Speed tests on Dual 1.25

[soilchmst]

Here they are. These test look pretty unbiased.

http://www.macworld.com/2002/12/features/benchmark.html

:cool:

[{1984}]

i'm glad to hear that the dual 1.25 is off to a good start

[shadowfax]

why the heck did they cut the L3 on the new dual 1 GHz? that doesn't sound like progress!

[pgwalsh]

I'd like to see similar tests done with more RAM. I can't imagine any professional using a PowerMac with 256MB of RAM.

I was hoping to see better performance numbers, but I guess they're good enough. :expressionless:

[SilvorX]

when i first looked at it, i was like "wtf? getting the 867 wouldnt be worth $2700 for how much its lagging compared to the 933" then later on when i went back to the page, i realized there was a dual 867 ddr ;) lol, then i felt alot happier lol...

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
why the heck did they cut the L3 on the new dual 1 GHz? that doesn't sound like progress!

The DDR is more expensive than the SDR used in the previous machine, it is most likely one of the reasons Apple cut the size and why the upgrade company went with SDR instead.

[RogueLdr]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
why the heck did they cut the L3 on the new dual 1 GHz? that doesn't sound like progress!

The faster system bus in the new dual 1Ghz machine compensates for the halving of the L3 cache, according to the MacWorld test. While it would be nice to still have the larger cache, cutting it seems to allow Apple to reduce the cost of the dual 1GHz PowerMac without hampering performance and at the same time enhancing the expandability of the machine.

Just an opinion.

RL

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by Sun Baked


The DDR is more expensive than the SDR used in the previous machine, it is most likely one of the reasons Apple cut the size and why the upgrade company went with SDR instead.
QuickSilver Macs had DDR L3.

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by RogueLdr
While it would be nice to still have the larger cache, cutting it seems to allow Apple to reduce the cost of the dual 1GHz PowerMac without hampering performance and at the same time enhancing the expandability of the machine.

In addition to that, I also think Apple did it from a marketing standpoint to set off the performance from the top-end DP 1.25GHz. If the dual 1GHz had 2MB of L3 cache as well, there wouldn't be as much of a perceived performance difference to justify the extra $800.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
why the heck did they cut the L3 on the new dual 1 GHz? that doesn't sound like progress! From my point of view, the progress was made in that they bumped the speed from 933 to 1000. Plus they threw in another CPU for s&g's. That sounds like progress even without all of the other new stuff (i.e. GPU, DDR, 166 bus ...).

[nixd2001]

I think a significant factor (note: no pretension of single factors) is that DDR is more likely to be mainstream commodity over the next year, which adds a level of certainty for both pricing and just plain availablity that otherwise Apple probably don't wish to expose themselves to.

In other words, if you don't shape the market, use what the market has chosen or pay an additional price.

[mr evil brkfast]

The 1.25GHZ model is no doubt faster than any Apple to date...it still doesn't put us anywhere near (processor speed) the P4 in terms of an upgrade.

I wish they had left the L3 Cache on the 1 GHZ at 2MB per processor. Then we could have seen perhaps if there was any real improvement in the architechture.

I think the Dual 867 is the biggest upgrade in value/speed compared with the model it replaces. I always thought the 800 MHZ model was a poor cousin to the 933 and 1 GHZ

[Inhale420]

Originally posted by soilchmst
Here they are. These test look pretty unbiased.

http://www.macworld.com/2002/12/features/benchmark.html

:cool:

they look unbiased because they're not being compared to pc's

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by Inhale420


they look unbiased because they're not being compared to pc's

You always get a lot of pissed off people when you compare with PCs because it is just so bloody difficult to do a fair comparison. Comparing Apples to Apples is far easier and far less time consuming.