PDA

View Full Version : Benchmarks showing the changes in Mac performance over the p...


MacBytes
Aug 31, 2006, 08:13 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Benchmarks
Link: Benchmarks showing the changes in Mac performance over the past six years. (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060831091329)
Description:: Geek Patrol published an article showing the changes in Mac performance over the past six years. The article includes almost every Mac released over the past six years, from the iMac G3 to the Mac Pro.

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

daneoni
Aug 31, 2006, 08:41 AM
Looks like the Mac has come a long way.

mad jew
Aug 31, 2006, 08:53 AM
Not really relevant to anything considering there are so many variables unaccounted for by their tests. Macs have certainly come a long way but I don't think we can necessarily put figures on it.

simonthewolf
Aug 31, 2006, 09:19 AM
Looks like the Mac has come a long way.

Yep, but Microsoft Word feels no faster...

deputy_doofy
Aug 31, 2006, 10:56 AM
I liked seeing these comparisons. I had my iBook G3 600 for 2 years before I sold it and upgraded to my 12" PB. I could feel a tremendous speed difference from 600MHz G3 (384mb RAM) to 1GHz G4 (512). The 80gb hard drive vs. the 20 was really nice, and so was the 24x CD burning (vs. 4x burning).
However, since that purchase, there has been NO Powerbook that has made me want to upgrade. There was no real speed difference between my 1GHz and the 1.67GHz (struggling to send data down a bus 1/10 its size).
It's quite obvious that the MB and MBP are both more than I could possibly need in terms of raw power and speed (in comparison), but I am waiting for Merom nonetheless. Every day that it gets closer and closer to being released (the updated MBP, that is), the more impatient I become. :D

roach
Aug 31, 2006, 11:32 AM
Yep, but Microsoft Word feels no faster...

You just need to type faster.

Little Endian
Aug 31, 2006, 11:44 AM
Not really relevant to anything considering there are so many variables unaccounted for by their tests. Macs have certainly come a long way but I don't think we can necessarily put figures on it.

I agree there are way too many variables. The only way for it to be accurate would be to retest all machines with the current version of OSX and with same versions of software used for the tests.

dornoforpyros
Aug 31, 2006, 12:03 PM
dang, the jump between my tibook and the MBP is making it harder to hold out for a few more weeks...

nagromme
Aug 31, 2006, 12:40 PM
Actually, however approximate and imprecise this methodology may be, I find it MORE useful than the usual rigorous benchmarks:

Most tests test against a very recent machine--even the machine just replaced! But almost nobody is actually making THAT buying decision. Most people replacing a machine aren't replacing last week's model, they are replacing something from 2 years ago... or 3... or 4.

Comparing to last week's model is interesting in a geeky way, but not useful to me,

I'd rather see every review skip the tests against last week's machine, and always test against whatever was out 730 days ago. It still wouldn't match everyone's buying decision (no one test ever could) but it would be closer :)

spicyapple
Aug 31, 2006, 12:46 PM
In hindsight and looking at the graphs, the G4 chip was awesome in terms of stagnate performance, from the AGP to Mirror Drive models. Thanks Motorola.

Fiveos22
Aug 31, 2006, 01:16 PM
I guess I'm glad that the old assumption, that the release of a new computer means that it is faster than what it is replacing, holds true...but there are a few side steps (if not steps backwards) that Apple has made, as is evidenced by these comparisons. Interesting.

mad jew
Aug 31, 2006, 06:43 PM
Actually, however approximate and imprecise this methodology may be, I find it MORE useful than the usual rigorous benchmarks:


I agree that in theory it's way more useful that the usual benchmarks but I still think that because it's so difficult to account for the ridiculous amount of differences between current and vintage machines, these results should probably be taken with a grain of salt. Not only has the hardware and software changed, but our demands of the machines have changed.

nagromme
Aug 31, 2006, 09:22 PM
Agreed--take with salt.

Which is still better than "of no actual use to me" so it's a step in the right direction :)