new imac 1GHZ performance

[rebscb]

Has anyone who has purcahsed a new 1GHZ imac run Xbench on the new machine?

Before I buy, I'd like to see the numbers compared to my 800MHZ imac.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by rebscb
Has anyone who has purcahsed a new 1GHZ imac run Xbench on the new machine?

Before I buy, I'd like to see the numbers compared to my 800MHZ imac. If you are thinking of upgrading allready perhaps the powermac line would suit you better,i could hardley imagine buying a new machine for only 200 mhz.Sure the new is a fantastic machine but if you have an eye constantly to the latest greatest the powermac is the way.I have a 800 pm and am waiting for the 970( though i to love the imac)but if it dont show i may just pop in a 1.2 ghz upgrade and leave it at that.

[moby1]

It's an additional 200 MHz AND 133 MHz bus - and don't forget the 4X DVD-R!

I think It'll be a substantial increase.

I'm going to an Apple Store tonight, I'll post XBench results if they have one of the new 1GHz models.


moby1

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by moby1
It's an additional 200 MHz AND 133 MHz bus - and don't forget the 4X DVD-R!

I think It'll be a substantial increase.

I'm going to an Apple Store tonight, I'll post XBench results if they have one of the new 1GHz models.


moby1

Even a 800MHz PowerMac will trounce a new 1GHz iMac. The simple reason for this is it has a faster video card and a faster hard drive. If you are power hungry the iMac is NOT the way to go.

[iShater]

My buddy and I were at the Apple Store today and we picked up a great deal on a last-gen 17" 800Mhz iMac. An Apple Store employee did some "timing" of iMovie effects on both machines, the different was around 5 secs or so. The 1Ghz PM beat the iMac by another 5 secs or so.

Now the Duals, well, they smoked the iMac. :p

[Funkatation]

the 1ghz iMac gets around 86 or so in XBench 1.0.

[Funkatation]

Originally posted by MacBandit


Even a 800MHz PowerMac will trounce a new 1GHz iMac. The simple reason for this is it has a faster video card and a faster hard drive. If you are power hungry the iMac is NOT the way to go.


They both have 7200 RPM hard drives... and I believe they have the same video card... A 1ghz iMac is going to be faster than the old single 800mhz (it had no L3 cache)

The Single 1ghz gets about a 100 Xbench score, and the iMac an 86. only difference spec wise being L3 cache.. 11% faster which is to be expected.

[alex_ant]

The iMac also has a 100MHz bus whereas the Power Mac's is 133 or DDR.

[Funkatation]

Originally posted by alex_ant
The iMac also has a 100MHz bus whereas the Power Mac's is 133 or DDR.


To the contrary, the new 1ghz imac has a 133mhz bus with PC2100 DDR memory. the same as the 1ghz powermac.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Funkatation



They both have 7200 RPM hard drives... and I believe they have the same video card... A 1ghz iMac is going to be faster than the old single 800mhz (it had no L3 cache)

The Single 1ghz gets about a 100 Xbench score, and the iMac an 86. only difference spec wise being L3 cache.. 11% faster which is to be expected.

It's definitely time to compare the XBench results side by side with every result not just the overall result.

[Funkatation]

i was looking at them, it seems that the biggest difference is in memory performance. My theory is that the powermac has a better memory controller than the iMac, or it counts the L3 cache as well in that test and it would make a big difference in testing if so.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Funkatation
i was looking at them, it seems that the biggest difference is in memory performance. My theory is that the powermac has a better memory controller than the iMac, or it counts the L3 cache as well in that test and it would make a big difference in testing if so.

I just can't see any amount of L3 cache making a nearly 20% difference in the OVERALL system result.

To explain what I mean think about this. If there were 5 main system components in the overal test score and each one of them had equal rating in the final score the Single 1GHz PowerMac scoring a pefect 100 on all 5 tests would have an overall system result of 100. Now if the iMac were to perform on par with the PowerMac in every result except the cpu that would mean the cpu score would have to be 30 to bring the overall score down to 86. Figure it out. 5 tests, 4 of which score on par with the PowerMac meaning a score of 100 and the last test the cpu scores 30 equalt a total of 430 divide that by 5 and you get 86.

I know this is based on some assumptions and is all theoretical but I did it just to proove my point that there is no way that the L3 cache alone could bring down the overall system score by 14 points.

[MacBandit]

Here is a side by side comparrison of the new iMac 1GHz DDR with the new PowerMac single 1GHz DDR. As you can see the iMac is slightly slower in every result just as I figured. Though just the opposite of what some people have been thinking the cpu on the iMac scores very close to equal to that of the PowerMac even without the L3 cache and even exceeds the PowerMac on the Altivec test. One interesting thing to note is that even though the two systems have similar system bus and memory speeds the PowerMac has a memory fill rate of double that of the iMac. Not even the new Powerbooks have a slow fill rate like that so I suspect that either this system isn't really a DDR iMac (even though the scores are what others have publishing as scores from a new iMac) or for some reason the SystemBus in the iMacs doesn't even speak to the DDR memory at double rate as in the PowerMacs and AlBooks.

I suspect the iMac uses a similar architecture to the PowerBooks and thus is desinged to produce as little heat as possible. This would allow them to run it silent with just the one fan. The end result though would be an overal slower system even though the specs are similar the components are actually not the same.

http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc1=12597&doc2=12721

[Datazoid]

Macbandit, your link compares the new 1GHz PowerMac to the old 800MHz iMac...not the new 1GHz iMac....

link now works as advertised

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Datazoid
Macbandit, your link compares the new 1GHz PowerMac to the old 800MHz iMac...not the new 1GHz iMac....

Try the link again. I screwed it up at first. The link does in fact link to a new iMac at 1GHz (notice it says it has Airport Extreme).

[monkeydo_jb]

They are both 1GHz.



-jeff

[gotohamish]

Originally posted by monkeydo_jb
They are both 1GHz.



-jeff

True, but the 1GHtz iMac on the Xbench site lists 256MB of RAM, has this guy LOWERED his RAM? It comes with 512MB I thought.

[Megaquad]

Look at framerates of Interface test.. PowerMac is better for around 13 frames per second, that means it is a lot more responsive in interface. Slowdown when running multiple apps will be less etc.
This is probably because of better graphics in PM.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by gotohamish


True, but the 1GHtz iMac on the Xbench site lists 256MB of RAM, has this guy LOWERED his RAM? It comes with 512MB I thought.

Just check the Apple Store (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/38/wo/xM7qMOkv9W1f3HRzhZp1dUpE3nq/0.3.0.3.27.21.0.1.3.1.3.1.1.0?123,82) the 1 gig comes with 256MB of RAM.

[moby1]

I went to my local Apple Store and tried burning a DVD at 4X (I bought the media there).

I was curious to see if Toast 5.2 (I brought along my PB and firewire-target disk mode'd it) would indeed burn (reliably) at 4X.

It sure did! Verified the burn too. It took only about 10 minutes to backup 4 GB of data from my PB!

I definitely want one of the 17" models. I think it's the best value of any current Mac.


moby1

[moby1]

Just *how* hard is it to get to that inner slot?
:(