 4.5 GB RAM

Now you look at the benchmarks and tell me if they were all that bad. We know that Rossetta takes a lot of RAM to run. Why not run them on better systems. Up the RAM in all of them to at least a Gig. But you should have the PowerMac at the same stats as the others with RAM. I thought we were testing out Processors not RAM. Try to make the systems as equal as possible.

jacobj
Feb 16, 2006, 02:27 PM
Emulators always slow things down, so I find it hard to belive that Photoshop under Rosetta runs at the same speed as native, especially against a Dual Core G5.

If you need to do heavy Photoshop work RIGHT NOW, there is only one option: the PowerMac G5.

I compleely agree. I have seen iMac Core Duos running Rosetta and there is no way they are faster...maybe on the occassional thing where teh Core Duo CPU has a huge margin over the G5, but it can't be the trend.

Lord Blackadder
Feb 16, 2006, 02:32 PM
My guess is that basic Photoshop work will run OK under Rosetta but large projects with lots of filters etc. will choke the Intel Macs. The multi-CPU PowerMacs, on the other hand, will chug along without issues. The Steve said as much at MWSF, and despite the RDF most people admit that Rosetta (however good it may be) is a stop-gap for consumers. But pro users should avoid it if possible.

risc
Feb 16, 2006, 03:40 PM
But did you notice that the machines that were running Photoshop in your bench marks were running with the following specs...

Don't barefeats only use the memory that comes standard with the machine? In their benchmarks the Core Duo using Rosetta is still running at 33% of the speed of the app running natively on a Power Mac G5 Dual.

You can argue about this for as long as you want but anyone who thinks about it will realise that emulation isn't the answer. It's a nice stop gap as mentioned above but deciding which machine to buy should be based on the apps you use not The Steve Jobs RDF!

AJBMatrix
Feb 16, 2006, 07:35 PM
Emulation is not the answer but it is a great hold over till it all can be converted. You never know until you try. Plus how many filters do you use when using photoshop. Normally I have to do some layers, and a lot of "air brushing" the models. As well as whitening the teeth. You have no idea how yellow some of them can get. Athens, having UGA right here (I am a student) has lots of models that are willing to have there photos taken.

the Helix
Feb 16, 2006, 09:10 PM
I've been to the Apple stores in San Francisco and Corte Madera and I find it odd that none of the display iMacs (intel version) have the Adobe CS suite installed.

I came to the store wanting to see how Rosetta would feel "live" - why on earth would they not have the Adobe CS suite installed when they used to have it installed on all the Macs prior to the Intel version?

Something smells fishy...

My 2 cents.

nospleen
Feb 16, 2006, 09:13 PM
I just bought the iMac G5. I added 1 gb of ram and rocks. Don't waste your money on a machine that is already having problems. Why pay extra for a little bit of speed when you need to use Rosetta just to run MS Office and Adobe, which runs slower than the iMac G5. Save yourself some money and go to an Apple Store and get iMac G5 w/sight.

What problems does the intel imac have, besides the front row issues? I have yet to hear any complaints of over heating or noise issues that are known G5 issues.

sintaxi
Feb 16, 2006, 10:28 PM
All this info is fantastic. But none seem consistent. One test impresses me at how well Rosetta runs and others make it look dog slow. I cant help but think the Core Duo with only half gig RAM has something to do with it. I would never buy a computer with only 512mb RAM.

Running Photoshop CS2
Core Duo 2.0Ghz with 2gig RAM (Rosetta) VS. Mac Mini 512mb RAM
Who you Got??????

jaw04005
Feb 16, 2006, 10:36 PM
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=136593&page=24&highlight=Photoshop+iMac+Intel

I would just like to say that I followed the directions of the test in that specific thread. During that test, my iMac Core Duo beat my PowerMac G5 (2Ghz Dual). However, using other filters and actions that were not blurs—the iMac Core Duo was considerably slower. By considerably, I mean 2x to 3x as slow (in my personal tests). Also, the slower responsiveness of Photoshop CS running in Rosetta is noticeable.

jaw04005
Feb 16, 2006, 10:42 PM
What problems does the intel imac have, besides the front row issues? I have yet to hear any complaints of over heating or noise issues that are known G5 issues.

I don't know how anyone can complain about the noise of the new iMacs. It's virtually non-existent except on boot (you hear the sound of a fan on high). Also, in a quiet room (without a ceiling fan) you may hear the hard drive clicking. Remember, this is a notebook chip with a notebook motherboard running in a 2" case. It should run cool and quiet.

cr2sh
Feb 16, 2006, 11:05 PM
I used the intel over the weekend running a series of non-UB programs, with high resolution images, running filters and translations... then I turned around and did the same thing on a dual core PM at 2.3GHz.

The PM did it in 60% of the time.

The difference is very noticable.

I ended up buying the 2.1GHz iMac for $1199 and went home happy.

plinden
Feb 16, 2006, 11:15 PM
I used the intel over the weekend running a series of non-UB programs, with high resolution images, running filters and translations... then I turned around and did the same thing on a dual core PM at 2.3GHz.

The PM did it in 60% of the time.

The difference is very noticable.

I ended up buying the 2.1GHz iMac for $1199 and went home happy.
Hmm, so where an Intel iMac took 10 minutes, the dual core PM took 6 minutes? And you ended up getting a slower single core G5? I'm sure you are happy with the G5 iMac for $500 off its old price (I almost bought a G5 iMac before Christmas but something made me hold off on it), but 60% seems pretty good speed for emulation.

What memory was in the Intel vs the PM? What speeds are you getting on the G5 iMac for the same tasks?

For all the benchmarks showing the Intel iMac slow at Photoshop, there's another test showing that adding more memory speeds it up considerably.

cr2sh
Feb 17, 2006, 12:50 AM
Hmm, so where an Intel iMac took 10 minutes, the dual core PM took 6 minutes? And you ended up getting a slower single core G5? I'm sure you are happy with the G6 iMac for $500 off its old price (I almost bought a G5 iMac before Christmas but something made me hold off on it), but 60% seems pretty good speed for emulation.

What memory was in the Intel vs the PM? What speeds are you getting on the G5 iMac for the same tasks?

For all the benchmarks showing the Intel iMac slow at Photoshop, there's another test showing that adding more memory speeds it up considerably.

I was playing with the machines to find out for myself how a dual g5 competed with a core duo with rosetta... I was just curious. And I completelly agree. I said in one thread already.. I wasn't AMAZED by the rosetta emulation, but I was impressed. It was certainly a "wow, that's better than I expected" moment.

Check out my reply (csnoke) over on kekus (http://www.kekus.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1028). Both machines had 512ram and I agree with you completely about the RAM hungry intels... my 2.1GHz G5 is slower than probably both the intel and definately the powermac at this task. The intel is a close, I would guess.. but I haven't ran them side by side yet. I know mine is a slower machine, period. The g5 just can't keep pace with the dual cores.

For the record, I don't think its smart to buy the intel imac... especially at full price. In 4 months apple will release an iMac that looks identical to the regular cinema display... that thick, chunky portion at the bottom will be gone from the imac. If I were in the market to spend $2k on a machine.. I wouldn't buy today - I'd wait for the new, thinner, smaller case - the one designed for much cooler running intel chips.

At the same time, I wouldn't pay full price for a dual G5 machine because I know something a LOT faster is coming down the road shortly. Apple makes it tough, the refurb store has dual 2.3's for $2k. And I really thought about ti after seeing how fast they were at what I wanted to do... but I wanted an AIO for downstairs and that machine just wouldn't fit.

I however, was in the market to buy a discounted (30% off) iMac that is plenty fast enough for what I need. I might be a specific market.. but I know the g5 will do what I need it to do and at that price with a 20" LCD.. I don't think I can go wrong. Isight, frontrow.. the only thing I wanted that I didn't get is iLife '06 (but based on the reviews of iWeb I might not be missing much).

I look at it like this.... if I bought a mac mini for $500, I'd still have to buy a display... a 2005FPW would cost me $400, so I'm at $900 and I don't have an isight or a chip that's even comparable to what I got for $1200. At the same time, there's no insentive to buy an intel cuz its emulating, its first gen , I'd be paying full price... no reason to do it (other than the "this is the newest and best" one).

--
Basically, I agree completely with you. If the g5 hadn't been such a great bargain and I didn't NEED a macintosh right now... I wouldn't have bought. It was a timing and money thing for me... the g5 is a great machine for what I payed - but not the fastest at all.

bigfib
Feb 17, 2006, 02:45 AM
All this info is fantastic. But none seem consistent.

It's not consistent because it's all about people with big egos trying to convince you that this or that is way faster than that or this.
Truth is if you run photoshop on a 512 intel Imac then despite certain filters which *are* faster on the intel, the overall impression is of an old G3, useable but not that nice.
With 1.5 or 2 Gig, half of photoshop seems as fast or faster, and half of it seems a little slower.
I needed a new mac, and photoshop is only half my eqation. I also go in and out of the finder, safari, iphoto when I'm working, and as all of these are faster on the intel Imac, I find my productivity as good, or slightly higher as on a G5.
In the end I want a computer for the next 4 years, not the next 18 months.
I dont want to think about binning my computer in a year when adobe brings out the native universal versions that blow the G5 away.
And thats why I chose the intel imac... Can't say I regret my choice at all.
So to sum up.
If you need best photoshop performance and nothing else, and you want it now, you'll be wanting the G5 version.
If you want overall best performance and you're prepared to accept a slight trade off with photoshop until the nex versions, youll want an intel version with lots of ram.
If you want a black and white decision, well, you ain't gonna get one ;-)

sintaxi
Feb 17, 2006, 03:09 AM
If you want a black and white decision, well, you ain't gonna get one ;-)

I want a black and white decision:mad: :p

that is all very helpful. even though what i should do isnt clear, the fog has cleared. I think I am going to try to get my hands on a used powermac or iMac G5. and I will also likely buy an Intel 13" macbook/macbook pro depending what is released on April 1st

sintaxi
Feb 18, 2006, 04:20 AM
Well Im almost certain that I will be getting a dual 2.0 Powermac tomorrow. I hate playing the waiting game. this way the PM will keep me happy untill it is clearly an advantage to have an intel machine.

Thanks for everyones help.:)

generik
Feb 18, 2006, 05:18 AM
I want a black and white decision:mad: :p

that is all very helpful. even though what i should do isnt clear, the fog has cleared. I think I am going to try to get my hands on a used powermac or iMac G5. and I will also likely buy an Intel 13" macbook/macbook pro depending what is released on April 1st

What special occasion is April 1st?

I'm literally going to explode from the wait for a small MBP

jacobj
Feb 18, 2006, 05:37 AM
What special occasion is April 1st?

I'm literally going to explode from the wait for a small MBP

Really? It's Apple's 30th Anniversary and they've GOT to be doing something for that.

vincentseye
Apr 25, 2006, 07:36 PM
I wanted to post the following facts that burned me badly. I have a G4 Duo Mirror Door... 2x 1 ghtz. 1.75 MG Ram Four Hard drives. It did the job just fine converting Fuji S2 and S3 RAW files in CS1. I used it for 17mb, 34mb and larger images sometimes 50-100 open at a time (yes no lie). There were days I would cram 300 RAW file conversions thought this machine (not batched). Anyway that machine took a tank and I purchased a 20" Imac last night. It is the Intel Duo Core 2 gightz with 2 gigs of RAM. ($2600) This machine does the previous tasks that the Mirror Door did still using P-shop CS. It took about 30 minutes to open and save just 20 RAW files! This machine running P-shop CS is a real DOG ... Dead Dog. .. I pulled out my 12" book with G4 867 htz chip which does the job slightly faster than the intel duo core. Well that day of my life is lost.... trading in this rig for a G5 tower even though I am sure CS3 and a Intel powered tower will be a sweet set-up by October. I have work to do and no time to waste. Rosetta is a real dog for real world working people. The ".45 factor" quoted is overy optomistic for these everyday tasks it is much much slower... unbelievably slow. The Apple Store employees should have known better... at least they are exchanging my set-up without hassels.

the Helix
Apr 26, 2006, 09:41 AM
I agree with Vincentseye's post above. I am excited about the MacBook Pros (especially the 17"), but after working with both the MB Pro and the PowerBook doing real-world tasks (not just benchmark tests) using the meat and potatoes apps (i.e. Office, Adobe CS, etc...), the PowerBook just works better.

The MB Pros technically kick-a$$ on the PBs on speed, but the software hasn't yet appeared that will show off that speed.

I'll be buying a MB Pro. They are awesome equipment, but I will wait another year or so.

dr_lha
Apr 26, 2006, 09:50 AM
For the record, I don't think its smart to buy the intel imac... especially at full price. In 4 months apple will release an iMac that looks identical to the regular cinema display... that thick, chunky portion at the bottom will be gone from the imac. If I were in the market to spend $2k on a machine.. I wouldn't buy today - I'd wait for the new, thinner, smaller case - the one designed for much cooler running intel chips.
This is pure speculation! You wouldn't recommend buying a computer because of some imaginary smaller iMac in the future? Wake up buddy, there's always a better computer coming out in 6 months time, right now the current Intel iMacs are awesome machines.