iMac 1.8 Ghz G5 Benchmarks

[MacRumors]

Thanks to one of our readers, we have some early benchmark results on a 20" 1.8 Ghz G5 iMac.
Cinebench results:CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
Processor : iMac G5
MHz : 1.8 GHZ
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : 10.3.5

Graphics Card : 5200
Resolution : 1440x900
Color Depth : millions
****************************************************
Rendering (Single CPU): 243 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 228 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 558 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 695 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.05
****************************************************
and an Xbench score of 134.71 (full Xbench details in thread)

[Mudbug]

iMac G5 1.8 -- 256 MB arrived. Have not yet upgeaded memory:

Results 134.71
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7P35)
Physical RAM 256 MB
Model PowerMac8,1
Processor PowerPC G5 @ 1.80 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.15 GHz
Bus Frequency 600 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST380013AS
CPU Test 136.48
GCD Loop 91.90 3.59 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 285.46 1.03 Gflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 122.14 3.55 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 100.86 1.57 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 241.02 9.65 Mops/sec
Thread Test 84.47
Computation 53.04 716.03 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 207.38 2.60 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 210.75
System 229.53
Allocate 616.09 401.87 Kalloc/sec
Fill 209.06 1664.14 MB/sec
Copy 150.07 750.36 MB/sec
Stream 194.81
Copy 166.59 1217.79 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 169.44 1250.43 MB/sec [G5]
Add 224.87 1439.19 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 239.16 1461.27 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 188.34
Line 189.47 4.82 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 156.19 10.99 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 193.08 4.45 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 167.62 1.82 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 268.61 4.38 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 187.25
Spinning Squares 187.25 131.04 frames/sec
User Interface Test 209.37
Elements 209.37 67.34 refresh/sec
Disk Test 79.19
Sequential 67.00
Uncached Write 69.51 28.97 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 43.58 17.85 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 68.48 10.84 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 128.78 52.03 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 96.82
Uncached Write 94.15 1.41 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 91.65 20.67 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 92.34 0.61 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 111.69 22.99 MB/sec [256K blocks]

[settledown]

is that good or bad?

i need a comparison to maybe the powermac g5

[kgarner]

Finally! Now I can really start drooling over my imminent purchase. Some counter examples would be appreciated.

[Expedition]

Resolution : 1440x900 ?

That's a 17''...anyway this is my first post!

[andyduncan]

is that good or bad?

i need a comparison to maybe the powermac g5

this Bare Feats article (http://barefeats.com/g525.html) has these numbers for the cinebench rendering:

DP G5 2.5ghz: 649
DP G5 2.0ghz: 522
DP G4 1.42ghz: 247
PB G4 1.5ghz: 135

So this score of 243 is pretty good. The gigantic caveat being that this is just one type of test.

[coconn06]

After a quick Google search, it appears as if these results are comparable to even a dual 1.8 GHz PowerMac. Not in all aspects of course (like memory; there is one fewer processor and a slower system bus). But the numbers look good, reinforcing my decision to buy one as soon as I can.

[greenstork]

?

That's a 17''...anyway this is my first post!

Correct...Yes...it is

[RadiusMan]

That's not too shabby.

[azdude]

What's up with the XBench score of 134? My 15" 1.5GHz Powerbook gets 150. Shouldn't a 1.8G5 w/ full size SATA hard drives do significantly better? (True, I bet this is with the stock 256 RAM).

[smitty078]

I'm betting that this person had their performance setting in the energy system prefs set to "automatic". I get a better xbench score than that on my 15" 1.5ghz G4 powerbook when it is set to "highest". If I put my powerbook on "automatic" on the other had, the imac crushes me.

[kgarner]

This site (http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/csi.xhtml?machineTypeID=22) has a bunch of xBench scores to compare against. It looks very good so far. I am very excited to be buying one of these now. (As if I weren't before)

[rog]

Anyone have SP 1.8 Tower results for comparison? I wonder how much difference the bus speed and graphics chip make.

[smitty078]

lol.. funny that two 15" powerbook owners posted almost the same thing at the same time (i can assure you it was not planned). Maybe the 15" powerbooks just rock that much.

[andyduncan]

actually this Bare Feats article (http://barefeats.com/g5c.html) has even more numbers, including some wintel machines.

of note:

DP Xeon 3.06ghz: 655
DP Opteron 2.0ghz: 523
DP G5 1.8ghz: 471
SP P4 3.2ghz: 384
SP G5 1.8ghz: 251
SP G5 1.6ghz: 222

So faster than a 1.6 G5, practically a dead heat to the single processor 1.8 G5. And the test looks like it slightly favors raw Ghz (IMHO).

(edit: these are Cinebench render test scores)

[Bluefusion]

I'm betting that this person had their performance setting in the energy system prefs set to "automatic". I get a better xbench score than that on my 15" 1.5ghz G4 powerbook when it is set to "highest". If I put my powerbook on "automatic" on the other had, the imac crushes me.

Nope. There is no "Automatic" setting for Energy Saver on desktop machines--what would it be used for? No battery, thus, no energy conservation system. You control system sleep and display sleep, that's it.

So this score is a little odd.

[caveman_uk]

For comparison my Dual 1GHz G4 MDD just got 131 on xbench. My MDD really got it's ass kicked on floating point and memory bandwidth. Interestingly the GF 5200 got better openGL scores than my Radeon 9000. I've also got 3 times as much RAM as the G5 so the G5 was hindered by that. It's not hugely better than a Dual G4 so it looks like I'll be upgrading to a dual G5 next time...

[Stike]

What about those XBench numbers previously posted? With 1 GB RAM, the iMac scored 155 points there...

[sugarprobe]

Nope. There is no "Automatic" setting for Energy Saver on desktop machines--what would it be used for? No battery, thus, no energy conservation system. You control system sleep and display sleep, that's it.

So this score is a little odd.

[GFLPraxis]

What's up with the XBench score of 134? My 15" 1.5GHz Powerbook gets 150. Shouldn't a 1.8G5 w/ full size SATA hard drives do significantly better? (True, I bet this is with the stock 256 RAM).

That XBench score is on a RAM-starved iMac. Only 256 MB. How much RAM does your PB get?

[BrianKonarsMac]

the 5200 ultra is ALOT better than your 9000. a 5200 is comparable (slightly better) than your 9000. people shovel way too much **** on the 5200 just because it's from nvidia. check some benches.

this score is WAY lower than i had hoped for. my 933QS scores about 115-120, and my 1.33 12" scores about 120 - ~130 (high 20s), and would do much better with a 5400 or 7200 rpm HD. im starting to wonder if the xBench scores aren't exponential, meaning if the difference between 5 points at say 90, is smaller than at 130.

o well, good, but not as impressive as i was thinking. i guess G4's really were faster clock for clock, and just had an antiquated memory controllers. o well, size matters :D .

ah didnt see it was on a ram diet....~160 is much better (though i was hoping for 170-180).

[JW Pepper]

It's quite clear that the iMac G5 is on a par with a DP G4 1.42, both the cinebench and xbench results confirm this. This is a fantastic result. A 20" iMac with a 250GB HDD and maxed out ram will be a formidable machine and is likely to outrun any G4 system.

[longofest]

Nope. There is no "Automatic" setting for Energy Saver on desktop machines--what would it be used for? No battery, thus, no energy conservation system. You control system sleep and display sleep, that's it.

So this score is a little odd.

With the advent of the G5's, Apple did start introducing the "automatic" "highest" and "reduced" settings to the desktop line. While the application is obvious for laptops (battery life), for desktops, the application became heat and sound related. Because G5's run hotter as you turn up the power, they therefore require more air to run through them which makes them run louder (the fans). So, the automatic setting will let the OS decide when to turn down the power to the G5. The Highest setting, in the meantime will always keep the power pumping (and your house sounding like an airport), and the reduced setting will always keep the power reduced, and therefore allow you to sleep at night.

[Sabbath]

It's not as good as I was expecting, I can remember seeing a some xbenches someone did at the expo at around 150something which would seem more realistic. I would expect the processor is set to automatic (not high) and once some reasonable quantity of ram is in their it will perform very nicely. Lets remember this is just a benchmark and not representitive of all aspects of performance.

[kgarner]

Definitely agree with the posts regarding more RAM. I think that Apple really should have made it 512 standard on at least the top two models. At any rate it is good to have some ammo for when I go to the wife to say I need more memory. :D

[Koyder]

The Xbench score is surprisingly low. My 1.25 GHz iMac G4 scores 127.

[slipper]

The Xbench score is surprisingly low. My 1.25 GHz iMac G4 scores 127.

i was going to have my sister upgrade her 17" 1.25ghz G4 iMac, but if this is the case, forget about it.

[keysersoze]

I personally think xBench rots. My scores have been anywhere from 125 - 155. It makes no sense, because the hardware stayed the same. :confused:

Anyway, this iMac looks great and fast... still too bad about the 5200 Ultra-Crappy Vid Card.

[goron]

Nope. There is no "Automatic" setting for Energy Saver on desktop machines--what would it be used for? No battery, thus, no energy conservation system. You control system sleep and display sleep, that's it.

So this score is a little odd.
I'm sitting at my desktop dual 2.5ghz g5 and I have automatic/highest settings.
What would it be used for? Well, err, saving energy?

[slipper]

err, saving energy?why would we want to do that?
:p

[FuzzyBallz]

What, no dual channel benchmarks on the G5 iMac yet?

And is there any other benchmark program people can use besides XBench? It stinks.

[myapplseedshurt]

Nope. There is no "Automatic" setting for Energy Saver on desktop machines--what would it be used for? No battery, thus, no energy conservation system. You control system sleep and display sleep, that's it.

So this score is a little odd.

Are all of you forgetting that this processor is SO hot? here's what's happening... the os monitors the temp, when it gets to a certain level, it will either nap the proc or powertune to a lower freq. This is not dis-ableable!! there is no way apple would let the proc heat up beyond a point just to increase some benchmarks. Hence the design is limiting performance, and unlike the proc, that is not cool.

[illumin8]

It's quite clear that the iMac G5 is on a par with a DP G4 1.42, both the cinebench and xbench results confirm this. This is a fantastic result. A 20" iMac with a 250GB HDD and maxed out ram will be a formidable machine and is likely to outrun any G4 system.
That's frickin' amazing! Does anyone realize that for $1899, you are now getting the same computer that would have cost you $3998 a year ago!?!?!

PowerMac G4 1.42 DP - $2699
20" Cinema Display - $1299
Total - $3998

-or-

iMac G5 1.8 20" - $1899

Which one would I rather have? I think you can guess...

[myapplseedshurt]

I should have qualified that with the following:
the reason they monitor temp so much is BECAUSE of the design. I mean, 2 inches thick with a couple of small fans? for the 970, that simply isn't enough. So they are stuck with a design which requires the proc to stay at a temp well below it's true high-end temp range.

We will need to see the hardware monitor data for temps, and compare to 1.8 Powermac's temps for each proc. I hope I'm wrong... cause I want to buy one :D

[i_am_a_cow]

is that good or bad?

i need a comparison to maybe the powermac g5

I think the one at the Apple Store got like 280 on XBench when i tested.

[Windowlicker]

Nope. There is no "Automatic" setting for Energy Saver on desktop machines--what would it be used for? No battery, thus, no energy conservation system. You control system sleep and display sleep, that's it.

So this score is a little odd.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. I'm on a dual 1.8 and have the option available in my energy saver prefpane.. the other possibility of course is that I have a bug of some kind on my system, but I highly doubt it.

[Mav451]

That's frickin' amazing! Does anyone realize that for $1899, you are now getting the same computer that would have cost you $3998 a year ago!?!?!

PowerMac G4 1.42 DP - $2699
20" Cinema Display - $1299
Total - $3998

-or-

iMac G5 1.8 20" - $1899

Which one would I rather have? I think you can guess...

Why do i have the gut feeling that the iMac LCDs are not even close to the new Apple Cinema displays? I'm thinking they are probably either the old 20" or the same ones as the original G4 iMac line.


20-inch (viewable) widescreen TFT active-matrix LCD, 1680 x 1050 pixels, millions of colors


millions doesn't inspire much confidence for me -_-

[kgarner]

millions doesn't inspire much confidence for me
Just because it doesn't say 16.7 million colors? This is a pretty standard way of displaying this information. When you select the color depth on your Mac it says millions not 16.7 million. At lest that's how it's been on the last several Macs I've used.

[swissmann]

My Xbench for my DP 1 GHz Powermac G4 = 137.43
My Xbench for my DP 2 GHz Powermac G5 = 203.85

[punkmac]

this Bare Feats article (http://barefeats.com/g525.html) has these numbers for the cinebench rendering:

DP G5 2.5ghz: 649
DP G5 2.0ghz: 522
DP G4 1.42ghz: 247
PB G4 1.5ghz: 135

So this score of 243 is pretty good. The gigantic caveat being that this is just one type of test.

So which is it? 134 or 243 ?!!?

I.

[kgarner]

So which is it? 134 or 243 ?!!?

I.
Different benchmarks. 234 for Cinebench and 134 for Xbench.

[punkmac]

Different benchmarks. 234 for Cinebench and 134 for Xbench.

So in Xbench it stinks and cinebench it rocks?

What does a Single 1.8 get in Xbench?

Thanks,

I.

[Chip NoVaMac]

There was a thread here that said that they got an Xbench of 250 on a iMac G5 20" I think it was.

[BakedBeans]

Different benchmarks. 234 for Cinebench and 134 for Xbench.

134..... thats a bit low isnt it?? i thought it would way out perform my powerbook 1.5 15inch superdrive

but nope... alas it doesnt

[kgarner]

So in Xbench it stinks and cinebench it rocks?

What does a Single 1.8 get in Xbench?

Thanks,

I.
The measure different things and have different scales so you can't compare the two scores. You can only compare scores like Cinebench to Cinebench of two different computers. One site (http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/csi.xhtml?machineTypeID=22) I found had a range from 93 to 150+ for a single 1.8. This will vary a bit depending on configuration (RAM, Bus speed, etc.) and can vary a bit from test to test on the same machine.

[kgarner]

There was a thread here that said that they got an Xbench of 250 on a iMac G5 20" I think it was.
I think I remember hearing that one had a gig of RAM. I think that RAM makes a lot of difference in the Xbendh scores. The 134 was from the stock 256MB configuration.

[dombi]

So in Xbench it stinks and cinebench it rocks?

What does a Single 1.8 get in Xbench?

Thanks,

I.

punkmac: According to the following page (http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/comparesubindex.xhtml?machineTypeID=22&sort=processor#tableTop&minVersion=1.1.3), the single processor G5 1.8 scores anywhere from 120-190 in XBench. I am guessing that there are lot of factors that result in this variation... Energy saver setting, faster hard drives, better graphics cards...etc. I would say that looking at this report, they are pretty comparable. Throw in about 1GB of RAM into the iMac G5 and it will run noticably better.

[GFLPraxis]

So in Xbench it stinks and cinebench it rocks?

What does a Single 1.8 get in Xbench?

Thanks,

I.

It got that crappy score because the iMac tested in XBench was RAM starved- it only had 256 MB, and it's recommended you get 512 for good performance in OS X.

[Xtremehkr]

I know I posted this in another thread as well, but if it means what I thnk it does it's pretty exciting news.

G5 iMac parts you can install. (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86812)

AirPort Extreme Card

Memory - DDR 400 MHz (PC3200) SDRAM

Hard drive

Optical drive

Power supply

LCD display

Modem card

Mid-plane assembly (contains the main logic board, the G5 processor, fans, NVIDIA graphics processor, and so forth).

It certainly seems to suggest that the midplane can be replaced and includes the Graphics card that everyone has been so unhappy about. What does it mean?

[dombi]

I know I posted this in another thread as well, but if it means what I thnk it does it's pretty exciting news.

G5 iMac parts you can install. (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86812)

[/b]

It certainly seems to suggest that the midplane can be replaced and includes the Graphics card that everyone has been so unhappy about. What does it mean?

Yeah, who knows, maybe in the future we will see "midplane" upgrades. That would actually be awsome, although this iMac is already a kickass machine IMHO.

[punkmac]

punkmac: According to the following page (http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/comparesubindex.xhtml?machineTypeID=22&sort=processor#tableTop&minVersion=1.1.3), the single processor G5 1.8 scores anywhere from 120-190 in XBench. I am guessing that there are lot of factors that result in this variation... Energy saver setting, faster hard drives, better graphics cards...etc. I would say that looking at this report, they are pretty comparable. Throw in about 1GB of RAM into the iMac G5 and it will run noticably better.

Thanks guys.

This would put it on par with at least the powermac 1.8 (great!) Just cram it with RAM!

Wonderful, Now I have even more conflict. Powermac vs. iMac.

Exactly the same thing when buying my iMac G4!

AAARRRGHHH!


We'll see with some real world test.

I.

[macshark]

As the percentage (perceived) value of the LCD monitor with respect to the rest of the system gets higher, this may be the first case where Apple may provide official "midplane" upgrades to Mac owners some time in the near future - how about next fall?

A cool choice would be a midplane upgrade board that has a 0.65u PPC975GX with dual 2.5GHz cores and NVidia 6600SE chip?


I know I posted this in another thread as well, but if it means what I thnk it does it's pretty exciting news.

G5 iMac parts you can install. (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86812)

[/b]

It certainly seems to suggest that the midplane can be replaced and includes the Graphics card that everyone has been so unhappy about. What does it mean?

[iHack]

It got that crappy score because the iMac tested in XBench was RAM starved- it only had 256 MB, and it's recommended you get 512 for good performance in OS X.
And it was not even dual channel RAM - with two same spec DIMMs its memory performance will double. Anyone any idea what this will do for the xbanch score? It should be possible to calculate that...

[RazorWriter]

Now that it's been brought up, I'd really like to know more about the 20" LCD screen in the new imac besides simple resolution - how does it compare as far as brightness, viewing angles, etc, with the new 20" Apple Display?

Anyone seen one in a store yet?

[kgarner]

I'm pretty sure if we ever do see mid-plane upgrade kits it will be from a third party and not supported by Apple. Still I have used those upgrade cards with great success and would probably buy a mid-plane upgrade for my iMac (after it was out of warranty).

[aswitcher]

I really want to see what the performance difference will between a 20" with half and a full gig. Gotta figure out if the extra half gig is worth it...

[Xtremehkr]

As the percentage (perceived) value of the LCD monitor with respect to the rest of the system gets higher, this may be the first case where Apple may provide official "midplane" upgrades to Mac owners some time in the near future - how about next fall?

A cool choice would be a midplane upgrade board that has a 0.65u PPC975GX with dual 2.5GHz cores and NVidia 6600SE chip?

Maybe Apple is going to pioneer a new approach to selling computers by designing something that will remain stylish for a longer period and then selling upgrades to that system. It would mean that upgrading an Apple gets much cheaper and adds incentive to designing good looking computers.

It would also make things easier for Apple as there would be fewer parts that need to be built, which could mean that Apple has fewer supply problems as the number of things that can go wrong decrease.

It's like being able to re-use the same canvas everytime you have a better idea. Eventually you would want to replace the canvas, but not nearly as often as people do now.

[kgarner]

Maybe Apple is going to pioneer a new approach to selling computers by designing something that will remain stylish for a longer period and then selling upgrades to that system. It would mean that upgrading an Apple gets much cheaper and adds incentive to designing good looking computers.

It would also make things easier for Apple as there would be fewer parts that need to be built, which could mean that Apple has fewer supply problems as the number of things that can go wrong decrease.

It's like being able to re-use the same canvas everytime you have a better idea. Eventually you would want to replace the canvas, but not nearly as often as people do now.
Now that is an intriguing possibility. That would be really cool. Just buy an upgrade kit instead of a new computer and have it be covered and supported. I like it. It would be like upgrading your old PC, but you get to keep the stylish and small case instead of some ugly box. Never thought of that option before.

[inkswamp]

I keep hearing all this griping about the graphics card and I have to wonder if it's really as bad as some of you make it sound. I admit that I know almost nothing about graphics cards (which includes comparing different cards to each other) but when I went to NVidia's site, it appears that the card in the iMac G5 is about mid-range of what they offer. Is that really so bad for a consumer machine?

And to use the graphics performance yardstick-du-jour, the card appears to be a step or two above the lowest-end NVidia card recommended by id for playing Doom3 (assuming the graphics requirements will be the same on the Mac version as it is on Windows.) I would never buy a computer aimed at the home user expecting a high-end graphics card. Why do so many of you have that very expectation?

Maybe someone here can clarify what all the griping is about. :confused:

[nutmac]

Results 134.71 123.6
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7P35) 10.3.5 (7M34)
Physical RAM 256 MB 256 MB
Model PowerMac8,1 PowerMac6,3
Processor PowerPC G5 @ 1.80 GHz PowerPC G4 @ 1.25 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data) 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.15 GHz 256K @ 1.25 GHz
Bus Frequency 600 MHz 167 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200 GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST380013AS ST380011A
CPU Test 136.48 149.73
GCD Loop 91.90 3.59 Mops/sec 141.89 5.54 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 285.46 1.03 Gflops/sec 151.14 546.58 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 122.14 3.55 Gflops/sec 153.15 4.45 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 100.86 1.57 Gflops/sec 155.14 2.41 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 241.02 9.65 Mops/sec 148.07 5.93 Mops/sec
Thread Test 84.47 109.67
Computation 53.04 716.03 Kops/sec, 4 threads 78.13 1.05 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 207.38 2.60 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads 183.93 2.31 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 210.75 124.04
System 229.53 126.71
Allocate 616.09 401.87 Kalloc/sec 803.41 524.06 Kalloc/sec
Fill 209.06 1664.14 MB/sec 115.88 922.44 MB/sec
Copy 150.07 750.36 MB/sec 72.46 362.28 MB/sec
Stream 194.81 121.48
Copy 166.59 1217.79 MB/sec [G5] 116.57 852.15 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 169.44 1250.43 MB/sec [G5] 115.63 853.36 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 224.87 1439.19 MB/sec [G5] 119.2 762.91 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 239.16 1461.27 MB/sec [G5] 136.77 835.68 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 188.34 133.11
Line 189.47 4.82 Klines/sec [50% alpha] 126 3.21 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 156.19 10.99 Krects/sec [50% alpha] 125.49 8.83 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 193.08 4.45 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha] 147.47 3.40 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 167.62 1.82 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha] 130.85 1.42 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 268.61 4.38 Kchars/sec 138.24 2.25 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 187.25 126.76
Spinning Squares 187.25 131.04 frames/sec 126.76 88.71 frames/sec
User Interface Test 209.37 154.11
Elements 209.37 67.34 refresh/sec 154.11 49.57 refresh/sec
Disk Test 79.19 91.86
Sequential 67 102.99
Uncached Write 69.51 28.97 MB/sec [4K blocks] 101.73 42.41 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 43.58 17.85 MB/sec [256K blocks] 91.18 37.34 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 68.48 10.84 MB/sec [4K blocks] 130.27 20.62 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 128.78 52.03 MB/sec [256K blocks] 96.46 38.97 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 96.82 82.9
Uncached Write 94.15 1.41 MB/sec [4K blocks] 66.54 1.00 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 91.65 20.67 MB/sec [256K blocks] 84.32 19.02 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 92.34 0.61 MB/sec [4K blocks] 91.12 0.60 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 111.69 22.99 MB/sec [256K blocks] 96.27 19.81 MB/sec [256K blocks]

[kgarner]

I keep hearing all this griping about the graphics card and I have to wonder if it's really as bad as some of you make it sound. I admit that I know almost nothing about graphics cards (which includes comparing different cards to each other) but when I went to NVidia's site, it appears that the card in the iMac G5 is about mid-range of what they offer. Is that really so bad for a consumer machine?

And to use the graphics performance yardstick-du-jour, the card appears to be a step or two above the lowest-end NVidia card recommended by id for playing Doom3 (assuming the graphics requirements will be the same on the Mac version as it is on Windows.) I would never buy a computer aimed at the home user expecting a high-end graphics card. Why do so many of you have that very expectation?

Maybe someone here can clarify what all the griping is about. :confused:
I agree, i just went to Dell and of the computers they list in the Home computer section, only one of them even listed what graphics card they came with. An that was the "high-end" home unit. Serious gamers are not buying the PCs that are targeted at the home comsumer. Why should we expect Apple to market their home computer to this crowd as well.

[crazzyeddie]

Results 134.71 123.6
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7P35) 10.3.5 (7M34)
Physical RAM 256 MB 256 MB
Model PowerMac8,1 PowerMac6,3
Processor PowerPC G5 @ 1.80 GHz PowerPC G4 @ 1.25 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data) 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.15 GHz 256K @ 1.25 GHz
Bus Frequency 600 MHz 167 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200 GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST380013AS ST380011A
CPU Test 136.48 149.73

...


I think that verifies that the system must have been set to Automatic instead of Highest. It is impossible for a G5 1.8ghz to preform worse than 1.25ghz G4.

[squeak]

And when you do add memory to these G5 iMacs Take a tip from the
developer note(http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G5/iMacG5/index.html)

on Ram Expansion:


"The main logic board of the iMac G5 computer has two DDR SDRAM expansion slots for unbuffered DDR400 (PC3200) dual in-line memory modules (DIMMs) for a maximum memory of 2 GB.

Each memory slot can contain 256 MB, 512 MB, or 1 GB of double data rate synchronous dynamic RAM (DDR SDRAM). The iMac G5 contains 256 MB of factory installed DIMM. The iMac G5 supports CAS latencies of 2, 2.5, 3, 4, and 5.

Additional DIMMs can be installed. The combined memory of all of the DIMMs installed is configured as a contiguous array of memory. The throughput of the 400 MHz memory bus is dependent on the DIMMs installed. If only one DIMM is installed, the memory bus is 64-bit. If two non-identical DIMMs are installed, there are two 64–bit memory buses. If two identical DIMMs are installed, the memory bus is 128-bit. Identical DIMM pairs have the same size and composition and provide the fastest and most efficient throughput.
-squeak

Definitely agree with the posts regarding more RAM. I think that Apple really should have made it 512 standard on at least the top two models. At any rate it is good to have some ammo for when I go to the wife to say I need more memory. :D

[jyavenard]

iMac G5 1.8 -- 256 MB arrived. Have not yet upgeaded memory:

Results 134.71
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7P35)
Physical RAM 256 MB
Model PowerMac8,1
Processor PowerPC G5 @ 1.80 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.15 GHz
Bus Frequency 600 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST380013AS
CPU Test 136.48
GCD Loop 91.90 3.59 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 285.46 1.03 Gflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 122.14 3.55 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 100.86 1.57 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 241.02 9.65 Mops/sec


I score 130.95 with my Powerbook G4 1.5Ghz (with a 7200 rpm disk)
The CPU score is
CPU Test 181.29
GCD Loop 174.57 6.82 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 179.16 647.89 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 184.74 5.37 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 187.99 2.92 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 180.57 7.23 Mops/sec


So seeing that a G4 @ 1.5Ghz CPU would outperform a 1.8Ghz G5 sounds like something was screwy with the first XBench result

Jean-Yves

[macidiot]

Now that it's been brought up, I'd really like to know more about the 20" LCD screen in the new imac besides simple resolution - how does it compare as far as brightness, viewing angles, etc, with the new 20" Apple Display?

Anyone seen one in a store yet?

Looking at the specs on Apple's site, the ACD is superior. Its brighter and has a better viewing angle. Also, there is no listing of what the iMac's pixel response time is, a very disconcerting omission. One would think it is inferior to the ACD. To me, that is the most important spec. Most lcds have good brightness and viewing angles. Having recently switched from a crt to the acd, I would think that lower pixel response time would be awful. I see enough ghosting and dot crawl with the acd.

[applekid]

Hmmm, I like what I'm hearing about what could be done with these midplane upgrades. I doubt Apple would ever allow users to access it. It's probably to make production easier and more possible to refresh the iMac line with faster processors and graphics card with time.

Oh, and I want real world tests. Not XBench.

[Michael Vance]

Those OpenGL scores are extremely low. You probably could not find any model PC made in the last four years that scored that low.

[Xtremehkr]

I vacillate on this issue. I've said already that in my opinion the gamers are a minority amongst computer users. I've found that gaming is pretty popular though and that gamers use it to beat Apple over the head constantly and that some people are put off by that. At the very least I would like to see the option to upgrade the card. And that looks as though it may be a reality. Why not thrash M$ in every element of computing?

[macidiot]

I keep hearing all this griping about the graphics card and I have to wonder if it's really as bad as some of you make it sound. I admit that I know almost nothing about graphics cards (which includes comparing different cards to each other) but when I went to NVidia's site, it appears that the card in the iMac G5 is about mid-range of what they offer. Is that really so bad for a consumer machine?

And to use the graphics performance yardstick-du-jour, the card appears to be a step or two above the lowest-end NVidia card recommended by id for playing Doom3 (assuming the graphics requirements will be the same on the Mac version as it is on Windows.) I would never buy a computer aimed at the home user expecting a high-end graphics card. Why do so many of you have that very expectation?

Maybe someone here can clarify what all the griping is about. :confused:

Well, the 64MB 5200 is about a $25 card. Typically you see 128MB for this card. Also, its at the low end. The issues are this:

Its a low end card, especially considering the price of this computer and given the fact that going with a 128MB card would add about $10 to the cost. Going with a 9600 would add about $40, if that.

Its soldered to the board, meaning there is no upgrade path available.

There is no BTO option for a better card for those who would like one.

And finally, while this card is acceptable today, it will probably be seriously outdated in 12 months. Considering most Macs are kept far longer than 12months, this becomes an issue. Put another way, I have a dual 1Ghz MDD. Not very old at all. But the ATI 9000 card it came with is already scraping the bottom of the barrel. At least I have an upgrade path, though it is somewhat limited.

While its unrealistic to expect a $400 video card in an iMac, it is not unrealistic to expect a $75-100 card in an iMac.

[andyduncan]

If two non-identical DIMMs are installed, there are two 64–bit memory buses. If two identical DIMMs are installed, the memory bus is 128-bit. Identical DIMM pairs have the same size and composition and provide the fastest and most efficient throughput.
-squeak

Well, then I'm going to stick my neck out here and say I'm glad Apple DIDN'T put more than 256 megs of ram in it. I would want at least a gig, and though I'm not really in the market for one of these I'd recommend a gig to anyone running OSX, even my mom. If they shipped it with a 512meg dimm it would be difficult to find a matching sibling to enable interlacing (are they still calling it interlacing?), and if they shipped two 256meg dimms you'd have to throw them away (or ebay 'em).

[iGary]

It must be the RAM.

My Machine usually returns 140's from XBench...

I was thinking of selling my machine and getting an iMac, but not so sure now.

[Detlev]

So, for a Newbie to benchmarks. Do I run out and buy this thing or what? How does it look? How does it feel? Does it run smoothly? Any problems noticed yet? Are you folding?

[alexf]

Nope. There is no "Automatic" setting for Energy Saver on desktop machines--what would it be used for? No battery, thus, no energy conservation system. You control system sleep and display sleep, that's it.

So this score is a little odd.

Processor performance setting is what the poster meant (I assume). This should always be set to highest before doing the XBench test.

[huzzah]

I posted the inital benchmark for the iMac G5. We are a primarily a Mac (about 150 G4's and G5's and 20 PC's) retail store. Our applications include heavy SQL user on several XServe's. We also have several new 2 x 2.5 GHZ G5's as servers now.

We ordered many Imac G5's as terminals for order and sales stations. This is our first delivery. This iMac does have a 17" screen; not 20". We have our own applications benchmarks (real world) performance so XBench (which is really screwy) and Cinebench mean little to me.

In a real world perfomance test, the iMac G5 is .948 (exactly) of an G5 1.8 SP (repeatable). That to me, is amazing because of the 600 MHZ FSB.We are ecstatic. All this with a great and very clear 17" screen. These iMac G5's are beautiful and quite snappy even with 256 MB. In fact, now I believe the 1.6 GHZ will do the job for us.

Xbench has reported CPU values on this iMac from 125.72 to 162.11; go figure. Maybe a new architecture ?? The one I submitted was in the middle. Disk benchmarks are more repeatable. Cinebench was also variable (mostly, as you know, due to screen depth and resolution). Maybe I have a sick machine; but I'm not complaining because the real world benchmarks are outstanding.

The interior of the machine is gorgeous and solid and will not disappoint anyone.

Maybe, additional benchmarks will clear up the variable nature of the tests I ran.

My analysis: $3000+ worth of quality equipment for $1499.

I give this machine an A. :)

[jouster]

I got 42.24.

Hmmmm. Guess I won't be doing any complex 3D renders anytime soon.

On the other hand, my score is prettily palindromic.

Edit: rev A TiBook 400, 1 GB RAM

[Daveway]

Im getting 240 on my 2.6ghz P4 with 512ram running cinebench 2003

[Analog Kid]

I posted the inital benchmark for the iMac G5. We are a primarily a Mac (about 150 G4's and G5's and 20 PC's) retail store. Our applications include heavy SQL user on several XServe's. We also have several new 2 x 2.5 GHZ G5's as servers now.

We ordered many Imac G5's as terminals for order and sales stations. This is our first delivery. This iMac does have a 17" screen; not 20". We have our own applications benchmarks (real world) performance so XBench (which is really screwy) and Cinebench mean little to me.

In a real world perfomance test, the iMac G5 is .948 (exactly) of an G5 1.8 SP (repeatable). That to me, is amazing because of the 600 MHZ FSB.We are ecstatic. All this with a great and very clear 17" screen. These iMac G5's are beautiful and quite snappy even with 256 MB. In fact, now I believe the 1.6 GHZ will do the job for us.

Xbench has reported CPU values on this iMac from 125.72 to 162.11; go figure. Maybe a new architecture ?? The one I submitted was in the middle. Disk benchmarks are more repeatable. Cinebench was also variable (mostly, as you know, due to screen depth and resolution). Maybe I have a sick machine; but I'm not complaining because the real world benchmarks are outstanding.

The interior of the machine is gorgeous and solid and will not disappoint anyone.

Maybe, additional benchmarks will clear up the variable nature of the tests I ran.

My analysis: $3000+ worth of quality equipment for $1499.

I give this machine an A. :)

Hey, thanks for adding a little human warmth to the cold benchmarks. That actually means a lot more to me than the numbers.

[Analog Kid]

134..... thats a bit low isnt it?? i thought it would way out perform my powerbook 1.5 15inch superdrive

but nope... alas it doesnt

I would expect it to outperform your 1.5Gh G4 by about 10-20% at most unless you were running something using really deep memory-- which wouldn't really happen with a benchmark...

I'd be interested in seeing some of the intensive Photoshop batteries run on this-- Xbench has no business calling itself a benchmark.

[JOD8FY]

I compared my PB (see sig) to a new 1.8 G5 iMac on XBench and was surprised to see that the iMac barely beat out my PB. It had 1 GB of RAM too. I think this may be the fault of XBench as it may need an update, but do you think that since Tiger is going to be optomized for 64-bit processors, that there will be a significant improvement?

Just curious :).

Congrats to all those who got they're new iMac,
JOD8FY

[tinydancer]

I know I posted this in another thread as well, but if it means what I thnk it does it's pretty exciting news.

G5 iMac parts you can install. (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86812)

[/b]

It certainly seems to suggest that the midplane can be replaced and includes the Graphics card that everyone has been so unhappy about. What does it mean?

If upgrades are to be an option for these iMacs in the future, why would Apple marketing keep that bit of info from us now? It seems to me that that is a selling point and therefore would be a fact worth mentioning at the release of the new iMac.

[bb0ys]

Apple will never (nor will a 3rd party) offer a replaceable board that contains the CPU, Video Card, etc. It's replaceable incase it breaks, but its just not profitable.

[mrzippy]

Why do i have the gut feeling that the iMac LCDs are not even close to the new Apple Cinema displays? I'm thinking they are probably either the old 20" or the same ones as the original G4 iMac line.



millions doesn't inspire much confidence for me -_-


I mentioned this in the orignal thread about the new iMac G5 announcement.

The iMac G5 17" has quoted viewing angles of 120 H / 90 V which I'd say is really poor and the same as the iMac G4

My partner has an iMac G4 17" and the poor viewing angle is noticeable towards the bottom of the screen where colours looks lighter and text is hard to read at smaller sizes.

My 2 year old Sharp 15" TFT has 170 x 170 viewing angles, and is excellent quality, yet the new iMac G5 is 120 x 90 ummm.....

I note that the old iMac G4 20" was 170 x 170 I think, at looking and it in shops, it looked much better quality.

[punkmac]

Has anyone dropped a GeForce 6800 in a 1.6 Powermac?

At the Apple refurb price of 1299 plus the card at 599 an awsome system can be had for 1900.

You can upgrade the powermac and keep the card(since it will be top of the line for some time)

I would love to see some numbers for this system.

I.

[stuepfnick]

Well, the 64MB 5200 is about a $25 card. Typically you see 128MB for this card. Also, its at the low end.

I was thinking that too, but you are wrong. The GeForce FX5200 is really a 50 $ card, but in the iMac there is a Geforce FX5200 Ultra, which is much higher clocked (325 Mhz RAM, instead of 200 Mhz, etc.) and is priced between 110 and 150 € here, so it could do better than expected. But right, all of those are sold with 128 MB RAM, even the cheap FX5200 models. The thing with the 64MB is really strange...

While its unrealistic to expect a $400 video card in an iMac, it is not unrealistic to expect a $75-100 card in an iMac.

Yes there is an even 120 $ card in it now! -20$ for only 64 MB ;-), so a 100 $ card. But I would LOVE to have the Radeon 9600XT finally. I hope there will be midplane upgrades or something like that... (I ordered the 17" with 1.8 Ghz and SD)

[stuepfnick]

Thanks guys.

This would put it on par with at least the powermac 1.8 (great!) Just cram it with RAM!

Wonderful, Now I have even more conflict. Powermac vs. iMac.

Exactly the same thing when buying my iMac G4!

AAARRRGHHH!
I.

Same here!! And the last time I took the iMac, because of the display. And I don't regret it now. I have the 17" iMac G4 with 800 Mhz G4 512MB RAM and GeForce4MX with 32 MB.
When I think of the past, the Dual 867 G4 instead would be outdated for games and single processor apps as well and I would upgrade again to a G5. And the iMac is much cheaper plus a fine widescreen TFT.

So I will take the iMac again, although the weak graphics card... I hope for a way to replace the chip or midplane in the future.

I ordered the 17" 1.8 Ghz with SD. Although the display has only 120/90 viewing angle it is very fine, and I like it much better than any CRT.

[Mtn Tamale]

I think you are mistaken as I look at my automatic setting on my 2.5 G5 and OS X 10.3.5



Nope. There is no "Automatic" setting for Energy Saver on desktop machines--what would it be used for? No battery, thus, no energy conservation system. You control system sleep and display sleep, that's it.

So this score is a little odd.

[stuepfnick]

i was going to have my sister upgrade her 17" 1.25ghz G4 iMac, but if this is the case, forget about it.

Crap. The iMac G4 is 1.5 to 2.5 times faster than the last iMac G4, depending on what you do. Especially 3D rendering and games are 2.5 times faster, although the same graphics card as in iMac G4. I am upgrading from a 800 Mhz iMac G4, and it will be great!
These XBench values are strange. I think it's because of the 256 RAM or some weird unexplainable stuff.

I ordered an iMac 17" 1.8 Ghz G5 with SD

[punkmac]

Same here!! And the last time I took the iMac, because of the display. And I don't regret it now. I have the 17" iMac G4 with 800 Mhz G4 512MB RAM and GeForce4MX with 32 MB.
When I think of the past, the Dual 867 G4 instead would be outdated for games and single processor apps as well and I would upgrade again to a G5. And the iMac is much cheaper plus a fine widescreen TFT.

So I will take the iMac again, although the weak graphics card... I hope for a way to replace the chip or midplane in the future.

I ordered the 17" 1.8 Ghz with SD. Although the display has only 120/90 viewing angle it is very fine, and I like it much better than any CRT.

Yeah it was really hard. I think the lineup was the dual 867, 1 gig, and the 1.25.

After many hours of benchmark reading the dual G4s really didn't blow the single away.

Then the iMac was upgraded to 1 gig plus the 64 MB video card, I was lured in by that pretty monitor!

And here I am again at the crossroads.


I.

[Santaduck]

For comparisons on Cinebench, you can check the XLR8yourmac.com benchmark database (http://forums.xlr8yourmac.com/fpsdb/fpsdb.lasso); remember not to select a resolution for this benchmark.

I didn't see any G5 entries however.

Two older G4 entries:

G4 1066 Apple G4 Dual CPU Nvidia GeForce3 1600x1200 OS 9.2 512MB software:5.53 opengl:7.08 rendering:13.21

and

G4 1250 Apple G4 Dual CPU DDR ATI Radeon 9000 Pro AGP 1280x1024 OS 9.2 1024MB software:10.54 opengl:13.19 rendering:26.97

[Converted2Truth]

I was thinking that too, but you are wrong. The GeForce FX5200 is really a 50 $ card, but in the iMac there is a Geforce FX5200 Ultra, which is much higher clocked (325 Mhz RAM, instead of 200 Mhz, etc.) and is priced between 110 and 150 € here, so it could do better than expected. But right, all of those are sold with 128 MB RAM, even the cheap FX5200 models. The thing with the 64MB is really strange...

Yes there is an even 120 $ card in it now! -20$ for only 64 MB ;-), so a 100 $ card. But I would LOVE to have the Radeon 9600XT finally. I hope there will be midplane upgrades or something like that... (I ordered the 17" with 1.8 Ghz and SD)
You don't have any idea what you are talking about. RETAIL for a 128mb 5200 Ultra at the nearest overpriced store in my vacant town of Wyoming, I can pick up this card for 50 bucks. Apple gets it easy for half that price. Then, since they design the implementation, they actually ONLY buy the GPU, which i bet is 5 bucks or less. But then you tack on the cost of their cheapest vram that can preform at the required clock, and the manufacturing cost...your up to $15 USD max. This card is ****, and you'll find out once you have one. Secondly, the ATI 9600pro chipset (which runs just as cool -so no heat problems there) is only $10 bucks more.

All of you consumers are falling into the trap of forking out a ton of money for a crappy investment. Sure, it'll look cool for 3-4 years, but don't plan on running anything more than iLife, MS Office 2004 and Snood for the next half-a-decade. Hey, if Snood is your type of game DIG IN! **** i could care less if you blow your money on the most pathetic VPU ever created. It shouldn't even be called a 'graphics excelerator'.

Now that i've expressed my dissapointed state, i'd also like to say that other than the GPU, i believe this to be a well priced and zippy consumer level mac. I just can't get over the fact that this can't even run Halo. You already can't play games that have already been released!.... I don't care what all you mid-aged email checkers think, your kids will want to play games. They'll go to the store, and pick up Sims2, and your computer will be chocking on the splash screens for the first 10 minutes. People just don't understand how bad this VPU is. To each his own. Some of us need a living room center piece to impress company... that's all i see the imac G5 as being... because of this shhittty card. Good luck running the next version of Snood!

[Sped]

Results 134.71
System Info
Processor PowerPC G5 @ 1.80 GHz
CPU Test 136.48
Thread Test 84.47
Memory Test 210.75
Quartz Graphics Test 188.34
OpenGL Graphics Test 187.25
User Interface Test 209.37
Disk Test 79.19


Here is XBench for my 1.5gHz 15" Powerbook with 1GB DDR.
Results 131.54
System Info
Processor PowerPC G4 @ 1.50 GHz
CPU Test 179.92
Thread Test 134.09
Memory Test 127.14
Quartz Graphics Test 179.38
OpenGL Graphics Test 115.35
User Interface Test 228.72
Disk Test 72.89

It's interesting to me that the new iMac crushed my PB in the OpenGL test. I wonder whether this is CPU, GPU, or memory size causing this?

[Datazoid]

Regarding the Xbench benchmarks, I think that we should wait until the next version of Xbench is released before coming to any conclusions. I know that when I got my 1st gen iMac G4, Xbench gave me an Altivec score of 4! There were several posts at that time where people thought that their Altivec was "broken" due to Xbench's faulty benchmarks. When the G5 was first released, that too caused "problems" with Xbench. I am sure a new version will be released that is "adapted" for the iMac G5.

[Sped]

I am waiting for a rev B iMac, and I'll tell you why. I am not that thrilled with the 5200 GPU, but more importantly I don't need to replace my old iMac yet. I think the new iMac offers good value. For those that want a new mac and don't need dual processing power macs, go buy this baby.

[MacinDoc]

When my 20" BTO finally ships, I'll post benchmark results for my iMac with its 512 MB of Apple-installed RAM, as well as with 1 GB, 1.5 GB and 2 GB. BTW, my beige desktop with a G4 running @ 583 MHz with 768 MB RAM and a Radeon Mac card scored 60 on rendering.

[paulypants]

This is what I got...

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
Processor : G5
MHz : 2.0 GHZ
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.3.5

Graphics Card : ATI 9600XT
Resolution : 1680x1050
Color Depth : millions

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 219 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 380 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.73

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 266 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 689 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1477 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.56

****************************************************

[benfid]

The new iMac G5's do have the Processor performance options

[QFace]

check out:
www.nytimes.com
for a review of the iMac G5

[Doctor Q]

check out:
www.nytimes.com
for a review of the iMac G5Specifically (while it lasts): http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/technology/circuits/16stat.html?8dpc

My favorite sentence:Apple's chief, Steve Jobs, has gone on record as loathing the noise made by computer fans (the spinning kind, not the human kind that show up at Macworld Expos).

[Minus Blindfold]

It's nice to finally see some sort of benchmark but really they don't mean much right now but I would like to see some program benchmarks (like photoshop) after some people work them in.

Right now I'm thinking between an iMac or a PowerMac G5. I'm mostly going to be working with Photoshop, Fireworks, and Dreamweaver for school. I'm leaning towards the iMac partly because I don't have the money for a PMG5 and it would be overkill. Right now I have a PC and a PowerBook G4 (not the latest one, I don't know the model number but I got it last year around last summer) so I'm not starving for a computer and I'm going to have to wait anyways.

[sjl]

All of you consumers are falling into the trap of forking out a ton of money for a crappy investment. Sure, it'll look cool for 3-4 years, but don't plan on running anything more than iLife, MS Office 2004 and Snood for the next half-a-decade. Hey, if Snood is your type of game DIG IN! **** i could care less if you blow your money on the most pathetic VPU ever created. It shouldn't even be called a 'graphics excelerator'.

Now that i've expressed my dissapointed state, i'd also like to say that other than the GPU, i believe this to be a well priced and zippy consumer level mac. I just can't get over the fact that this can't even run Halo. You already can't play games that have already been released!.... I don't care what all you mid-aged email checkers think, your kids will want to play games. They'll go to the store, and pick up Sims2, and your computer will be chocking on the splash screens for the first 10 minutes. People just don't understand how bad this VPU is. To each his own. Some of us need a living room center piece to impress company... that's all i see the imac G5 as being... because of this shhittty card. Good luck running the next version of Snood!

Oh my God. So you're saying that I ordered a 20" iMac by mistake, without realising that the graphics chip contained therein wasn't up to snuff for running the games I want to run? :eek: Oh my god! I'd better get on to my supplier and cancel the order straight away! Thanks so much for pointing out my mistake to me! :rolleyes:

Newsflash for you. Not everybody buys computers to play games. Not everybody who buys computers has children. If I want to play games, I have a Gamecube which does perfectly fine, thank you very much. In any case, the games that I happen to enjoy don't particularly benefit from a 3D graphics accelerator; I'm talking about games like Starcraft, Diablo, Railroad Tycoon, Pikmin, FIFA 2004, Eternal Darkness, that sort of thing. Not first person shooters, as a general rule. Yes, ok, most games these days take advantage of a 3D accelerator, because it's assumed hardware, but apart from FPS, how much benefit is to be had by buying a faster accelerator? Not much (if any). I pretty much guarantee: 99% of non-FPS games will run just fine with the built-in GPU on the iMac.

No, I'm very happy with my purchase. It will do exactly what I want it to do, and very capably thank you very much. The CPU grunt will be adequate, as will the RAM (once I've upgraded it from stock levels), and I don't need a massive hard drive. I don't even particularly care if the LCD is of the same or lesser quality as the ACD 20", as long as it is clear enough -- I'm not looking for a screen capable of doing photographic quality work. If I were, I'd be buying a PowerMac and hooking it up to a high quality CRT. Hell, I don't even care if the pixel refresh is sub or super 20 ms, as long as it's not of the order of 50 ms. And this computer isn't really an "investment" in the traditional sense of the word. It's a tool. It does what it has to, and it does it well. That's all that matters to me, provided it's priced reasonably (and the iMac definitely is.)

Look at the capabilities of the GPU here. It's streets ahead of what most non-gaming people need. If you need more GPU than that, you're either a gamer (in which case, you're probably better off with a PC anyway, to be brutally honest), or somebody who does serious design work (in which case, you're better off with a PowerMac). Get a bit of perspective here, get a grip, and quit bitching about problems that, when you get right down to it, aren't all that serious in the end anyway. Anything you can buy is obsolete anyway -- it's a simple fact of life.

[Kelvin]

Yes there is an even 120 $ card in it now! -20$ for only 64 MB ;-), so a 100 $ card. But I would LOVE to have the Radeon 9600XT finally. I hope there will be midplane upgrades or something like that... (I ordered the 17" with 1.8 Ghz and SD) With Apple only having 2 GPU vendors in their fold, they have to split the line evenly in their product lineup... so, as a result the GPU in the iMac will be an nVidia, not an ATi.

The powermac goes (good) nVidia, (better) nVidia, (best) ATi
The powerbook goes nVidia, ATi, ATi
The iBook goes ATi, ATi, ATi
The eMac goes ATi
The iMac then goes... nVidia.

So, even with the iMac going nVidia, it's still a little ATi heavy (especially at the upper end; though not if you don't count the eMac). Ah... politics.

[gekko513]

XBench is very unreliable in my experience, so I wouldn't read much into it before we get more samples to compare.

[eric67]

XBench is very unreliable in my experience, so I wouldn't read much into it before we get more samples to compare.
c
guys stop looking at xbench values except for the HD test end RAM test, for the rest, only cinebench gives a real and reliable idea of the iMacG5 performance, so it seems almsot as fast as a PMG5 1.8Ghz SP...not bad at all!! I will even say rather really good.

[rdowns]

If upgrades are to be an option for these iMacs in the future, why would Apple marketing keep that bit of info from us now? It seems to me that that is a selling point and therefore would be a fact worth mentioning at the release of the new iMac.

Because you sell what you have today and not some future product. If Apple announced that they would be producing upgrades for it, many would delay purchasing for a faster processor, better video card etc.

Apple used to offer logic board upgrades for many of its models back in the early to mid 90s. They were very expensive and not very popular. Of course costs are lower today and if user installable????

I don't think Apple will offer upgrades.

[gerrycurl]

I have a dual g4 1.25ghz, i get about 158 using xbench, imacs suck, get a powermac.

[Neuro]

I find it bizarre that people are defending Apple's choice of graphics chip in the G5 iMac. The point is they could have included something much better for a tiny increment in cost, thus including gamers in their product offering.

I'd love to buy an iMac for my lounge, but as I like games as well as my music production tools (which it is fast enough for), the graphics chip is just too slow to justify the purchase.

The G5 towers are too big and expensive for my requirements, so where do I fit into their product offering? I don't, and they will really miss out. I could buy a 'nice' fast lifestyle pc with gamers card, but I really don't want yet another pc in my house.

The iMac specs are ok at present, apart from the graphics card. They will be depressingly poor in a year's time...

[iMeowbot]

Apple will never (nor will a 3rd party) offer a replaceable board that contains the CPU, Video Card, etc. It's replaceable incase it breaks, but its just not profitable.
Apple offered exactly that type of upgrade the last time they sold systems with easily-replaced boards, in the LC series.

[iMeowbot]

Apple used to offer logic board upgrades for many of its models back in the early to mid 90s. They were very expensive and not very popular. Of course costs are lower today and if user installable????
None of those upgrades from any vendor sold well. They were, however, easy to offer if a newer model used the same chassis, and it allowed manufacturers to eliminate "you can't upgrade it" as a reason not to buy. It's strange that people would buy stuff based on features they will never use, but people are funny like that.

[jouster]

All of you consumers are falling into the trap of forking out a ton of money for a crappy investment.

Do you know what an investment is?

It is something you buy with the intention of subsequently selling and making a profit.

All computers are crappy investments.

The powermac goes (good) nVidia, (better) nVidia, (best) ATi

The top of the line GPU for the PowerMac is the nVidia GeForce 6800.

[JasonL]

I find it bizarre that people are defending Apple's choice of graphics chip in the G5 iMac. The point is they could have included something much better for a tiny increment in cost, thus including gamers in their product offering.

I'd love to buy an iMac for my lounge, but as I like games as well as my music production tools (which it is fast enough for), the graphics chip is just too slow to justify the purchase.

The G5 towers are too big and expensive for my requirements, so where do I fit into their product offering? I don't, and they will really miss out. I could buy a 'nice' fast lifestyle pc with gamers card, but I really don't want yet another pc in my house.

The iMac specs are ok at present, apart from the graphics card. They will be depressingly poor in a year's time...

I wholeheartedly agree. Some people are fanatical in their defense of Apple, for reasons that make little or no sense to me. Some of their arguments, like how the PM starts with the 5200 so that iMac shouldn't have a better card, make some sense (although the PM having a 5200 is an absolute joke); and other comments are just ridiculous.

The fact is that it is pretty clear to many of us that there is a large demand for a higher end GPU in the iMac. I am personally waiting for the next revision of the iMac in hopes that it will come with (or have at least as an option) a better GPU. If it doesn't then I'll have to get a PM I guess, despite the fact that I'd really like the iMac to help cut down on my workspace clutter.

[jouster]

I wholeheartedly agree. Some people are fanatical in their defense of Apple...

Some people just don't care about the GPU. Of course, not many of them are the type that will post here. But a lot of them are the type that will buy this machine.

[Neuro]

Some people just don't care about the GPU. Of course, not many of them are the type that will post here. But a lot of them are the type that will buy this machine.

If they don't care about the GPU, then they won't mind if it's better! Gamers would be happy and Apple would sell lots more iMacs.

Let's not forget that in Tiger, numerous processing tasks will be moved from the CPU to the GPU to speed things up. That's a reason for everyone to want a better chip...

[G4-power]

Definitely agree with the posts regarding more RAM. I think that Apple really should have made it 512 standard on at least the top two models. At any rate it is good to have some ammo for when I go to the wife to say I need more memory. :D

I agree with you on that. Most G5 (PM or iMac) probably will increase the memory, so why don't Apple do it already? The 1.8 GHz iMac's could get 512 MB as well as the low-end PM and the Dual 2 and 2.5 GHz PowerMacs should get a gigabyte.

[IBSNOWEDIN]

Sorry for the long thing don't know how to put it in a frame.

Results 91.88
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7M34)
Physical RAM 768 MB
Model PowerMac3,4
Processor PowerPC G4 @ 734 MHz
Version 7450 (V'ger) v2.0
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 256K @ 367 MHz
L3 Cache 1024K @ 184 MHz
Bus Frequency 134 MHz
Video Card GeForce2 MX
Drive Type Maxtor 5T060H6
CPU Test 87.51
GCD Loop 86.84 3.39 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 84.55 305.78 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 89.82 2.61 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 87.64 1.36 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 88.89 3.56 Mops/sec
Thread Test 64.25
Computation 46.57 628.68 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 103.60 1.30 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 105.88
System 117.53
Allocate 468.80 305.80 Kalloc/sec
Fill 129.96 1034.50 MB/sec
Copy 63.70 318.51 MB/sec
Stream 96.34
Copy 95.66 699.27 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 96.62 713.07 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 96.40 616.96 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 96.68 590.74 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 102.75
Line 83.06 2.11 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 88.16 6.20 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 100.41 2.31 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 99.49 1.08 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 189.82 3.09 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 82.43
Spinning Squares 82.43 57.68 frames/sec
User Interface Test 150.28
Elements 150.28 48.34 refresh/sec
Disk Test 89.04
Sequential 93.83
Uncached Write 87.80 36.60 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 86.30 35.34 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 127.75 20.22 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 84.58 34.17 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 84.70
Uncached Write 74.05 1.11 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 92.48 20.86 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 85.36 0.56 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 89.35 18.39 MB/sec [256K blocks]

[segundo]

Apple will never (nor will a 3rd party) offer a replaceable board that contains the CPU, Video Card, etc. It's replaceable incase it breaks, but its just not profitable.

Everything is profitable at a certain price. I'm not saying you are not correct that Apple will not offer an upgrade to the iMac 'mainboard' but I certainly wouldn't rule out upgrades being available from 3rd parties.

That said, I'm pleased with the early benchmark reports we are getting in for the new iMac's. I wish the gpu was a bit faster but yeesh, that horse is dead so let's quit flogging it.

[stockscalper]

Not impressive at all. The 1.8 GHZ G5 imac posts a benchmark of 1.34, while the old 17" 1.25 G4 posts a 1.21. That's not that big an improvement.

[stuepfnick]

Hello!

Cinebench results of a friend:

Rendering 1 CPU: 189

C4D shading: 203
OpenGL SW-L: 923 CB-GFX
OpenGL HW-L: 1376 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.78

It is a 3 year old Pentium 4 1.8 Ghz, 512 MB RAM with a GeForce3 Titanium with 64MB

I really wonder why the iMac is so weak in OpenGL?? The FX5200Ultra should be about 10-20 % faster than a GeForce3 Ti500 and is in certain performance tests. So what? Why is this? Because of RAM?

[JasonL]

What's up with the XBench score of 134? My 15" 1.5GHz Powerbook gets 150. Shouldn't a 1.8G5 w/ full size SATA hard drives do significantly better? (True, I bet this is with the stock 256 RAM).

My PB gets closer to 118. Of course it's a 1.25GHz example; but I do have 1GB of RAM.

Just did Cinebench testing, too, with a CPU render of 229.9. I'd really like to see the iMacs tested with more memory.

An iMac with comparable memory should smoke our machines. Of course, one can get a better GPU in a PB...

[rosalindavenue]

I find it bizarre that people are defending Apple's choice of graphics chip in the G5 iMac. The point is they could have included something much better for a tiny increment in cost, thus including gamers in their product offering.


I really think that the graphics card that was chosen for the G5 iMac is all about heat. Graphics cards are hot, so are G5s. It was more important to get the G5 in the iMac than it was to get a newer, hotter graphics card. The card is not terrible (I have the mobile version of the same card in my 9 month old Toshiba laptop), but it is by no means cutting edge either.

[H. Georgan]

Here's another guy who got 156 on his xbench test of the new iMac. That's the second time I've seen that score, and it makes sense to me.

http://www.learningloop.org/imacg5/imacg5.html

[Chip NoVaMac]

Here's another guy who got 156 on his xbench test of the new iMac. That's the second time I've seen that score, and it makes sense to me.

http://www.learningloop.org/imacg5/imacg5.html

Still based on 256mb memory. My PB 12" rev. B with 1.2gb memory scored 97 on XBench. I seem to remember a score of 88 when it had just 256mb memory.

[stuepfnick]

My PB gets closer to 118. Of course it's a 1.25GHz example; but I do have 1GB of RAM.

Just did Cinebench testing, too, with a CPU render of 229.9. I'd really like to see the iMacs tested with more memory.

229.9 can't be true, that's what the Dual 1.25 G4 gets in Cinebench, the 1.25 Ghz single should be around 100 CB points.

BTW: 100 Cinebench points are equal to 1 Ghz of a Pentium 4 system. So the new iMac performs like a 2.54 Ghz Pentium 4 system.

I wonder why OpenGL values are so extremely weak, even software, any ideas?? (see my previous post for more details)

PS: This is for floating point operations only!! (mainly 3D) in other things the G4 is A LOT faster than a equally clocked Pentium 4.

[AmigoMac]

My 1GHz iBook G4, 768 RAM, 60 GB, got 100.7 yesterday after the iMac G5 benchmarks were published... we need results with 512 MB and 1 GB in RAM ... that should give us a better idea for those who want to click "Buy now" soon ;)

[dudeami]

Plan and simple xBench CAN NOT be used as a benchmarking tool. It is an extremely outdated program that in my honest opinion can not accomplish what it is intended for, Benchmarking. It is a toy, not a reliable tool. It clearly does not benchmark G5's correctly. If you further compare the results of the G4 towers, like the DP 1.42 GHz and the G5 Towers you will see very unexpected results in the CPU test. The program clearly does not accuratly benchmark the difference in CPU performance between G5's and G4's and actually favors the G4 processors on the CPU tests. It has been admitted by the programmer in the discission forum that xBench will not test Dual Processor performance, so it can not be used to benchmark performance differences between single and dual processor systems. You will also see in the results comparison site, that it also does nopt benchmark graphics card performance correctly. This opinion is re-iterated on several other sites that commonly post performance results. You will actually see higher scores using a Gforce 4MX than you will with an ATI 9800 Pro in the same persons machine. No other benchmerking tool would give you those results. I've also read people getting lower scores with the ATI 9200 then with an ATI Rage 128. There are many more examples of how poorly xBench actually benchmarks performance on the results comparison site and in the xBench discussion forum, however he usually does not respond to threads regarding the lack of functionality any more. Xbench has not been updated in almost a year, and in my opinion never ran correctly then either. I truely think the programmer has lost interest, however in the thread where he admitted that xBench does not benchmark dual processor performance, he did mention that you could donate money and mark it for upgrading the program. Again xBench CAN NOT be used to benchmark systems as it is. Maybe it would become a useful tool if it ever gets updated. However, I would hold your breath. I really think that xBench is a dead product, and probably will not see an upgrade.

[NicoMan]

If they don't care about the GPU, then they won't mind if it's better! Gamers would be happy and Apple would sell lots more iMacs.

OK but there *might* also be a heat reason for Apple's choice of GPU in the iMac: high-end GPU's need their own fan, huge amount of power, not to mention space: the best GPUs available to the PMac line take 2 card slots!!!

Let's not forget that in Tiger, numerous processing tasks will be moved from the CPU to the GPU to speed things up. That's a reason for everyone to want a better chip...

Agreed but my bet is that's still very small work for *even* a GeForce 5200 Ultra.

My $0.02.

[The Man]

I wholeheartedly agree. Some people are fanatical in their defense of Apple, for reasons that make little or no sense to me. Some of their arguments, like how the PM starts with the 5200 so that iMac shouldn't have a better card, make some sense (although the PM having a 5200 is an absolute joke); and other comments are just ridiculous.

The fact is that it is pretty clear to many of us that there is a large demand for a higher end GPU in the iMac. I am personally waiting for the next revision of the iMac in hopes that it will come with (or have at least as an option) a better GPU. If it doesn't then I'll have to get a PM I guess, despite the fact that I'd really like the iMac to help cut down on my workspace clutter.

I agree that the video card is crappy, but have you thought about this. Apple cannot get enough G5 chips right now. So they could place a high end GPU in the iMac, but then everyone would rush to get an iMac. This means that they will have to disappoint many more people as they cannot deliver and the iMac will be heavily on back order, even more than the iPod mini. This means lots of negative publicity! The iPod can take it a little, but not the iMac. Instead, Apple choose to put a low end GPU in there that will get the iMac just through in the eyes of many people, but not for the most demanding. So Apple can balance demand by putting in a crappy GPU. Apple would love to ships many hundreds of thousands more iMacs, but they simply can't right now.

I strongly believe that the crappy GPU is a result of too little G5 CPUs being produced. This is Apple's way of lowering demand to the chagrin of many potential buyers.

[Gee4orce]

Sometimes I think that even if Macs came with a $1500 mail-in rebate, somebody would find reason to complain !

[Codemonkey]

[snip]Again xBench CAN NOT be used to benchmark systems as it is. Maybe it would become a useful tool if it ever gets updated. However, I would hold your breath. I really think that xBench is a dead product, and probably will not see an upgrade.

so what do you suggest then? Poo-pooing a tool is one thing, but if it's the only reasonably tool available??

[Xtremehkr]

If upgrades are to be an option for these iMacs in the future, why would Apple marketing keep that bit of info from us now? It seems to me that that is a selling point and therefore would be a fact worth mentioning at the release of the new iMac.

Apple doesn't really let anyone know what they are doing. I don't think I was predicting what they are going to do anywhere in the thread. If Apple were going to offer upgrades then like anything Apple develops, they will wait until somewhere near the product being ready before announcing anything.

But when it lists the Mid-plane assembly (contains the main logic board, the G5 processor, fans, NVIDIA graphics processor, and so forth). as being replacable, there the possibility that this is an upgradeable machine.

Either that or they think that this machine is going to be used for a long time. Because even if that were an option with my current iMac, it does me no good after three years to be able to replace my old logic board with the same logic board. Or, they think that the new iMac is going to need a lot of repairs, which isn't the company I know.

Apple could let a third party well the replacement parts, but I would rather buy logic boards and G5 processors from Apple. The design of the iMac is neutral enough to sit around for many years to come and a 20" monitor is plenty after three years with a 14.1" CRT.

We'll have to see what happens.

[eric67]

so what do you suggest then? Poo-pooing a tool is one thing, but if it's the only reasonably tool available??
cinebench is the reasonable tool :rolleyes:

[Edge100]

As the percentage (perceived) value of the LCD monitor with respect to the rest of the system gets higher, this may be the first case where Apple may provide official "midplane" upgrades to Mac owners some time in the near future - how about next fall?

A cool choice would be a midplane upgrade board that has a 0.65u PPC975GX with dual 2.5GHz cores and NVidia 6600SE chip?

I had the same thought. It would be a neat solution to the "headless" iMac debate. Although it would not allow you to take the screen to another system, it would allow you to bring a new system to the screen (in a manner of speaking).

I think this would be an excellent idea for Apple, as long as the logic board/GPU assembly is easy to remove (which it appears it is!)

Mike

[AmigoMac]

cinebench is the reasonable tool :rolleyes:

From the Cinebench.com site: NOTE: CINEBENCH 2003 is currently not optimized for the Apple Macintosh G5. Please watch this site for more news about an updated version.

:rolleyes:

[andyblac]

could some of you do apply photoshop filters to one of the samples that come with photoshop, and of course download and install the G5 plugin. then we can compare the results to the G4 iMac.

[mkaake]

From the Cinebench.com site: NOTE: CINEBENCH 2003 is currently not optimized for the Apple Macintosh G5. Please watch this site for more news about an updated version.

:rolleyes:

ahh yes, but it still will let you compare a mac to another mac (g5).

and as for how my mac is against pc's, i don't much care

1. if it's slower in an app that hasn't been optimized, than how is my machine being faster going to make any difference? (like people complaining about Word benchmarks, because the mac version isn't as fast as the windows version or not as optimised - well, guess what? in real life, it doesn't matter if your machine is 82737% faster, if the software you need to run works like crap, it doesn't do you much good, does it?)
2. if my machine does what I need it to do without getting in my way, than it's fast enough for me, and I don't care how fast the computer is sitting next to me.

maybe i'm just not being rational enough though.

[kcmac]

I had the same thought. It would be a neat solution to the "headless" iMac debate. Although it would not allow you to take the screen to another system, it would allow you to bring a new system to the screen (in a manner of speaking).

I think this would be an excellent idea for Apple, as long as the logic board/GPU assembly is easy to remove (which it appears it is!)

Mike

A very cool thought. And very environmentally sound if so. Instead of throwing away the computer, just ditch a few guts. This may be more of a factor for institutions. I think most home users would want the new form factor as well

[huzzah]

This is so silly !! Video card selection and video performance are NOT the ONLY reasons to buy a new iMac G5. If you are dissatisfied with the 5200 video card, then buy a PM G5 and pick your own video card or buy a Compaq, Sony, or HP "all in one". There is some real innovative design, engineering, and manufacturing (what a joke) !! I guess most of the complainers are gamers only.

Put yourself in Apple's position where performance and price are BOTH factors in the roll out of this machine.

The iMac was ever meant to be (and never will be) the highest performance machine in Apple's line, like many of you seem to think it should. But for $1299 and $1499, it can't be beat in price/performance, unless you desire to run Windows/XP on a poorly designed box. You can do that for less $$, if you wish.

You have to see this machine and use it, to appreciate it. It is, qualitatively, much quicker and much better than the benchmark I posted yesterday. Way faster than the iMac G4's, Powerbook G4's, and all Powermac G4's running our realworld applications and almost equivalent to the 1.8 GHZ G5's with 20" flat panel screens we paid $3400 + for.

Business user:

6 Xserve G5's
3 Xserve G4's
2 2 x 2.5 GHZ G5 DP
8 2 X 2.0 GHZ G5 DP
8 1 X 1.8 GHZ G5 SP
33 iMac G4's
12 eMac G4's
49 Powermac G4's
16 Powerbook G4's
4 iBook G4's
20 Assorted PC's

[Jovian9]

Sometimes I think that even if Macs came with a $1500 mail-in rebate, somebody would find reason to complain !

Agreed. Too many complain that they aren't as good as the PowerMacs....or they aren't as cheap as the eMacs, or they will not game as well as PC's. They are what they are.......an all-in-one, easy to set up, beautifully designed, attention grabbing machines. Take it or leave it.

My wife does lots of web design work, it's pretty much what she got her Masters degree in (uses Photoshop, the Macromedia Suite, etc.) and I do lots of video editing and music recording (FCP, GarageBand, iDVD, iMovie, DVDSP, etc.) and we play games (The Sims, Civ 3, Sim City 4, Warcraft 3, plenty of vintage roms, etc.) and we watch DVD's, listen to music (30+GB's), store around 10,000 photos, web browse, use m$, and so on so forth
......the point of this is that we mostly have done this on a G4 17" 1GHz iMac with 768MB RAM.....the model that is over 1 1/2 yrs old. Most people do not do this much on a machine, and if they do they are probably buying PowerMacs. We just sold the G4 iMac and ordered a 1.8GHz 17" iMac. I am not worried at all by Xbench marks and the graphics card. Sure I'd prefer a better card, but since a 19 month old G4 iMac could do everything I wanted it to I'm pretty sure the brand new G5 iMac will too.
Apple is one company that makes their own computers and software. They can't possibly offer every varying selection that people want. They have to make money. So if the iMac is not good enough for you, they want you to buy a PowerMac, so save and buy a one (or look in the 'Special Deals' section where they usually have great deals on their computers and iPods). If both are too expensive they offer a great priced eMac. Do not expect an all-in-one computer to save the universe.

[odo]

From the Cinebench.com site: NOTE: CINEBENCH 2003 is currently not optimized for the Apple Macintosh G5. Please watch this site for more news about an updated version.

:rolleyes:

No it is indeed G5-optimized. Look a little further below. It is the G5 optimized beta of Cinebench!

[kcmac]

Nice post and well said Jovian. This new iMac is a joy to use. I have noticed that some of the complaining has quieted once they started shipping. Some of the doubters are maybe having second thoughts?... ;)

[benpatient]

um....my dual 1.8 G5 gets 215 on XBench, and I have the 5200 in there.

I consider that a pretty low score.

[H. Georgan]

um....my dual 1.8 G5 gets 215 on XBench, and I have the 5200 in there.

I consider that a pretty low score.

My iBook gets 40 on xbench. I also consider that a pretty low score. :)

[myapplseedshurt]

I think that verifies that the system must have been set to Automatic instead of Highest. It is impossible for a G5 1.8ghz to preform worse than 1.25ghz G4.

I had a previous post which mentioned that since the desgin limits the top end of the temperature range, powertune or napping is used to slow the proc down. Hence, if they have to scale to half freq, the proc will run at 900 MHz, and the bus at /2!!!!

don't you people get that?

[BigEvan23]

After some trials and tribulations with replacing a 20 incher I posted a pretty good score on xbench.
1.8ghz
1 gig ram
160gig hd
20 inch
chiggity check it out


Results 161.84
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7P35)
Physical RAM 1024 MB
Model PowerMac8,1
Processor PowerPC G5 @ 1.80 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.15 GHz
Bus Frequency 600 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST3160023AS
CPU Test 171.89
GCD Loop 102.94 4.02 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 284.63 1.03 Gflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 122.97 3.57 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 201.80 3.13 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 360.74 14.44 Mops/sec
Thread Test 104.88
Computation 69.18 933.98 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 216.66 2.72 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 274.92
System 304.80
Allocate 678.55 442.62 Kalloc/sec
Fill 280.34 2231.49 MB/sec
Copy 208.26 1041.32 MB/sec
Stream 250.37
Copy 220.94 1615.10 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 224.60 1657.52 MB/sec [G5]
Add 278.30 1781.15 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 293.71 1794.59 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 210.99
Line 198.57 5.05 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 187.46 13.19 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 208.43 4.80 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 193.53 2.10 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 297.44 4.85 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 200.67
Spinning Squares 200.67 140.42 frames/sec
User Interface Test 258.19
Elements 258.19 83.05 refresh/sec
Disk Test 93.76
Sequential 86.24
Uncached Write 84.70 35.31 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 65.95 27.01 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 84.84 13.43 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 131.17 53.00 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 102.70
Uncached Write 99.81 1.50 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 101.08 22.80 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 95.15 0.63 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 117.30 24.14 MB/sec [256K blocks]

[AmigoMac]

No it is indeed G5-optimized. Look a little further below. It is the G5 optimized beta of Cinebench!

Ok, you caught me, I read that but really wanted to set the fire up :p ... but a beta is a beta ;)

[weezer160]

To all the whiners of the performance, CPU or GPU or otherwise, you have two easy choices:

1) don't buy it
2) wait for rev b

and three, which is mandatory, if you're gonna bash it, make sure you state that you're wanting something high end in the first place and that you won't be buying it. and most importantly, you have to state not everbody else has ths same needs as you.
kinda makes you feel stupid for bashing it, doesn't it, once you admit this to everybody else.

[dubbz]

OK but there *might* also be a heat reason for Apple's choice of GPU in the iMac: high-end GPU's need their own fan, huge amount of power, not to mention space: the best GPUs available to the PMac line take 2 card slots!!!

What? I don't think anyone's suggested that Apple should put a GF6 6800 into the iMac.. just something less awful than the 5200.

[bryantm3]

millions doesn't inspire much confidence for me -_-
all i need is at least 32 bit colour (dont know what that is on macintosh, i'm using a winblows machine..... :(

[weezer160]

all i need is at least 32 bit colour (dont know what that is on macintosh, i'm using a winblows machine..... :(

it is 32-bit color

[Neuro]

To all the whiners of the performance, CPU or GPU or otherwise, you have two easy choices:

1) don't buy it
2) wait for rev b

and three, which is mandatory, if you're gonna bash it, make sure you state that you're wanting something high end in the first place and that you won't be buying it. and most importantly, you have to state not everbody else has ths same needs as you.
kinda makes you feel stupid for bashing it, doesn't it, once you admit this to everybody else.

Um, sorry, I thought this was a discussion about benchmarks and performance... ;)

[stuepfnick]

This is so silly !! Video card selection and video performance are NOT the ONLY reasons to buy a new iMac G5. If you are dissatisfied with the 5200 video card, then buy a PM G5 and pick your own video card or buy a Compaq, Sony, or HP "all in one". There is some real innovative design, engineering, and manufacturing (what a joke) !! I guess most of the complainers are gamers only.

LOL, should this be a joke or what? I really LOVE the new iMac G5, it has such a great design and everything is just perfect, it is even very well priced. The only problem is the graphics card, and IT IS A BIG problem. I for example play a game 1 to 4 times a month.
But I would like to have a better card too, or at least the option to upgrade in the future or BTO.
If only the 20" iMac had a Radeon 9600XT, I would really buy this one. Now I ordered the 17" iMac, although I will be disappointed with the graphics performance.
Think what? I want to run Cinema 4D, as well as Motion. I don't want Dual processor, much memory standard, vaste hard drives or a high end graphics card. Just a simple mid-range graphics board with 128 MB RAM, like it ships with 600 $ PCs.
The Powermac is Overkill for my needs, and it's too expensive for me. I also don't want to sit in front of a crappy CRT all the time. –> I woul be forced to do so with the Powermac, because no money for a long time after purchase.
I just want to invest 60$ more for a Radeon9600XT, which would be absolutely AWESOME!
The thing is: The FX5200Ultra also was in the latest iMac G4 models. There it was placed well and balanced. An iMac G4 couldn't do much with a better graphics card. But the same card in the iMac G5, this is the bottleneck now. This goes for the System: Quartz Extreme, Core Image, Core Video, as well as for Motion, 3D Apps, Games and a lot of other stuff (maybe future versions of Photoshop as well). Maybe you don't understand this, but it's true and it really made me do the purchase with stomache.

It is also horrible to see this extremely weak OpenGL ratings in Cinebench. A 3 year old PC from a friend gets at least twice as good values, and that with a 1.8 Ghz Pentium 4 and a GeForce3Ti500 (the card should be slightly slower than the 5200Ultra) So this is really strange.

Can't someone bring more OpenGL speed tests with enough and best Dual Channel RAM?? I have to think about the purchase and maybe go for the overkill and powerhungry Powermac with an old 17" CRT.

I just don't want to have such a low end card. It is the lowest end for motion and it slows things down really much more, than processor speed. Also in future Mac OS versions, the GPU should take away many tasks from the CPU. I also want to be able to play a game, released in 12 months in an acceptable detail and framerate.
If there would be a seperate board for the GPU, I wouldn't have any problem. So it would be ok for now and next year there can be another low power GPU built into it.

[JasonL]

To all the whiners of the performance, CPU or GPU or otherwise, you have two easy choices:

1) don't buy it
2) wait for rev b

and three, which is mandatory, if you're gonna bash it, make sure you state that you're wanting something high end in the first place and that you won't be buying it. and most importantly, you have to state not everbody else has ths same needs as you.
kinda makes you feel stupid for bashing it, doesn't it, once you admit this to everybody else.

Um, I'm going with #2. I don't know that I was 'bashing' the new iMac. I think that it is a great computer for a very large number of people!

I'm not sure I understand the 'make sure you state that you're wanting something high end in the first place and that you won't be buying it'.

I may very well buy an iMac...when the next revision comes out.

All I'm saying is that for $2k+ (I'd be looking at a G5 1.8 20" model with 1GB RAM) I'd like to have a better GPU in my machine than the 5200. I'm not trying to bash anything. The fact is that I'd like to have the computer for at least a good three years or so. Not that gaming is anywhere near the top of my priorities (that would be digital video and photo editing, developing training material for work,and then your basic internet and word processing); but there are already games that I occassionally play that will not run all that great on an iMac now, nevermind in three years.

Please don't give me that 'buy a PC if you want to play games' stuff. I refuse to buy PCs...period. I play games maybe 2-3 hours a week, but I'd like for them to run fairly well.

I hope that you better understand where I am coming from now. Thanks.

[andyblac]

just seen some photo's of the inside os a 20" iMac on one of the other forums.

the 20" iMac inside cooling looks diferent to the 17" the part on the G5 chip cooling, it goes straight to one of the fans, the 17" does not, so the 20" should run cooler (ie faster, i hope)

[AmigoMac]

If people start bashing the iMac because it can't run Cinema4D & Motion...
and then they claim they need a mid-powerful machine because they don't have enough cash and apple should know that ...

Hello world! This a consumer-machine, the iMac is for those "NORMAL" users ... no Cinema4D/Motion/Shake/Whatever pro app wannabe's ...

Yes, there are already benchmarks but no one has posted real results with at least 1GB RAM, Pro users without enough $$$ wouldn't run Cinema4D with 256 RAM, would they? :rolleyes:

[tex210]

I would have never bought my iMac in the first place.
600 mhz g3
ati rage pro 128
16mb vram
... and you know what? When I bought it (on clearance no less), the sunflower had just been introduced. I knew however, I would be fine for a while with it. Sent my 400dvse to the office(it still does it's job). Guess what, I play games! I do video, do photoshop and golive... got iTunes, surf and mail. In fact, I'm only considering an upgrade now for a dvd burner. If I thought I could burn a dvd on my current machine, I would have just swapped out my cd burner. I think a 5200 ultra would be more than a step up, don't you? Or are all these people implying this vidcard sux that bad? I doubt it. Be realistic. Benchmarks, Doom 3 and Half-life 2 are not the measure of computer performance, the user and it's use are.

[rdowns]

Sometimes I think that even if Macs came with a $1500 mail-in rebate, somebody would find reason to complain !

Damn right. I can"t beleive they didn't include a postage paid envelope with that offer. Can you believe I had to put my own stamp on it?

[myapplseedshurt]

I hope people don't think I'm whining when I complain about the imac's form design possibly limiting the chipset's temp range.

What I have a problem with is the fact that the design was intentionally made to look like an ipod. In order to achieve that, chipset cooling might have been sacrificed.

As I said before, I hope I'm wrong. The hardware monitors for temp could provide an insight to this postulation. However, if I'm correct, then the new imac is nothing more than a reach out to switchers, dropping the hands of the people that are loyal and wanted performance instead of new companions.

[Steve M]

While the new iMacs are very nice, I think it was foolish of Apple to provide such a low-powered graphics card. An ATI Radeon 9600 would have been a far better choice. In fact, if the new iMac came with that GPU, I'd probably be selling my 1.8GHz PowerMac G5 and upgrading to the iMac (mostly for the 20" LCD)

Note that I'm not blindly bashing Apple -- I honestly think the GPU choice was a serious mistake on their part.

[odo]

If people start bashing the iMac because it can't run Cinema4D & Motion...
and then they claim they need a mid-powerful machine because they don't have enough cash and apple should know that ...

Hello world! This a consumer-machine, the iMac is for those "NORMAL" users ... no Cinema4D/Motion/Shake/Whatever pro app wannabe's ...

Yes, there are already benchmarks but no one has posted real results with at least 1GB RAM, Pro users without enough $$$ wouldn't run Cinema4D with 256 RAM, would they? :rolleyes:

You are absolutely right!
And beside that, who would run C4D on a single procesessor...? Not me!

[tex210]

why would you be looking for a new machine at this point? If higher end cards and a larger monitor are what you want, just replace those components. Isn't that why you bought a tower? Honestly, Woz was right. People don't need more advanced hardware to get most work done. At this point in computer development, the focus should remain on the user interface. Let's get this hardware in the hands of the users and see how far down the road it takes us before we start asking for a better ride.


While the new iMacs are very nice, I think it was foolish of Apple to provide such a low-powered graphics card. An ATI Radeon 9600 would have been a far better choice. In fact, if the new iMac came with that GPU, I'd probably be selling my 1.8GHz PowerMac G5 and upgrading to the iMac (mostly for the 20" LCD)

Note that I'm not blindly bashing Apple -- I honestly think the GPU choice was a serious mistake on their part.

[tex210]

the sunflower came with similar arguments. The gpu was limited because of the specialty motherboard and the processor limited by the case design. The design looks to me to be made to look like the original macintoshes, not the ipod. Just white, not beige, and flatter than the old. If you aren't looking for a consumer machine, get a tower, or even a powerbook. Although I can already hear the arguments against the 'books already. So maybe you should stick with your machine until you see one that is worthy of your dollar. I do not believe this machine is just for switchers though, as it far surpasses my current Apple hardware, gpu and all.

I hope people don't think I'm whining when I complain about the imac's form design possibly limiting the chipset's temp range.

What I have a problem with is the fact that the design was intentionally made to look like an ipod. In order to achieve that, chipset cooling might have been sacrificed.

As I said before, I hope I'm wrong. The hardware monitors for temp could provide an insight to this postulation. However, if I'm correct, then the new imac is nothing more than a reach out to switchers, dropping the hands of the people that are loyal and wanted performance instead of new companions.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Here is a link to a Photoshop benchmark test.

http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Cafe/4363/

I am in the midst of many projects, so it may have to wait till the weekend for me to run a true test. Also I am not sure how much a difference PS7 vs PSCS will make on the Mac.

[myapplseedshurt]

the sunflower came with similar arguments. The gpu was limited because of the specialty motherboard and the processor limited by the case design. The design looks to me to be made to look like the original macintoshes, not the ipod. Just white, not beige, and flatter than the old. If you aren't looking for a consumer machine, get a tower, or even a powerbook. Although I can already hear the arguments against the 'books already. So maybe you should stick with your machine until you see one that is worthy of your dollar. I do not believe this machine is just for switchers though, as it far surpasses my current Apple hardware, gpu and all.

Clearly, apple is trying to make the connection to the ipod. How can you go to their website and say this isn't true? They blatently put the imac next to an ipod, same pose even!

[Steve M]

why would you be looking for a new machine at this point? If higher end cards and a larger monitor are what you want, just replace those components. Isn't that why you bought a tower? Honestly, Woz was right. People don't need more advanced hardware to get most work done. At this point in computer development, the focus should remain on the user interface. Let's get this hardware in the hands of the users and see how far down the road it takes us before we start asking for a better ride.

Because I've been contemplating getting an Apple 20" Cinema Display, and the iMac is pretty much functionally equivalent to the G5 tower I currently have and INCLUDES a 20" display (albiet one that's not quite as nice as the Cinema Display). If the iMac had a good enough graphics card, I might have considered selling the PowerMac (should be able to get roughly $1k for it) and getting the iMac for basically $899 -- quite a bit less than even a refurbished Cinema Display.

But the graphics card isn't good enough, so I won't be doing that :)

[stuepfnick]

If people start bashing the iMac because it can't run Cinema4D & Motion...
and then they claim they need a mid-powerful machine because they don't have enough cash and apple should know that ...

Hello world! This a consumer-machine, the iMac is for those "NORMAL" users ... no Cinema4D/Motion/Shake/Whatever pro app wannabe's ...

Yes, there are already benchmarks but no one has posted real results with at least 1GB RAM, Pro users without enough $$$ wouldn't run Cinema4D with 256 RAM, would they? :rolleyes:

It seems to me, you don't get it. It is the same with iMovie, Dashboard, Photoshop, Mac OS X itself, maybe Safari, lot of games, whatever.

BTW: Motion is a prosumer App with it's low price and Final Cut Express runs even fine on an iMac G4, so what?

This graphics card is just outdated, but the rest of the iMac is a very powerful computer.

Just 60$ more for the end user is the BTO option for the Powermac Radeon 9600XT with 128.

Or even more simple: Don't solder the GPU on the mainboard... So later an upgrade board can be made. Already fine would be, if it's only a newer low end gpu next year and maybe later another one too.

[JOD8FY]

From what I saw on the XBench test, it said that the iMac got 131 fps on the OpenGL test. To me, that seems great! I know that you're going to give me some charts that show a card that can get 500 fps, but really, can you tell the difference after a while? Unless you're in the middle of a battle of epic proportions, could you really tell? Also, don't forget that this iMac has only 256MB RAM and that Panther is not optimized for the G5, so Tiger will bring even better scores. :) And then with these possible "consumer upgrades"? This iMac is looking better and better....

Cheers all,
JOD8FY

[skumancer]

This are the results for my machine DP 1.8Ghz G5)

Considering the machine is running as a full time web/filemaker/web/file and ssh server, the results are not bad. The machine has been on for 9 days.

Results 191.79
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7M34)
Physical RAM 1536 MB
Model PowerMac7,2
Processor PowerPC 970x2 @ 1.80 GHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
CPU Test 174.76
Thread Test 178.12
Memory Test 325.01
Quartz Graphics Test 219.07
OpenGL Graphics Test 203.41
User Interface Test 318.60
Disk Test 105.66


CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Ricardo

Processor : PowerMac G5
MHz : 1800
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Mac OS X 10.3.5

Graphics Card : GForce FX 5200
Resolution : <1024x768>
Color Depth : <millions>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 255 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 402 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.58

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 247 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 692 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1079 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.37

****************************************************


I'll perform the tests again as soon as I can restart. Next week I'll perform the tests on an Xserve G5 DP 2.0 that will arrive monday.

[stuepfnick]

Um, I'm going with #2. I don't know that I was 'bashing' the new iMac. I think that it is a great computer for a very large number of people!

I'm not sure I understand the 'make sure you state that you're wanting something high end in the first place and that you won't be buying it'.

I may very well buy an iMac...when the next revision comes out.

All I'm saying is that for $2k+ (I'd be looking at a G5 1.8 20" model with 1GB RAM) I'd like to have a better GPU in my machine than the 5200. I'm not trying to bash anything. The fact is that I'd like to have the computer for at least a good three years or so. Not that gaming is anywhere near the top of my priorities (that would be digital video and photo editing, developing training material for work,and then your basic internet and word processing); but there are already games that I occassionally play that will not run all that great on an iMac now, nevermind in three years.

Please don't give me that 'buy a PC if you want to play games' stuff. I refuse to buy PCs...period. I play games maybe 2-3 hours a week, but I'd like for them to run fairly well.

I hope that you better understand where I am coming from now. Thanks.

Very well said, that's my opinion too. ;)

[stuepfnick]

After some trials and tribulations with replacing a 20 incher I posted a pretty good score on xbench.
1.8ghz
1 gig ram
160gig hd
20 inch
chiggity check it out

Hello!

Please could you do the whole Cinebench Test, with the Cinebench G5 beta? I would like to see all values (especially the OpenGL values) with enough RAM (1GB dual channel) in the new iMac. Would be fine, if anyone of you could do that test! :rolleyes:

[HiRez]

Here's a long list of Cinebench scores, including Mac and x86 models:

http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cbtop.php

It looks like the iMac is right in line with the single 1.8 G5 tower scores, not too shabby considering this test was run with only 256 MB of RAM and the ones in the list were most likely run with a lot more. The OpenGL shading scores, however, are pretty pathetic, which I suppose is not unexpected.

[tex210]

I said no such thing.
"The design looks to me to be made to look like the original macintoshes, not the ipod. Just white, not beige, and flatter than the old."
I should have said...
It reminds ME of the old macintosh... sorry:eek:
Yes Apple is making the iPod connection.
Clearly, apple is trying to make the connection to the ipod. How can you go to their website and say this isn't true? They blatently put the imac next to an ipod, same pose even!

[HiRez]

Apple will never (nor will a 3rd party) offer a replaceable board that contains the CPU, Video Card, etc. It's replaceable incase it breaks, but its just not profitable.
I agree with you it's very unlikely, although I remember they did do this with the original Macintosh. I remember having my my Mac 128k upgraded to a Mac Plus with an Apple kit. Replaced the whole logic board and floppy drive, basically everything except the case and screen. However, it had to be performed by Apple, and it also cost, IIRC, ~$1,000.

[kangaroo]

A few points...

By now, I'm sure, Apple knows you're unbelievably, extraordinarily, upset by this graphics card. They got it, ok?

This card allows Apple to incrementally 'upgrade-to-death' the new iMac so that for the next 3-5 years they can introduce a 'new' model with better specs. Apple is known for this, right?

If you don't like the card, buy a PM and customize to your hearts content.

Now get OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!

[wookitus]

Here are some xbench scores for comparison. This is the original g5 powermac 1.8sp and an ATI 9600.

Results 157.36
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7M34)
Physical RAM 512 MB
Model PowerMac7,2
Processor PowerPC 970 @ 1.80 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.80 GHz
Bus Frequency 900 MHz
Video Card ATY,RV350
Drive Type ST3160023AS
CPU Test 166.53
GCD Loop 100.65 3.93 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 245.84 889.03 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 123.70 3.59 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 195.06 3.03 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 355.70 14.24 Mops/sec
Thread Test 103.96
Computation 68.26 921.50 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 217.94 2.74 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 306.60
System 338.09
Allocate 654.42 426.88 Kalloc/sec
Fill 286.80 2282.96 MB/sec
Copy 259.17 1295.83 MB/sec
Stream 280.48
Copy 237.88 1738.93 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 247.90 1829.53 MB/sec [G5]
Add 324.00 2073.61 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 340.44 2080.08 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 218.82
Line 199.94 5.09 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 209.22 14.72 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 215.87 4.98 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 196.13 2.13 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 299.59 4.88 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 143.28
Spinning Squares 143.28 100.27 frames/sec
User Interface Test 257.07
Elements 257.07 82.69 refresh/sec
Disk Test 98.44
Sequential 100.11
Uncached Write 116.38 48.51 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 99.24 40.64 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 85.12 13.48 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 104.85 42.36 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 96.82
Uncached Write 91.35 1.37 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 93.63 21.12 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 99.00 0.65 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 104.31 21.47 MB/sec [256K blocks]

[Chip NoVaMac]

Does this particular package take advantage of the G5 and dual G5's?

What about Safari and Filemaker 6 or 7? And the Epson printer drivers for the 2200 and the CX6400?

I ask, since IF Apple does a revision in the next few months of the PB's; there may not be much of a reason for the "average" user to move towards the iMac G5.

[JohnSmiley]

I would like to make a side note on the iMac performance that many seem to complain about.
1st think about what the iMac and iBook is directed at low end home use.
2nd the true power of any machine running a G5 has yet to be tapped as the core OS is not yet fully optimized for the 64 bit processor.
Finally yes the card may not be so awesome but it will get there.

[ki-goi]

What I have a problem with is the fact that the design was intentionally made to look like an ipod. In order to achieve that, chipset cooling might have been sacrificed.

i think this is wrong. if you think of the imac as an xserve stuck to the back of a flat monitor, then there's nothing about the "pretty" requirement that forces the machine be slow. the screen is smaller than the innards; the screen wants to be a certain height, for user comfort; the machine can't be 8 feet tall; so, there's a big wide space under the screen. also, the logo can be bigger, as per marketing fashion.

ever since the real 2nd generation imac - "slot-loading" - was released with its convection cooling setup, a big focus of the imac's design has been making it quiet. something that can sit in a public place and not intrude. this is not a new design requirement, so there's no reason to expect that this imac is faster or slower than it was hoped to be, unless somebody said so, on or off the record...

[Converted2Truth]

Oh my God. So you're saying that I ordered a 20" iMac by mistake, without realising that the graphics chip contained therein wasn't up to snuff for running the games I want to run? :eek: Oh my god! I'd better get on to my supplier and cancel the order straight away! Thanks so much for pointing out my mistake to me! :rolleyes:

Newsflash for you. Not everybody buys computers to play games. Not everybody who buys computers has children. If I want to play games, I have a Gamecube which does perfectly fine, thank you very much. In any case, the games that I happen to enjoy don't particularly benefit from a 3D graphics accelerator; I'm talking about games like Starcraft, Diablo, Railroad Tycoon, Pikmin, FIFA 2004, Eternal Darkness, that sort of thing. Not first person shooters, as a general rule. Yes, ok, most games these days take advantage of a 3D accelerator, because it's assumed hardware, but apart from FPS, how much benefit is to be had by buying a faster accelerator? Not much (if any). I pretty much guarantee: 99% of non-FPS games will run just fine with the built-in GPU on the iMac.

No, I'm very happy with my purchase. It will do exactly what I want it to do, and very capably thank you very much. The CPU grunt will be adequate, as will the RAM (once I've upgraded it from stock levels), and I don't need a massive hard drive. I don't even particularly care if the LCD is of the same or lesser quality as the ACD 20", as long as it is clear enough -- I'm not looking for a screen capable of doing photographic quality work. If I were, I'd be buying a PowerMac and hooking it up to a high quality CRT. Hell, I don't even care if the pixel refresh is sub or super 20 ms, as long as it's not of the order of 50 ms. And this computer isn't really an "investment" in the traditional sense of the word. It's a tool. It does what it has to, and it does it well. That's all that matters to me, provided it's priced reasonably (and the iMac definitely is.)

Look at the capabilities of the GPU here. It's streets ahead of what most non-gaming people need. If you need more GPU than that, you're either a gamer (in which case, you're probably better off with a PC anyway, to be brutally honest), or somebody who does serious design work (in which case, you're better off with a PowerMac). Get a bit of perspective here, get a grip, and quit bitching about problems that, when you get right down to it, aren't all that serious in the end anyway. Anything you can buy is obsolete anyway -- it's a simple fact of life.
If apple were to release the equivilant of a 486 33sx with monocrome video out, you'd be the type of guppy they'd need to make a profit. Just say "MOOO" and follow the heard...

[Converted2Truth]

This is so silly !! Video card selection and video performance are NOT the ONLY reasons to buy a new iMac G5. If you are dissatisfied with the 5200 video card, then buy a PM G5 and pick your own video card or buy a Compaq, Sony, or HP "all in one". There is some real innovative design, engineering, and manufacturing (what a joke) !! I guess most of the complainers are gamers only.

Put yourself in Apple's position where performance and price are BOTH factors in the roll out of this machine.
Consumers who would like to play the occasion network game of Halo on a mac SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO SPEND $2500 ON A POWERMAC! Put myself in apple's position? **** YA! SPEND AN EXTRA $10 TO PUT THE 9600PRO, AND GAIN THOUSANDS OF MORE SALES! You have no idea what you're talking about. Gamers don't demand the fastest, but they do demand 'playable'. this new imac sucks for any recent game, and will NOT play new ones. Sims2? forget it (when it's ported)!

[Converted2Truth]

...Sure I'd prefer a better card, but since a 19 month old G4 iMac could do everything I wanted it to I'm pretty sure the brand new G5 iMac will too...
This is where you're wrong. If you plan on playing any FUTURE games, this card will leave you wanting. Then again, if you don't plan on playing ANY future games, then go ahead and spend a ton of money on something that you don't need. You said it yourself that you're old imac does everything you want!...

[nospleen]

Here are the results for my new 20" imac with 1.25 gb of ram. I am not sure if these numbers are good or not. But, I have owned lots of macs and this thing runs great. I am more impressed than I thought I would be!



Results 154.36
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7P35)
Physical RAM 1280 MB
Model PowerMac8,1
Processor PowerPC G5 @ 1.80 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.15 GHz
Bus Frequency 600 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST3160023AS
CPU Test 159.28
GCD Loop 96.86 3.78 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 284.16 1.03 Gflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 123.59 3.59 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 151.05 2.34 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 352.73 14.12 Mops/sec
Thread Test 102.45
Computation 67.84 915.77 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 209.16 2.63 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 217.71
System 245.50
Allocate 659.36 430.10 Kalloc/sec
Fill 204.18 1625.25 MB/sec
Copy 172.25 861.25 MB/sec
Stream 195.56
Copy 171.80 1255.89 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 169.55 1251.27 MB/sec [G5]
Add 222.47 1423.78 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 235.84 1441.01 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 203.94
Line 190.80 4.86 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 183.07 12.88 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 199.15 4.59 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 186.36 2.03 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 291.85 4.76 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 207.52
Spinning Squares 207.52 145.22 frames/sec
User Interface Test 239.21
Elements 239.21 76.94 refresh/sec
Disk Test 92.47
Sequential 87.38
Uncached Write 87.90 36.64 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 69.96 28.65 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 81.14 12.84 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 128.48 51.91 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 98.20
Uncached Write 88.01 1.32 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 100.44 22.65 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 94.31 0.62 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 113.47 23.35 MB/sec [256K blocks] :)

[tex210]

This is where you're wrong. If you plan on playing any FUTURE games, this card will leave you wanting. Then again, if you don't plan on playing ANY future games, then go ahead and spend a ton of money on something that you don't need. You said it yourself that you're old imac does everything you want!...

Well if that's the argument...
you really shouldn't get anything other than a dual core/dual processor machine, as anything less will be unable to run the artificially intelligent O.S. 11.
p.s. A ton of money, really?

[Telomar]

L2 Cache 512K @ 1.15 GHz
Spinning Squares 207.52 145.22 frames/secTwo things I've noticed in Xbench. First the L2 Cache on the new iMacs doesn't appear to show as running at processor speed, which it should be.

Second there seems to be a peak on OGL scores at around 150 fps. Whether that's a constraint based on Apple's implementation or something else it's interesting but would certainly explain the poor OGL scores in Cinebench for Macs. I'd be very interested to see somebody's OGL scores using either a Radeon 9800 or a Geforce 6800, when it comes out.

[aliasfox]

My rev A 867 MHz PowerBook G4 12" that is 20 months old has been able to play Halo and Unreal Tournament 2003- albeit at a medium-low quality. The iMac G5 will be fine for the occassional gamer- remember, based on rough specs, it's roughly equivalent to a 2.5 GHz P4 running a GeForce3 generation card- and most people don't complain about a machine with that setup.

Yes, Apple could have put a 9600 class card in the iMac. Would it really have boosted sales? Considering most people buy Dells with Intel Integrated graphics, I don't think the average Joe knows or cares too much. So they would have spent (for example) an extra $15 over (about) 800,000 machines a year, meaning an extra $12,000,000 outlay to put a better graphics card in. Now, if Apple makes an average of $400 off of selling an iMac (this is an average of the low end and the high end and direct and resale channels), Apple would have to sell an additional 30,000 units based on the fact that the iMac has (say) a 128 MB 9600 XT vs a 64 MB 5200 Ultra alone. Apple's accountants probably made the conservative judgement and decided not to. Case closed. If you don't want it, wait for someone to come out with a midboard modification, a la original iMac and Mezzanine slot.

[BigEvan23]

Contenders:
20 inch G5 iMac
1.8ghz
1GB Ram
160GB HD
NV 5200 Ultra 64mb
Airport Express

--vs--

15inch Powerbook G4
1.5Ghz
1GB Ram
80GB 5400rpm HD
Radeon 9700 128mb
Airport Express

the iMac destroys it!

Btw avg xbench score for the powerbook with 5400rpm drive is 135, avg for the 20 imac is 162.


I think the iMac is pleanty powerful for con and quasi-prosumer use!

[AmigoMac]

It seems to me, you don't get it. It is the same with iMovie, Dashboard, Photoshop, Mac OS X itself, maybe Safari, lot of games, whatever.

BTW: Motion is a prosumer App with it's low price and Final Cut Express runs even fine on an iMac G4, so what?

This graphics card is just outdated, but the rest of the iMac is a very powerful computer.

Just 60$ more for the end user is the BTO option for the Powermac Radeon 9600XT with 128.

Or even more simple: Don't solder the GPU on the mainboard... So later an upgrade board can be made. Already fine would be, if it's only a newer low end gpu next year and maybe later another one too.

Dude, you don't get it/me when I end a whole sentence with :rolleyes: ...
until now I have seen 2 posts claiming that they could use the iMac for pro apps, even there is one claiming Cinema4D use... God! those posts are on the wrong side of the equation ... iMac = Home use ... period.

iMovie won't be a problem with the GPU if you have enough RAM... (Only here I agree with the 512 MB standard petition, is that hard steve?)

Dashboard... :rolleyes: ... it will be a piece of cake for any GPU in actual apple computers ...

Photoshop (There are a lot of posts claiming a good photoshop behavior in G3 models) ... Those who think this is *****, should look for Powermac ...

Apple is not guilty because of the lack of money of some pro users... I don't think iBooks users complain that high because there is no ATI 9700 in there...

Safari won't give the GPU that load, Exposé wont be different as soon as Tiger comes out... I do think that we are within a big GPU myth because of some pro users experiences, the next revision may give 128 MB option but 64 will be ok for the 4-5 years, we won't see Mac OS 10.5 soon...(Apple statement), come on, there a lot of iMac G3 users out there ... with 16 MB VRAM...

My feeling : The iMac G5 is a kick ass machine and will kick an iMac G4 away, but that power is needed in less than 25% of the market target... actually I wanted to buy a G4 yesterday in ebay but was too late... so I will get the G5 ;), it will be with me for the next years until 10.5 comes, I had that target with my actual eMac but it's pretty loud at night and can't run continuously as wanted...

[AmigoMac]

Contenders:
20 inch G5 iMac
1.8ghz
1GB Ram
160GB HD
NV 5200 Ultra 64mb
Airport Express

--vs--

15inch Powerbook G4
1.5Ghz
1GB Ram
80GB 5400rpm HD
Radeon 9700 128mb
Airport Express

the iMac destroys it!

Btw avg xbench score for the powerbook with 5400rpm drive is 135, avg for the 20 imac is 162.


I think the iMac is pleanty powerful for con and quasi-prosumer use!

I'm very happy and look forward to get one of those 17" babies soon :cool:

[the dairy giant]

Contenders:
20 inch G5 iMac
1.8ghz
1GB Ram
160GB HD
NV 5200 Ultra 64mb
Airport Express

--vs--

15inch Powerbook G4
1.5Ghz
1GB Ram
80GB 5400rpm HD
Radeon 9700 128mb
Airport Express

the iMac destroys it!

Btw avg xbench score for the powerbook with 5400rpm drive is 135, avg for the 20 imac is 162.


I think the iMac is pleanty powerful for con and quasi-prosumer use!


megahertz is 20% higher, test score is about 20% higher.

Is there no advantage to it being the next generation chip with much faster bus? Seems like a 1.8 G5 would be about that same as a 1.8 G4 if such a thing existed. Which seems a bit disappointing to me (in a theoretical way -- probably still going to get one to replace my 400 G3!)

[AmigoMac]

What we need is a comparison between the G5 and the last G4 ... they have the same GPU, under the same conditions (RAM, HD, Screen size), at that point we can see if it is the 30.55555% faster, if so is really fine, great, everything over that is nice! someone with those results already?

I would guess 50% faster... for that price... :cool:

[groovebuster]

Here are the results for my new 20" imac with 1.25 gb of ram. I am not sure if these numbers are good or not. But, I have owned lots of macs and this thing runs great. I am more impressed than I thought I would be!

Results 154.36

Actually I am not impressed at all by these numbers! Only 154? My old G4 Quicksilver with a 1.2GHz (single!) processor upgrade gets a 132 with totally outdated technology.

I considered the new iMac as a replacement for that Quicksilver in my home office, but just a new TFT will do now. I really thought the G5 iMac would wipe the floor with my Quicksilver. I am a little bit disappointed...

Results 132.65
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3 (7B85)
Physical RAM 1536 MB
Model PowerMac3,5
Processor PowerPC G4 @ 1.20 GHz
Version 7455 (Apollo) v3.3
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 256K @ 1.20 GHz
L3 Cache 2048K @ 4.11 GHz
Bus Frequency 134 MHz
Video Card GeForce2 MX
Drive Type Maxtor 6Y120L0
CPU Test 141.61
GCD Loop 137.39 5.37 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 131.96 477.21 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 146.77 4.26 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 150.19 2.33 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 143.27 5.73 Mops/sec
Thread Test 103.70
Computation 75.57 1.02 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 165.19 2.07 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 115.37
System 140.44
Allocate 756.91 493.73 Kalloc/sec
Fill 99.91 795.25 MB/sec
Copy 99.69 498.46 MB/sec
Stream 97.89
Copy 93.59 684.13 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 95.43 704.26 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 100.36 642.33 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 102.74 627.71 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 147.34
Line 126.89 3.23 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 115.79 8.15 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 140.43 3.24 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 150.49 1.64 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 273.72 4.46 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 125.63
Spinning Squares 125.63 87.91 frames/sec
User Interface Test 231.55
Elements 231.55 74.48 refresh/sec
Disk Test 120.01
Sequential 123.63
Uncached Write 120.05 50.04 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 118.61 48.57 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 138.15 21.87 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 119.68 48.36 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 116.60
Uncached Write 152.52 2.29 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 122.85 27.71 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 94.56 0.62 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 110.71 22.78 MB/sec [256K blocks]

[will]

I don't think anyone else has mentioned this, but two of the PowerMac models come with NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra cards (64MB of DDR SDRAM), only the high-end model defaults to a ATI Radeon 9600 XT (128MB of video SDRAM). Yes, you can upgrade them, but if Apple had made the iMac a 9600, it would have had to bump the specs on the PowerMac. The PM will hopefully get a major revision in the January 2005 timeframe (PCI Express graphics, anyone?), by which time Apple should have had more of a chance to overcome heat dissipation issues of higher specification graphics cards in the iMac. I'd expect the next iMac revision, released before Tiger, to have 128M graphics card. (All these revision timescales will be affected by how fast IBM can crank out faster G5s, but Apple have traditionally updated about every six months).

XBench is interesting software, but, and this is a big but, it is in no way a proxy for actual performance. All benchmarks have weaknesses, but XBench is a particularly weak proxy for actual performance, as it's an arbitrary conbination of synthetic benchmarks. Benchmarks based on actual applications are much more useful. For example, I use Photoshop CS on a 867MHz G4, it would be good to know how much faster it's likely to be on the iMac G5. http://www.barefeats.com provides useful information, using actual applications, on Mac performance.

[Raveny]

the result of cinebench is that the iMac rendering (CPU) is 85% faster than the 1,5 GHz G4 Powerbook. And that's pretty cool I think.. Even the open GL results are better than the ones from the powerbook. So the imac will have more fps in Unreal than the powerbook...

[nospleen]

Actually I am not impressed at all by these numbers! Only 154? My old G4 Quicksilver with a 1.2GHz (single!) processor upgrade gets a 132 with totally outdated technology.

I considered the new iMac as a replacement for that Quicksilver in my home office, but just a new TFT will do now. I really thought the G5 iMac would wipe the floor with my Quicksilver. I am a little bit disappointed...

I personally think these benchmarks are useless. I have owned a dual 1.42 and a dual 1.8. I can honestly say that this imac is just as quick as my old dual 1.42, regardless of what the numbers say. I am looking forward to the barefeats tests though. But, trust me, this mac would be a huge upgrade for you. I was not expecting it to be this quick.

[Synthdance]

Hello, this is my first post to this forum, but I hope it's not the last one :)

I am amazed how you are attacking this machine for its low graph specs. In a typical use (exept for high demanding FPP games) it's unbeatable. I was waiting a long time for iMac G5 and I already love this machine. My record label will switch to Mac early next year. As we are indie label, the DP G5 is out of our reach. iMac G5 is cheap, silent, compact and looks sexy.

NVidia 5200 Ultra is far enough to accelerate desktop in Tiger. With an addition of FW Audio Interface and USB midi interface iMac G5 will find place in many home and project recording studios. This is an ideal machine aimed at musicians on a budget (my point of view, of course). Also, it has digital audio output and a large LCD screen (if you've ever tried to record a guitar near CRT - it's a disaster). And GarageBand is included for a start.

Add some RAM and it will run Photoshop and Dreamweaver without any problems. Even Cinema 4D, if you have patience and not work on large projects. It's ideal for semi-pro multimedia applications, when the creator is on a budget.

We are running Cinema 4D 7 on 512 MB Athlon 1800+ (1400 MHz) and Radeon 8500 (64MB). We render cover artworks at 300 DPI on it without any problems. Just a little patience for a final render :)

So please, as a would be switcher - don't tell me that this machine's graphics card sucks, because it don't. A (reasonable) PC user like me can see it, so why can't you? :)

Best Regards,

Maciej Repetowski
AXIS Records
www.axisrecords.net

[Ensoniq]

I've learned 3 things from reading this thread:

1 - Apparently, many people are still dumbfounded that Apple included the 5200 Ultra in the iMac G5, even though that's exactly what Apple includes in all but the top of the line PowerMac G5s. Please get over it already!

2 - Even if you believe Apple coulda/shoulda included a faster graphic chip in the iMac G5, please recognize that most likely the 5200 Ultra was chosen partially due to heat constraints. But again...please get over it already!

3 - xBench sucks. There...I said it. The fact that thousands of people use it trying to get some magic number for their machine doesn't really mean anything of value. If xBench really worked, there is no way that a two year old QuickSilver could be equivalent to an iMac G5 with significantly faster hard drive, RAM, bus speed, processor speed, and video. The only logical conclusion is that xBench just doesn't work.

Maybe if you compare individual scores for each section (memory, OpenGL, etc.) from one machine to another, there might be some comparitive value...assuming xBench is properly calibrated to exploit the specific nuances of the G3/G4/G5 properly at all times. But the "total score" nonsense is a completely unreliable and only has value to the same people who whine incessantly about the iMac G5's 5200.

Final point...the G5 iMac gets nearly 3 times the performance out of the 5200 Ultra as the G4 iMac did. So a lot of those PC kingdom charts placing the 5200 way below the "newer/better" cards don't take into account at all the benefits of running on an optimized platform instead of the hacked together hardware platform that is the Wintel world.

Maybe 5 people on these forums have actually used an iMac G5 in person. Let's wait until some real tests are done before we claim the sky is falling. :)

[myapplseedshurt]

i think this is wrong. if you think of the imac as an xserve stuck to the back of a flat monitor, then there's nothing about the "pretty" requirement that forces the machine be slow....

That is a good point. do you know what the cooling solution is in an xserve? I would think they wouldn't care about noise, and would have a stack cooling fan system to force air at a much higher rate than what the imac's little fans do. But I'm completely in the dark wrt/ xserve.

[Telomar]

Actually I am not impressed at all by these numbers! Only 154? My old G4 Quicksilver with a 1.2GHz (single!) processor upgrade gets a 132 with totally outdated technology.

I considered the new iMac as a replacement for that Quicksilver in my home office, but just a new TFT will do now. I really thought the G5 iMac would wipe the floor with my Quicksilver. I am a little bit disappointed...I think you'd find those HD scores are the cause of your QS doing so well. They're surprisingly high and HD performance has a notable effect on the final Xbench score.

[H. Georgan]

That is a good point. do you know what the cooling solution is in an xserve? I would think they wouldn't care about noise, and would have a stack cooling fan system to force air at a much higher rate than what the imac's little fans do. But I'm completely in the dark wrt/ xserve.

I've heard that, noise-wise, standing beside an xserve is like standing beside a 747. Clearly unacceptable for an iMac.

[corbin_a2]

I ran the Xbench test with the energy saver processor performance first on auto then on highest. What a difference!

PROCESSOR ON AUTO:

Results 89.19
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7P35)
Physical RAM 512 MB
Model PowerMac8,1
Processor PowerPC G5 @ 1.80 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.15 GHz
Bus Frequency 600 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST380013AS
CPU Test 89.19
GCD Loop 61.45 2.40 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 126.67 458.08 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 61.43 1.78 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 99.25 1.54 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 180.58 7.23 Mops/sec


PROCESSOR ON MAX:

Results 158.28
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7P35)
Physical RAM 512 MB
Model PowerMac8,1
Processor PowerPC G5 @ 1.80 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.15 GHz
Bus Frequency 600 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST380013AS
CPU Test 158.28
GCD Loop 103.04 4.02 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 165.17 597.29 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 123.47 3.59 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 202.39 3.14 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 358.38 14.35 Mops/sec

My question is as far as running my iMac on a normal day what setting should I set? Is there a reason to leave it on auto?

[stevesien]

iMac G5 1.8 -- 256 MB arrived. Have not yet upgeaded memory:

Results 134.71
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7P35)
Physical RAM 256 MB
Model PowerMac8,1
Processor PowerPC G5 @ 1.80 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.15 GHz
Bus Frequency 600 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST380013AS
CPU Test 136.48
GCD Loop 91.90 3.59 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 285.46 1.03 Gflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 122.14 3.55 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 100.86 1.57 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 241.02 9.65 Mops/sec
Thread Test 84.47
Computation 53.04 716.03 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 207.38 2.60 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 210.75
System 229.53
Allocate 616.09 401.87 Kalloc/sec
Fill 209.06 1664.14 MB/sec
Copy 150.07 750.36 MB/sec
Stream 194.81
Copy 166.59 1217.79 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 169.44 1250.43 MB/sec [G5]
Add 224.87 1439.19 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 239.16 1461.27 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 188.34
Line 189.47 4.82 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 156.19 10.99 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 193.08 4.45 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 167.62 1.82 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 268.61 4.38 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 187.25
Spinning Squares 187.25 131.04 frames/sec
User Interface Test 209.37
Elements 209.37 67.34 refresh/sec
Disk Test 79.19
Sequential 67.00
Uncached Write 69.51 28.97 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 43.58 17.85 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 68.48 10.84 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 128.78 52.03 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 96.82
Uncached Write 94.15 1.41 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 91.65 20.67 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 92.34 0.61 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 111.69 22.99 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Original single G5 1.8 w Radeon 9800 SE, 1.5GB ram
Results 124.41
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7M34)
Physical RAM 1536 MB
Model PowerMac7,2
Processor PowerPC 970 @ 1.80 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.80 GHz
Bus Frequency 900 MHz
Video Card ATY,R350
Drive Type ST3160023AS
CPU Test 120.78
GCD Loop 76.95 3.00 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 173.62 627.89 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 89.02 2.59 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 139.06 2.16 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 237.06 9.49 Mops/sec
Thread Test 81.74
Computation 56.76 766.22 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 146.00 1.83 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 214.03
System 187.02
Allocate 343.28 223.92 Kalloc/sec
Fill 143.33 1140.93 MB/sec
Copy 162.57 812.84 MB/sec
Stream 250.17
Copy 200.43 1465.13 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 228.55 1686.70 MB/sec [G5]
Add 311.62 1994.34 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 292.79 1788.97 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 156.14
Line 108.95 2.77 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 172.75 12.15 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 181.67 4.19 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 161.15 1.75 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 187.07 3.05 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 131.86
Spinning Squares 131.86 92.27 frames/sec
User Interface Test 192.26
Elements 192.26 61.84 refresh/sec
Disk Test 84.10
Sequential 98.22
Uncached Write 123.57 51.51 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 114.14 46.74 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 65.57 10.38 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 116.01 46.87 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 73.54
Uncached Write 53.23 0.80 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 86.19 19.44 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 74.12 0.49 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 95.10 19.57 MB/sec [256K blocks]

[RedEric]

I've learned 3 things from reading this thread:

1 - Apparently, many people are still dumbfounded that Apple included the 5200 Ultra in the iMac G5, even though that's exactly what Apple includes in all but the top of the line PowerMac G5s. Please get over it already!

2 - Even if you believe Apple coulda/shoulda included a faster graphic chip in the iMac G5, please recognize that most likely the 5200 Ultra was chosen partially due to heat constraints. But again...please get over it already!

3 - xBench sucks. There...I said it. The fact that thousands of people use it trying to get some magic number for their machine doesn't really mean anything of value. If xBench really worked, there is no way that a two year old QuickSilver could be equivalent to an iMac G5 with significantly faster hard drive, RAM, bus speed, processor speed, and video. The only logical conclusion is that xBench just doesn't work.

Maybe if you compare individual scores for each section (memory, OpenGL, etc.) from one machine to another, there might be some comparitive value...assuming xBench is properly calibrated to exploit the specific nuances of the G3/G4/G5 properly at all times. But the "total score" nonsense is a completely unreliable and only has value to the same people who whine incessantly about the iMac G5's 5200.

Final point...the G5 iMac gets nearly 3 times the performance out of the 5200 Ultra as the G4 iMac did. So a lot of those PC kingdom charts placing the 5200 way below the "newer/better" cards don't take into account at all the benefits of running on an optimized platform instead of the hacked together hardware platform that is the Wintel world.

Maybe 5 people on these forums have actually used an iMac G5 in person. Let's wait until some real tests are done before we claim the sky is falling. :)

What a well thought out, reasoned and sensible point.

Well done that man: though I doubt it will ever shut the naysayers up.

Many will be happy with their new machine, those that aren't will be those that shouldn't have bought it. It is what it is, no more, no less. You want more, buy more. You don't like the chin or GPU, don't buy it.

If you have no interest in owning one, shut up about it. We are all able to make our own informed choice when spending hard earned cash. If we want advice about something, we'll ask all you experts who haven't even seen one, let alone know how fast they go.

My 2p

RedEric

[RedEric]

Original single G5 1.8 w Radeon 9800 SE, 1.5GB ram
Results 124.41
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7M34)
Physical RAM 1536 MB
Model PowerMac7,2
Processor PowerPC 970 @ 1.80 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.80 GHz
Bus Frequency 900 MHz
Video Card ATY,R350
Drive Type ST3160023AS
CPU Test 120.78

iMac G5
Results 134.71
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7P35)
Physical RAM 256 MB
Model PowerMac8,1
Processor PowerPC G5 @ 1.80 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.15 GHz
Bus Frequency 600 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST380013AS
CPU Test 136.48


So we have the iMac G5 scoring 134 with 256MB Ram and the Original single G5 1.8 w Radeon 9800 SE, 1.5GB ram scoring 124.

Based on that info, regardless of Xbench's qualities, we must conclude that the iMac is a very quick machine in comparison.

[RedEric]

PROCESSOR ON MAX:

Results 158.28
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7P35)
Physical RAM 512 MB
Model PowerMac8,1
Processor PowerPC G5 @ 1.80 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.15 GHz
Bus Frequency 600 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200


This shows the iMac far outstripping the PM with 1/3 the RAM

[nospleen]

I am telling you guys/gals, regardless of Xbench, this thing is very fast. No complaints here!

[Jovian9]

This is where you're wrong. If you plan on playing any FUTURE games, this card will leave you wanting. Then again, if you don't plan on playing ANY future games, then go ahead and spend a ton of money on something that you don't need. You said it yourself that you're old imac does everything you want!...

All of the Apple product line will eventually not allow you to play any "FUTURE" games. All video cards will eventually not allow you to play any "FUTURE" games.
What is your point?

[Raveny]

I ran the Xbench test with the energy saver processor performance first on auto then on highest. What a difference!

PROCESSOR ON AUTO:

Results 89.19
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7P35)
Physical RAM 512 MB
Model PowerMac8,1
Processor PowerPC G5 @ 1.80 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.15 GHz
Bus Frequency 600 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST380013AS
CPU Test 89.19
GCD Loop 61.45 2.40 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 126.67 458.08 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 61.43 1.78 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 99.25 1.54 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 180.58 7.23 Mops/sec


PROCESSOR ON MAX:

Results 158.28
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7P35)
Physical RAM 512 MB
Model PowerMac8,1
Processor PowerPC G5 @ 1.80 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.15 GHz
Bus Frequency 600 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST380013AS
CPU Test 158.28
GCD Loop 103.04 4.02 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 165.17 597.29 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 123.47 3.59 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 202.39 3.14 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 358.38 14.35 Mops/sec

My question is as far as running my iMac on a normal day what setting should I set? Is there a reason to leave it on auto?


Do you have 2x256 MB Ram with the same cl-value or is it 1x512 MB ?

[ki-goi]

do you know what the cooling solution is in an xserve? I would think they wouldn't care about noise, and would have a stack cooling fan system to force air at a much higher rate than what the imac's little fans do.

I've heard that, noise-wise, standing beside an xserve is like standing beside a 747.

it ought to - according to http://www.apple.com/xserve/design.html (which has a good picture of this), the xserve g5 has 8-yes-8 fans - 7 right in front of the processors (drawing air across all components), the other at the power supply. since noise isn't an issue there's no fancy "region" system.

how-ev-er... the diff between the xserve and the imac is smaller than that makes it seem. xserve has higher bus speed (1GHz v. 600MHz), dual processors (total 4GHz v. 1.8GHz), close proximity to other hot things, and much heavier, faster work to do. add that the vertical orientation of the imac reduces the work of the fans and the imac's cooling doesn't seem like a compromise-everything kind of situation.

[flexoffset]

I figured I'd post my results as well.

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : flexoffset

Processor : G5
MHz : Dual 2.5GHz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.3.4

Graphics Card : ATI 9600XT
Resolution : 1600x1200
Color Depth : 24-bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 339 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 607 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.79

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 338 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 937 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1646 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.88

****************************************************


X-Bench

Results 268.25
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.4 (7L32)
Physical RAM 4608 MB
Model PowerMac7,3
Processor PowerPC G5x2 @ 2.50 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 2.50 GHz
Bus Frequency 1 GHz
Video Card ATY,RV360
Drive Type Maxtor 6Y160M0
CPU Test 242.55
GCD Loop 147.45 5.76 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 396.75 1.43 Gflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 171.54 4.98 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 279.51 4.34 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 524.97 21.01 Mops/sec
Thread Test 250.10
Computation 179.09 2.42 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 414.42 5.20 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 371.62
System 421.79
Allocate 886.91 578.53 Kalloc/sec
Fill 345.53 2750.45 MB/sec
Copy 323.53 1617.64 MB/sec
Stream 332.12
Copy 285.71 2088.50 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 288.11 2126.22 MB/sec [G5]
Add 382.09 2445.36 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 407.21 2488.06 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 312.92
Line 297.68 7.58 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 275.52 19.38 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 290.03 6.69 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 273.58 2.97 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 530.14 8.64 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 215.93
Spinning Squares 215.93 151.10 frames/sec

[RedEric]

I figured I'd post my results as well.



X-Bench

Show Off

[flexoffset]

This is showing off...
http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/colsa/
:)
They're about 45 minutes from here.

[nospleen]

I figured I'd post my results as well.



X-Bench

What a piece of crap! You wanna trade for a g5 imac?! :D

[flexoffset]

What a piece of crap! You wanna trade for a g5 imac?! :D

maybe ... if my thermal runaways don't stop.
I had over 60 in one afternoon last week. So far so good this week, though.

[Dave00]

How about some real world tests? Benchmarking programs really don't have much meaning. I'd much rather hear something like, how quickly you're able to rip CD's with iTunes, how quick GraphicConverter was able to do a 15-degree rotation of a 20MB tiff file using its internal algorhythm, how long it took to render a specific PDF file, etc. Or any of the photoshop standards.

--D

[flexoffset]

Sure...
I ran a test on my new G5 using Monaco Profiler Platinum v4.6

Time to generate the CMYK profile: 25.5 seconds using the ECI patches.
I had no other functions going on...just Monaco Profiler.
It took at least 10 minutes on the old but maxed-out G3 350MHz machine that used to make profiles.

I also ran another test:
1. Open 1.2GB image in Photoshop, do a radial blur 22 degrees and 592 pixels
2. Also open a 600MB image in Illustrator containing a bitmap and do the same thing blur operation while Photoshop is doing it's blur
3. Use Stuffit Deluxe 8 to compress a 1.2GB eps file

Time to generate profile with all this going on at the same time: 46 seconds using the ECI patches

----

I just finished a 79.5" x 423.25" photo montage at 72ppi with about 15 images and the whole process only took about two hours.
A similar job on my Dual 800 G4 would have taken 6 or more hours.

----

Photoshop CS with 100% memory allocation (1665 MB)

667MB 16-bit RGB image
Editing step G5(dual 2.5GHz)

Open file G5: 7s
Rotate 90 degrees G5: 10s
Gaussian blur (radius 1 pix) G5: 16s
Layer-levels (build histogram) G5: 9s
Healing brush at 100%- (brush size=19, darken) G5: 4s
Rename and save as TIFF G5: 19s

----

Burn a full DVD at 4x takes roughly 20 minutes from start to finish.

[nospleen]

How about some real world tests? Benchmarking programs really don't have much meaning. I'd much rather hear something like, how quickly you're able to rip CD's with iTunes, how quick GraphicConverter was able to do a 15-degree rotation of a 20MB tiff file using its internal algorhythm, how long it took to render a specific PDF file, etc. Or any of the photoshop standards.

--D

I bet www.barefeats.com will have something up shortly.

[TheGimp]

That's frickin' amazing! Does anyone realize that for $1899, you are now getting the same computer that would have cost you $3998 a year ago!?!?!

PowerMac G4 1.42 DP - $2699
20" Cinema Display - $1299
Total - $3998

-or-

iMac G5 1.8 20" - $1899

Which one would I rather have? I think you can guess...

The same computer? No PCI slots! Crappy 16 bit sound and video! It's still OLD technology repackaged to move all those chips they can't sell anymore. It is a *crippled* machine. A DP G4 will still be better for any professional app except scientific number crunching ones, at which the new iMac will killer, but if you're a scientist, you're on an expense account and want the *big* tower anyway. A Radeon 9800 Pro installed on a G4DP dusts the new iMac in video, as does any video capture or PCI 24 bit sound card.

The new iMac is *crippled* (If they had welded 512MB to the motherboard, and still offered two empty 1GB ram slots, they'd have too much competition for their pro models). There's NO other excuse for not using at least a Radeon 9600 in the 20" model.

You'll be weeping when you play 1-2 year old games at 800x600-1024x768 (if you're lucky) on your 20" screen.

Remember - LCD's only look good in native resolution. Scaling makes everything look fuzzy. Even gaming on a DP 1.8 sucks with a NVIDIA 5200.

Get the new iMac for iLife, and nothing else, and don't ask Santa for Doom3. You've been warned!!!

[php]

lol.. funny that two 15" powerbook owners posted almost the same thing at the same time (i can assure you it was not planned). Maybe the 15" powerbooks just rock that much.

As a owner of a PowerBook 1.5Ghz 15", I can say that it most definitely doesn't rock. Even at highest processor mode, the thing can't get out of its own way. Audio apps and software synthesizers routinely max it out. Then there's the unreliability of my PowerBook. It just came back from having the display inverter circuit replaced that powers the display back light. Unfortunately, this same problem occured about a few weeks ago and the same thing was replaced then. I suspect that the PowerBook 1.5Ghz just runs too hot for some components to tolerate.

I plan on dumping this lemon before something else goes, and getting a 1.8 Ghz G5 17" iMac to replace it.

[php]

The same computer? No PCI slots! Crappy 16 bit sound

Crappy sound card,eh? Take a look at this:

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G5/iMacG5/03_Input-Output/chapter_4_section_15.html

Quote from Apple's Developer Connection:

"The sound circuitry and audio device drivers support audio data in multiple formats. Both digital and analog outputs support PCM audio at 16 and 24 bits with sample rates of 32.000 KHz, 44.100 KHz, 48.000 KHz, 64.000 KHz, 88.200 KHz and 96.000 KHz. In addition, the Digital Output also supports AC3 audio at 16 bits with sample rates of 32.000 KHz, 44.100 KHz, 48.000 KHz, 64.000 KHz, 88.200 KHz and 96.000 KHz."


No Macintosh has ever had 24bit 96Khz capability before. I'd say the iMac was made for audio apps.

[Chaostopher]

I am new to this forum, but I wanted to chime in and let you know of the hands-on experience I just had with both the G5 iMac 1.6G 17", and 20", 1.8 Ghz models.

Just to let you know, I was an apple developer up until the last version of system 9. I changed jobs and they have relegated me to the PC world for the last 3 years. I have been dying to get back to the Mac, and I am at a point where I am ready to buy a new computer.

I currently am doing network and corporate television post production editing, 2D & 3D graphics compositing and animation, as well as a lot of photographic image manipulation on a plain ol' Dell Lattitude C840, 2.4 Ghz Laptop, 1Gig Ram, and nothing else special on it with lots of external firewire drives, tape deck, monitors, speakers, midi keyboards, and USB devices attached. I use Avid Express DV to edit, Photoshop & After Effects, and Maya for my 3D app. I do lots of multi-layered renders in all apps with very acceptable results and time-frames from my laptop PC. This set up has served me quite well for the past 2 years but it is time for an upgrade.

I have been praying that the G5 iMac might be enough of a powerhouse that it could out pace this old boat anchor of a PC laptop, so I would have a good reason to jump ship back to the Apple platform without having to spend $5000 for the minimum set-up of a hi-end G5 dual 2.5G Tower, and still get a reasonable workhorse for under $3 grand, not including software!

So, I spent the last FOUR-AND-A-HALF hours at the Apple Computer store pounding on the newly arrived machines. First, I banged on the 17", 1.6Ghz machine. That only lasted about 10 minutes when I realized that it took at least two minutes just to open Final cut Pro HD. I quickly went to the "Cadillac" of the line hoping to be much more impressed. it too 1 minute and 45 seconds to open FCP HD on that one. ( I opened the same app on the G4 15" PowerBook sitting across the isle from it and it only took 45 seconds to open!)

Unfortunately, I was very disappointed to report that the 20", G5 1.8Ghz iMac, with 512 Megs of ram didn't fare much better. I am sorry to say that is far from the computer powerhouse I had hoped for. In fact it reminded me of the days when I was running the Mac II x! There is NO real time on this computer. with every click there was a considerable delay before the action happened. Programs opened agonizingly slow... and this was with NO other apps open at the same time. You can forget doing much serious Professional work in Final Cut, After Effects, Motion, or Photoshop. Those programs bog the CPU down incredibly, especially at 300 or 600 dpi in PS, or with more that 3 or for layers in AE or FCP.

I actually couldn't believe how slow these machines were! I went back and tried various tests in various software, again and again, with no improved results. You can expect long, intolerable waiting times, just to open any application!

The Apple sales people on the floor seemed like they were avoiding the G5 iMac table all together. Their only comments were, " It will probably run a LOT fasted if you max it out with 2 GIGS of RAM!)". Hmmmm... I seriously doubt that another 1.5megs of ram, at Apple's exorbitant pricing, is going to speed these slow-movers up enough to make enough difference to justify the enormous cost expenditure . I think they sense and know that there are some serious problems with the public image/hype that has been presented for these new machines that they won't be able to live up to. I now understand why Apple has been so quiet about what these machines can really do!

Sure, if you are just going to use Word, do spreadsheets in Excel, Check your email and surf the web every day, this may be the perfect machine for you. But why pay $$$2-3 grand for just that? Just for the coolness of and all enclosed box? There were plenty of computer newby housewives lined up to buy these machines for home that had been swayed by this mystique. But for those of us that need even moderate computer processing power to accomplish any truly creative work on a professional level, this iMac is whack! (Pardon my poetic license!)

As much as I hate to admit it , I was able to get a bid for a screaming Tower PC, with a 3.6G Pentium 4 w/hyperthreading (virtual Dual processor) Windows XP Pro, 2.5 TERABYTES, yes Terabytes of 7200 rpm storage configured into a mirrored 0+1 RAID , 6 x Firewire 800 ports, 4 firewire400 ports, 8 USB 2.0 ports, all the legacy ports you could want, even a FLOPPY Drive!, a top of the line ATI or Radeon Graphics card, digital 7.1 audio I/O, analog stereo I/O, gigabit Ethernet, a 56k modem, TWO DVD+-RW DUAL Layer drives, a wireless keyboard and mouse, and a 21" wide screen flat-panel monitor.

The bid came out to be close enough in price to the high-end fully loaded 20" iMac G5, that in the "more-bang-for-the- buck" category there is just no comparison between the two. AND I get so much more productivity from the PC's processing power that I could EVER get from this sad little iMac, let alone, even the higher end Mac Dual G5 2.2Ghz tower! > :( I am truly bummed! :(

Apple....what were you thinking! I though you were the computer for the REST of US!!!

Back to my PC to get some work done!

[nospleen]

I can hardly believe what I just read?! :confused: But, to each his own. I have had a dual 1.8 and now I have the new imac. I personally think it is very fast, and I think this mac is going to be a hit. I am not just saying that because I own one, because I would sell it in a second if I did not like it. I am running 1.25 gigs of ram, but even with less, I am sure the machine will fare well. On 85% of the things I have done with my new imac, I could hardly notice the difference between this and my old dualie.

[nospleen]

OH, almost forgot. 1 min. and 45 seconds to open Final Cut HD?? Were you kidding?

[KeareB]

OH, almost forgot. 1 min. and 45 seconds to open Final Cut HD?? Were you kidding?

I'm dubious. Would be very surprised if anyone finds Final Cut Pro HD (yet) installed on an iMac display machine in an Apple Store.

[FYA]

Back to my PC to get some work done!

By work... do you mean fix all the problems that came free with SP2 ?

:cool:

[BigEvan23]

I am new to this forum, but I wanted to chime in and let you know of the hands-on experience I just had with both the G5 iMac 1.6G 17", and 20", 1.8 Ghz models.

Just to let you know, I was an apple developer up until the last version of system 9. I changed jobs and they have relegated me to the PC world for the last 3 years. I have been dying to get back to the Mac, and I am at a point where I am ready to buy a new computer.

I currently am doing network and corporate television post production editing, 2D & 3D graphics compositing and animation, as well as a lot of photographic image manipulation on a plain ol' Dell Lattitude C840, 2.4 Ghz Laptop, 1Gig Ram, and nothing else special on it with lots of external firewire drives, tape deck, monitors, speakers, midi keyboards, and USB devices attached. I use Avid Express DV to edit, Photoshop & After Effects, and Maya for my 3D app. I do lots of multi-layered renders in all apps with very acceptable results and time-frames from my laptop PC. This set up has served me quite well for the past 2 years but it is time for an upgrade.

I have been praying that the G5 iMac might be enough of a powerhouse that it could out pace this old boat anchor of a PC laptop, so I would have a good reason to jump ship back to the Apple platform without having to spend $5000 for the minimum set-up of a hi-end G5 dual 2.5G Tower, and still get a reasonable workhorse for under $3 grand, not including software!

So, I spent the last FOUR-AND-A-HALF hours at the Apple Computer store pounding on the newly arrived machines. First, I banged on the 17", 1.6Ghz machine. That only lasted about 10 minutes when I realized that it took at least two minutes just to open Final cut Pro HD. I quickly went to the "Cadillac" of the line hoping to be much more impressed. it too 1 minute and 45 seconds to open FCP HD on that one. ( I opened the same app on the G4 15" PowerBook sitting across the isle from it and it only took 45 seconds to open!)

Unfortunately, I was very disappointed to report that the 20", G5 1.8Ghz iMac, with 512 Megs of ram didn't fare much better. I am sorry to say that is far from the computer powerhouse I had hoped for. In fact it reminded me of the days when I was running the Mac II x! There is NO real time on this computer. with every click there was a considerable delay before the action happened. Programs opened agonizingly slow... and this was with NO other apps open at the same time. You can forget doing much serious Professional work in Final Cut, After Effects, Motion, or Photoshop. Those programs bog the CPU down incredibly, especially at 300 or 600 dpi in PS, or with more that 3 or for layers in AE or FCP.

I actually couldn't believe how slow these machines were! I went back and tried various tests in various software, again and again, with no improved results. You can expect long, intolerable waiting times, just to open any application!

The Apple sales people on the floor seemed like they were avoiding the G5 iMac table all together. Their only comments were, " It will probably run a LOT fasted if you max it out with 2 GIGS of RAM!)". Hmmmm... I seriously doubt that another 1.5megs of ram, at Apple's exorbitant pricing, is going to speed these slow-movers up enough to make enough difference to justify the enormous cost expenditure . I think they sense and know that there are some serious problems with the public image/hype that has been presented for these new machines that they won't be able to live up to. I now understand why Apple has been so quiet about what these machines can really do!

Sure, if you are just going to use Word, do spreadsheets in Excel, Check your email and surf the web every day, this may be the perfect machine for you. But why pay $$$2-3 grand for just that? Just for the coolness of and all enclosed box? There were plenty of computer newby housewives lined up to buy these machines for home that had been swayed by this mystique. But for those of us that need even moderate computer processing power to accomplish any truly creative work on a professional level, this iMac is whack! (Pardon my poetic license!)

As much as I hate to admit it , I was able to get a bid for a screaming Tower PC, with a 3.6G Pentium 4 w/hyperthreading (virtual Dual processor) Windows XP Pro, 2.5 TERABYTES, yes Terabytes of 7200 rpm storage configured into a mirrored 0+1 RAID , 6 x Firewire 800 ports, 4 firewire400 ports, 8 USB 2.0 ports, all the legacy ports you could want, even a FLOPPY Drive!, a top of the line ATI or Radeon Graphics card, digital 7.1 audio I/O, analog stereo I/O, gigabit Ethernet, a 56k modem, TWO DVD+-RW DUAL Layer drives, a wireless keyboard and mouse, and a 21" wide screen flat-panel monitor.

The bid came out to be close enough in price to the high-end fully loaded 20" iMac G5, that in the "more-bang-for-the- buck" category there is just no comparison between the two. AND I get so much more productivity from the PC's processing power that I could EVER get from this sad little iMac, let alone, even the higher end Mac Dual G5 2.2Ghz tower! > :( I am truly bummed! :(

Apple....what were you thinking! I though you were the computer for the REST of US!!!

Back to my PC to get some work done!

Processor was on Auto most likely...that accounts for the slow speeds. Its virtually one half as fast in auto as compared to highest. My 1.8g5 blows my 1.5g4 away hands down. And I have used it for motion and fcp and dvdsp3.

Next time you waste 4.5 hours make sure you try opening energy saver!

[CalfCanuck]

I'm dubious. Would be very surprised if anyone finds Final Cut Pro HD (yet) installed on an iMac display machine in an Apple Store.

Someone else mentioned that all the Macs in Apple stores boot off a network server (backin Cupertino?). Is it possible that this long boot of Final CUt Pro HD was also streaming from the same server? If so, that might explain the sluggishness of the startup ...

[Xtremehkr]

I visited the Apple store the day the iMac was put on display and the store people were really helpful. I was impressed by the speed applications opened, ran and closed. It's the newest product, it seems unlikely that Apple hasn't prepared it's people to help move the product.

As always these days, the iPod area was the most crowded. The number of iPod accessories is extensive, people are eating them up as well.

I was surprised that the store only got two machines in. I guess they are having delivery problems as well.

From what I have seen and read the new iMac has been well received. The graphics card is not that important to me, the performance results have been excellent.

My current G3 has a benchmark of 30 or something. It's going to be a nice, big, step up.

[kcmac]

After 2 days of using the 256 base ram on my iMac I just installed 2 sticks of 512. Everything opens superfast now. Makes a huge difference. No beach balls so far.

[Santaduck]

I take the FCP comments w/a large grain of salt, as no serious FCP user is going to run on 256M RAM. Even non-power applications and regular OS-use will significantly benefit the casual user at about 1G RAM, which you may not be aware of b/c of your hiatus from apple since os 9-- os x really handles memory much differently.

The mimimal RAM is an Apple *marketing* strategy, probably for pricing. Of *COURSE* it'll all be going slow w/only 256M RAM with the overhead of OS X and of launching FCP, and it sounds like you should know exactly why it slows down, so I won't explain the obvious.

As for RAM prices, yes the RAM is expensive, but most FCP users are probably knowledgeable enough to buy their RAM elsewhere. Identical OEM Samsung RAM can be had for normal prices, such as at OWC http://www.macsales.com .

The iMac G5 is uniquely positioned as a consumer's home machine, but WITH the options of being much more powerful. FCP-use falls into this second option. The minimal configuration allows for Apple to sell the units to casual home users, but also lets people hungry for more performance (but not willing to buy a G5 tower for wtvr reason) to opt for the extras. (Although yes, I admit Apple should probably include bluetooth & airport for even the casual user).

[Elan0204]

With all this talk about the energy saver processor preference, I have a question. What is the point of setting your processor to automatic instead of highest? It seems that things are running faster on people's computers when set to highest instead, so that would indicate to me that automatic isn't doing its job right. Shouldn't automatic let everything run as fast as it can, while never giving it more processor speed than it can use? So if something is only able to use 75% of the processors full potential that is what the processor runs at, but if it can benefit from that extra 25%, shoudn't "automatic" ramp up the processor to 100%?

[Stike]

Why should someone use such Energy Saver settings in a *desktop* computer anyway?

[Telomar]

With all this talk about the energy saver processor preference, I have a question. What is the point of setting your processor to automatic instead of highest? It seems that things are running faster on people's computers when set to highest instead, so that would indicate to me that automatic isn't doing its job right. Shouldn't automatic let everything run as fast as it can, while never giving it more processor speed than it can use? So if something is only able to use 75% of the processors full potential that is what the processor runs at, but if it can benefit from that extra 25%, shoudn't "automatic" ramp up the processor to 100%?It may monitor heat as well and adjust the speed to compensate.

[the dairy giant]

Can someone tell me,

I don't know muach about the different ways you can install the ram.

It seems that the best way is to have some kind of matched pair in there.

So if I wanted to have around a gig, would i better better to buy a 1 gig stick and add it to the 256 from the factory, or ditch the factory ram and install a matched pair of 512s?. If it makes any difference, this would be for running audio apps like Logic with software instruments.

(excuse me if I'm not using the right terminlogy here!)

thanks

[Doctor Q]

The iMac G5 technical specs (http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html) and iMac G5: Memory specifications (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86814) do not say that you get a performance boost from installing RAM in paired sizes.

As far as I know, Apple always makes explicit mention whenever RAM should be installed in pairs for best performance, e.g., the Power Mac G5 instructions that sayYou can replace or add DIMMs, provided they are installed in pairs of equal size, one per bank, from the center outward.

For the iMac G5, I have seen no such statement, and I conclude that you do not get a performance boost from paired memory. So, the dairy giant, my understanding is that you can leave the factory RAM and install 1GB in the other slot.

If anybody has seen technical information to the contrary, please post.

[aliasfox]

Matched pairs is faster- the G5 is a 64 bit chip, and therefore needs a 128 bit memory bus to operate at highest potential (64 bits in, 64 bits out). Standard RAM modules are 64 bit, putting different modules into the slots makes for two 64 bit RAM busses. Putting matched pairs in would allow the processor to address them as one big module, making for a 128-bit memory bus, and the machines should operate much faster that way.

It's reminiscent of the Performa 5200/6200 fiasco: the 32 bit PPC chip in there (the 603) was running off of a 32 bit bus (designed to take SIMMs, not in matching pairs), and was starving for memory. Effectively, the processor had to use one cycle to write into RAM, and one cycle to read from RAM- something that most computers can do in one cycle. That effectively halved the processor speed on those machines. Adding insult to injury, the cache on those chips was incredibly small, slowing down the machine even more. The iMac G5 doesn't have the cache problem, but RAM intensive tasks will make the iMac work far slower than it should if RAM is not installed in matching pairs.

[Mav451]

Matched pairs is more of compatibility thing than anything else. You could one stick of Crucial PC3200 and then one stick of Generic PC3200, as long as two things were true:

1) Both are the same size.
2) Both can run the same timings (I heard the G5's run really loose timings like 8-3-3-3, but that may just be hearsay).

*other obvious things, being that the RAM is good (not defective or with errors)*

If it is true they run 8-3-3-3, there really shouldn't be many issues on RAM meetings those specs (it is VERY loose).

[MacinDoc]

The iMac G5 technical specs (http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html) and iMac G5: Memory specifications (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86814) do not say that you get a performance boost from installing RAM in paired sizes.

As far as I know, Apple always makes explicit mention whenever RAM should be installed in pairs for best performance, e.g., the Power Mac G5 instructions that say

For the iMac G5, I have seen no such statement, and I conclude that you do not get a performance boost from paired memory. So, the dairy giant, my understanding is that you can leave the factory RAM and install 1GB in the other slot.

If anybody has seen technical information to the contrary, please post.
According to these Apple Developer Notes (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G5/iMacG5/04_Expansion/chapter_5_section_1.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40001433-CH208-BBCJADAF), matched pairs of DIMMS provide the best performance.Additional DIMMs can be installed. The combined memory of all of the DIMMs installed is configured as a contiguous array of memory. The throughput of the 400 MHz memory bus is dependent on the DIMMs installed. If only one DIMM is installed, the memory bus is 64-bit. If two non-identical DIMMs are installed, there are two 64–bit memory buses. If two identical DIMMs are installed, the memory bus is 128-bit. Identical DIMM pairs have the same size and composition and provide the fastest and most efficient throughput.

[Doctor Q]

Matched pairs is faster...I understand your explanation but I'd feel more confident if you or anyone could post a link to a page by an authoritative company (Apple or otherwise) that says this applies to the iMac G5. Since Apple sells it in a nonpaired configuration by default (one 256MB DIMM), without mentioning DIMM pairing in any specs I've seen, I'm still doubtful that it matters for performance.

[MacinDoc]

I understand your explanation but I'd feel more confident if you or anyone could post a link to a page by an authoritative company (Apple or otherwise) that says this applies to the iMac G5. Since Apple sells it in a nonpaired configuration by default (one 256MB DIMM), without mentioning DIMM pairing in any specs I've seen, I'm still doubtful that it matters for performance.
A link from the Apple iMac G5 Developer Notes is in my previous post, just above yours.

[Doctor Q]

A link from the Apple iMac G5 Developer Notes is in my previous post, just above yours.Thanks, MacinDoc! As you might guess, I was typing my reply while you submitted yours.

That seems to settle it once and for all. I hope the dairy giant has been reading this.

Which brings up the question of why Apple doesn't say this more prominently, in their tech specs, and why they don't offer matched pair configurations by default. At a minimum, they should mention the performance issue if you click "Learn more" in the online store when configuring an iMac G5's RAM.

[sjl]

If apple were to release the equivilant of a 486 33sx with monocrome video out, you'd be the type of guppy they'd need to make a profit. Just say "MOOO" and follow the heard...
Nope. I'm looking at the overall package and saying, "The monitor's good, the CPU's good, the RAM capacity's good, the GPU's a bit ordinary, but the system as a whole will meet my needs just fine at a reasonable price for what it is." I know what my needs are; I know what sort of specs will fill those needs; I know that the new iMac is well and truly above those specs.

If it were a 486SX-33, I'd be saying "No way in hell." You're talking to a techie -- a programmer/sysadmin -- not a consumer who vaguely thinks that RAM is the hard drive, the CPU is the monitor, and the CD-ROM is a cup holder.

[the dairy giant]

I hope the dairy giant has been reading this.

I have indeed, thanks everyone.

So the question that remains to me is, would the matched pair of 512's be an advantage over the unmatched 256 + 1 gig?

would an extra quarter gig be more or less important than the matching issue :confused:

[RedEric]

I have indeed, thanks everyone.

So the question that remains to me is, would the matched pair of 512's be an advantage over the unmatched 256 + 1 gig?

would an extra quarter gig be more or less important than the matching issue :confused:

The matched pair would be better I believe.

[toti]

I have indeed, thanks everyone.

So the question that remains to me is, would the matched pair of 512's be an advantage over the unmatched 256 + 1 gig?

would an extra quarter gig be more or less important than the matching issue :confused:

Actually, that would very much depend on your pattern of useage :)

If you have few applications open, and each application with a relatively small footprint, you benefit more from the matched pairs ( one poster in another thread said 5-25% in general, but needed tests on iMac G5 to confirm that it was the case with the iMac )

If on the other hand you are using a program like FCE/FCP, Photoshop with 8 megapixel raw images etc, where you have a tremendous footprint, more RAM would be to your benefit, since you'd lose out on lesser ram and the matched speedup in the latency of swapping data in and out..

Of course, best of all would be 2x1GB chips ;)

I'd say go for the 1GB chip, and upgrade to 2x1GB later on ( to get both more RAM AND the dual channel speedup ) when it's affordable.

That way, you also get a speed boost some time into the life of your iMac to prolong its value :D

[the dairy giant]

If on the other hand you are using a program like FCE/FCP, Photoshop with 8 megapixel raw images etc, where you have a tremendous footprint, more RAM would be to your benefit, since you'd lose out on lesser ram and the matched speedup in the latency of swapping data in and out..


So I guess this is what would apply to using Logic, trying to get as many virtual instruments, audio tracks and effects as poss... plus samples being loaded into ram...

[toti]

So I guess this is what would apply to using Logic, trying to get as many virtual instruments, audio tracks and effects as poss... plus samples being loaded into ram...

Yes, it surely would. Reason barfs on me on a 2x1.25GHz G4 with 1.5GB RAM with around 30 instruments and 30 effects. My iBook barfs at 10 instruments and 5 effects :) ( 640MB RAM and one 1GHz CPU )

Of course some of that attributes to lesser CPU, but most of it to memory shortage...

[AidenShaw]

If you have few applications open, and each application with a relatively small footprint, you benefit more from the matched pairs ( one poster in another thread said 5-25% in general, but needed tests on iMac G5 to confirm that it was the case with the iMac )

Note also that "unused" memory will be used for file caches and other things to speed the system, so the benefits of 1280 MiB over 1024 MiB can be subtle and not proven by simplistic benchmarking.

In addition to the memory footprint question, the bigger question is the percentage of improvement with dual channel.

One could very easily discover that some individual benchmarks do better with 1024 MiB, yet in real world use (multiple task, multiple applications,...) that 1280 MiB is definitely better.

Since we don't yet know how a single 1 GiB DIMM fares against 2*512 MiB, it's mostly conjecture at this point.

(ps: A post far back used the term "interlacing" to describe the dual channel. The right term is "interleaving" ("interlacing" is a video term).)

[toti]

That's true.

My ( personal ;) ) experience is that video and audio programs generally benefit from more memory since they have tremendous amounts of data that have to be accessed in realtime. Yet it all comes down to the users useage pattern. Some of my music/video editing is just fine on an iBook..

PS: Love your music Dairy Giant :D

[sjl]

So I guess this is what would apply to using Logic, trying to get as many virtual instruments, audio tracks and effects as poss... plus samples being loaded into ram...

One option that you have: fire up Logic, load up the virtual instruments, etc., such that you have as much memory being used by it as you are ever likely to see. Yes, it's likely to be slow (especially if you're still on 256 MB of RAM), but that's not the point. Once it's all loaded up to the max (and your poor iMac is stumbling under the load), load up Terminal.app (Applications, Utilities), and run "top". You'll see a bunch of columns; the important one is "VIRT" (for the total amount of virtual memory used by a given process). Type "Fo" (case is important!) to change the sort order to memory used, then hit Return to go back to the top display.

You should see Logic at the top of the process list, and its memory usage. This should give you an indication of how much memory you need; if it's approaching around 8-900 MB, I'd suggest that you'll need more than 1 GB. If it's over 1 GB, well. :D If it's hovering around the 600 MB mark, you should be fine with a matched pair of 512 MB sticks.

If Logic isn't likely to be your biggest memory hog, adjust the above steps to suit. You should be able to grasp the general idea. :p

[the dairy giant]

Thanks for that sjl and toti.

And thanks for the compliment on the music toti!

(I think if I get one of these iMacs I might notice the difference -- I am using a 400mhz G3 iMac to do music in Logic, Reason etc.... Slowly!)

[toti]

Unfortunately top in OS X doesn't support the F keystroke :(

Only platform where I have gotten that to work is Linux...

[toti]

Thanks for that sjl and toti.

And thanks for the compliment on the music toti!

(I think if I get one of these iMacs I might notice the difference I am using a 400mhz G3 iMac to do music in Logic, Reason etc.... Slowly!)

400MHz ?

Oooh... I feel your pain :eek: