PDA

View Full Version : Barefeats disputes Apple's iMac G5 claims


keysersoze
Sep 29, 2004, 07:49 AM
This is very interesting. On Apple's iMac G5 web site, there is a graph showing the performance gain a G5 iMac has over a G4 iMac (for gaming). Apparently Apple's results were astonishing. Barefeats did their own tests and found VERY different results.

Read all about it here:
http://www.barefeats.com/imacg5b.html

Hemingray
Sep 29, 2004, 03:39 PM
Interesting indeed. But then, we all know that Apple's benchmarks should be taken with a grain of salt. And some would argue that BareFeats' tests can be just as bad. But this is a VERY significant difference. Good thing I'll be going with a PowerMac G5 DP. ;)

Elan0204
Sep 29, 2004, 03:43 PM
I find this part very interesting:

My report obviously got Apple's attention because they contacted me to see what I was doing differently. I sent them all my information on hardware and software and settings. I expected them to reciprocate but, so far, the only bit of information I could get from them is that they used the lowest quality settings. I had used high to highest settings.

So then he retests using the only bit of information Apple would share, that they used the lowest settings. Still his results show that Apple is grossly exagerating their results.

stoid
Sep 29, 2004, 03:45 PM
Still his results show that Apple is grossly exagerating their results.

Maybe what Apple meant to say was that they used highest settings on the G4 and lowest on the G5! :D :eek:

aswitcher
Sep 29, 2004, 04:59 PM
Maybe what Apple meant to say was that they used highest settings on the G4 and lowest on the G5! :D :eek:


Well, happy happy happy with my PB purchase of a few months ago. Looks like my PB will remain the best laptop to be had on the market for a while longer because there is no way I can see them putting a slowed down G5 in a PB because of heat problems and not have it outpace my machine... :p

IJ Reilly
Sep 30, 2004, 12:28 AM
Macintouch ran benchmarks of its own.

http://www.macintouch.com/imacg5/benchmarks.html

It looks like the G5 iMac is holding its own just fine. This discussion also includes an explanation of why different tests can yield very different results.

Counterfit
Sep 30, 2004, 02:15 AM
I wonder if the guy at Barefeats remembered to set the CPU to Highest. I don't think it would have such a large impact on the scores, but you never know...

virividox
Sep 30, 2004, 02:44 AM
i dont put much stock in benchmarks, but i tend to compare from a wide range of sources i never trust one

earthtoandy
Sep 30, 2004, 02:45 AM
I wonder if the guy at Barefeats remembered to set the CPU to Highest. I don't think it would have such a large impact on the scores, but you never know...
actually i belive the difference in that setting provides quite a large difference in results... maybe not that large but considerable

Santaduck
Sep 30, 2004, 04:15 AM
I wonder if the guy at Barefeats remembered to set the CPU to Highest. I don't think it would have such a large impact on the scores, but you never know...

Did you read his reviews? It's obvious he's doing a thorough job.

No, he didn't forget to do the CPU setting. This tester is VERY meticulous, and has done several passes and multiple updates and a rigorous set of comparison machines.

He's even gotten some communication with apple's performance marketing or some such division.

Remaining variables (that he knows) that could affect the game benchmarks (from http://www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html ) are:

* RAM-- not only might the g5 experience more FPS benefits than the G4 above 1G (where G4s tend to level off in gaming gains), but matched-dimms in the G5 allow for a 128bit path.
* patch version of ut2004-- currently at 3323, which was not yet released at the time of the imac release-- also the original retail patch was very unoptimized, to the extent that audio alone took up to 10% of the CPU load.
*graphics detail settings of the game (Apple may have used lowest)
*resolution for game: 17" LCD native of 1440x900, or a non-native standard resolution such as 1024x768. Word is that apple and barefeats (rightfully) used the LCD native version of the benchmark.

To do your own UT2004, get the Santaduck benchmark (http://www.santaduck.com/ut2k4/Santaduck_Toolpak_pub.sit) and do it yourself, if you have both a g4 & g5 17" imac with different dimms of RAM laying about.

keysersoze
Sep 30, 2004, 10:39 AM
UPDATE FROM BAREFEATS: :eek:

"September 30th, 2004 -- APPLE BANS TESTING IN RETAIL STORES. Yesterday, I was informed by the local Apple Retail Store Business Specialist that "The retail stores will no longer be available for equipment testing." Many of the articles you have read on BareFeats.com (including the recent iMac G5 article) were produced through the cooperation of the local Apple Retail Store. My job just got a lot harder."

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

cluthz
Sep 30, 2004, 10:51 AM
The results from apple are sure a lie, if you want to +200% the speed on UT2k4 vs a G4 Imac@1.25ghz surely you need more than a few extra mhz (especially when they have the same GPU..).

All I can say that i didn't think apple would bulls**t their customers like that,
the truth is that the iMac is a darn nice computer, but its NOT built for gaming.
If they would show some benchmark (which aren't lies) they could use some videorendering or some other cpu dermanding stuff.

Its so dissapointing..

cluthz
Sep 30, 2004, 10:54 AM
UPDATE FROM BAREFEATS: :eek:

"September 30th, 2004 -- APPLE BANS TESTING IN RETAIL STORES. Yesterday, I was informed by the local Apple Retail Store Business Specialist that "The retail stores will no longer be available for equipment testing." Many of the articles you have read on BareFeats.com (including the recent iMac G5 article) were produced through the cooperation of the local Apple Retail Store. My job just got a lot harder."

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

Apple are sure on thin ice now.....

whooleytoo
Sep 30, 2004, 10:56 AM
The fact that Apple's benchmarks gave just percentages and no exact framerates should have been enough to make people suspicious already.

Timelessblur
Sep 30, 2004, 11:05 AM
UPDATE FROM BAREFEATS: :eek:

"September 30th, 2004 -- APPLE BANS TESTING IN RETAIL STORES. Yesterday, I was informed by the local Apple Retail Store Business Specialist that "The retail stores will no longer be available for equipment testing." Many of the articles you have read on BareFeats.com (including the recent iMac G5 article) were produced through the cooperation of the local Apple Retail Store. My job just got a lot harder."

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


Well it becoming clear apple does not like the truth about there bogus testing to come out to light. They like to hide behind there false advertisting and lies. That or they have 0 faith in there product holding up to there claims

Mord
Sep 30, 2004, 11:12 AM
now see the thing is that both benchmarks are probably accurate as when the details are at the highest the game is bottlenecked at the gpu which is the same in the imac g5 and the imac g4 when the details are set at the lowest it's cpu bottlenecked as the details are easily processed by the gpu and the cpu can pump up the fps.

Elan0204
Sep 30, 2004, 11:34 AM
"September 30th, 2004 -- APPLE BANS TESTING IN RETAIL STORES. Yesterday, I was informed by the local Apple Retail Store Business Specialist that "The retail stores will no longer be available for equipment testing." Many of the articles you have read on BareFeats.com (including the recent iMac G5 article) were produced through the cooperation of the local Apple Retail Store. My job just got a lot harder."

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

Hmm... Could there be a class action lawsuit in the making? Maybe some lawyers are beginning to get ideas about suing Apple for false advertising, and Apple certainly doesn't want to make their job easier by supplying the computers used in the testing. Regardless, Apple is obviously getting scared about some sort of backlash, legal or otherwise.

MacinDoc
Sep 30, 2004, 11:38 AM
now see the thing is that both benchmarks are probably accurate as when the details are at the highest the game is bottlenecked at the gpu which is the same in the imac g5 and the imac g4 when the details are set at the lowest it's cpu bottlenecked as the details are easily processed by the gpu and the cpu can pump up the fps.
Agreed. Of course, Apple chose not to publish benchmarks done at the highest settings, because the company knew that the results at these settings were much less impressive, due to the lack of GPU upgrade.

Now, I'm not much of a gamer, but I've had no troubles with SimThemePark or Age of Mythology on my G5 iMac. Definitely much faster than my old Radeon Mac Edition 32 MB card.

Eevee
Sep 30, 2004, 11:46 AM
Apple is indeed scared of BareFeats' results. Hopefully they can address this issue and thus, improve their G5 iMacs in their next update. Or else, not make any claim about gaming performance of G5s to G4s.


It is disappointing...

Mord
Sep 30, 2004, 03:14 PM
Now, I'm not much of a gamer, but I've had no troubles with SimThemePark or Age of Mythology on my G5 iMac. Definitely much faster than my old Radeon Mac Edition 32 MB card.

i can play age of mythology fine on my 600MHz ibook g3 with it's radeon mobility.

i and allot of people said the 5200 would cause trouble for apple and it is :(.

Dont Hurt Me
Sep 30, 2004, 03:55 PM
I think its sad that Apple resorts to spin/lies on benches period. They dont want the truth. That isnt going to help sales. Its a sad state of affairs that imac has been so crippled when compared to powermac and even sadder when you think these expensive machines(iMac/Powermac) are pushing $16.00 video like fx5200. I remember when Macaddict/macworld tested the dual 2.0 G5 and both publications had to admit the dual G5 wasnt fastest. Heck if George can spin us into a war for 200 billion i guess Apple can lie on its benches. :( Gamer beware, nongamer the imac is for you.

aswitcher
Sep 30, 2004, 04:30 PM
The results from apple are sure a lie, if you want to +200% the speed on UT2k4 vs a G4 Imac@1.25ghz surely you need more than a few extra mhz (especially when they have the same GPU..).

All I can say that i didn't think apple would bulls**t their customers like that,
the truth is that the iMac is a darn nice computer, but its NOT built for gaming.
If they would show some benchmark (which aren't lies) they could use some videorendering or some other cpu dermanding stuff.

Its so dissapointing..

Yeah. I bet they had a 128 meg card in for those tests...

MacsRgr8
Sep 30, 2004, 04:48 PM
This is so disappointing.... jeez.

But we saw it coming. Ever since the rumored specs of the iMac G5, there was, and rightly so, whining about the 5200-POS card.

OK, only in the low-end 1.6 GHz.... I could live with....

It is so cheap. :mad:

They'll have to remove the Doom 3 remarks too.

aswitcher
Sep 30, 2004, 04:50 PM
This is so disappointing.... jeez.

But we saw it coming. Ever since the rumored specs of the iMac G5, there was, and rightly so, whining about the 5200-POS card.

OK, only in the low-end 1.6 GHz.... I could live with....

It is so cheap. :mad:

They'll have to remove the Doom 3 remarks too.

Get screen shots now ;)

JOD8FY
Sep 30, 2004, 04:50 PM
I was surprised that the 1.5Ghz PB beat out the 1.8Ghz G5 iMac in some cases. How can this be? :confused:

Also, Barefeats only used 256MB RAM. However, I'm sure Apple is really questioning the 5200 now. I say the next revision will have the 6800 Ultra :D. Tuesday anyone? :p

JOD8FY

aswitcher
Sep 30, 2004, 04:56 PM
I was surprised that the 1.5Ghz PB beat out the 1.8Ghz G5 iMac in some cases. How can this be? :confused:

Also, Barefeats only used 256MB RAM. However, I'm sure Apple is really questioning the 5200 now. I say the next revision will have the 6800 Ultra :D. Tuesday anyone? :p

JOD8FY


WWDC 2005...20" will get the 128 card option...and maybe a new fan to cool it given there is apparently losts of space in the 20" case bu the 17 is a bit tight... :p

Dont Hurt Me
Sep 30, 2004, 05:06 PM
I dont understand not having a better video option, but it could be the whole tier structure of pro vs consumer and imac vs powerbook & powermac crap. why no 9700 mobility option? Is this about the customer or apple? amazing ! no wonder Carmack made his speel about Doom3 and the Mac version.

Mord
Sep 30, 2004, 05:07 PM
space is irelivent with the gpu. it's just apple being cheap.

iceTrX
Sep 30, 2004, 05:50 PM
I was surprised that the 1.5Ghz PB beat out the 1.8Ghz G5 iMac in some cases. How can this be? :confused:

Also, Barefeats only used 256MB RAM. However, I'm sure Apple is really questioning the 5200 now. I say the next revision will have the 6800 Ultra :D. Tuesday anyone? :p

JOD8FY

The reason the powerbook killed the 1.8Ghz iMac G5 in gaming was the fact that the powerbook has a radeon 9700 mobility which uses the RV360 (9600pro/xt) VPU, the 9600pro/xt is more then twice as fast as a 5200u.

keysersoze
Sep 30, 2004, 06:55 PM
I dont understand not having a better video option, but it could be the whole tier structure of pro vs consumer and imac vs powerbook & powermac crap. why no 9700 mobility option? Is this about the customer or apple? amazing ! no wonder Carmack made his speel about Doom3 and the Mac version.

I don't buy it when people say that the 5200 was picked because it creates less heat or is not as big of a component. What horsecrap. They can put a laptop video card into the iMac and that would suffice... MORE than suffice in the case of the 9700 Mobility.

Apple blew this one. Sorry to say.

MacsRgr8
Oct 1, 2004, 08:16 AM
I was surprised that the 1.5Ghz PB beat out the 1.8Ghz G5 iMac in some cases. How can this be? :confused:

JOD8FY

Radeon 9700

tace
Oct 1, 2004, 10:05 AM
Just so that the consumer machines won't cannibalize their underpowered Pro machines (excluding the newest PM G5s), they shortchange the customers with underpowered machines. What comes out is less bang for the back in HW compared to PCs. How much can a great OS make up for cheap HW?

Personally, I am like many others around here. I would like a new PC at home, but I have no need to spend the space and money for a PM G5. Yet, I don't want to buy a box with already obsolete components, even if it supposed to be "cheap".

Apple, if you want the loyalty of "CONSUMERS" than gives us decent HW and SW and we'll pay your damn premium. Just don't waste our time arguing about if a 3 year old graphics card can cut it now or 2 years down the road.

keysersoze
Oct 5, 2004, 07:57 AM
The Barefeats Saga Continues:

"October 5th, 2004 -- iMac G5 vs iMac G4 GAP UPDATE
We obtained both an iMac G4/1.25 and an iMac G5/1.8 today. We tested them with dual 512MB memory modules (just like Apple did) and used all the same settings for Halo and UT2004 that Apple did. The gap between our two test units is 39% and 52% respectively for Halo and UT2004. Apple's lab retested today still getting 179% and 214% respectively.

We've narrowed the discrepancy down to the iMac G4. They get the same numbers we get on the iMac G5. But their iMac G4 is getting only half the frame rates that ours is generating.

If you have an iMac G4/1.25 and full versions of Halo and UT2004, I need your help -- PLEASE. I want to see if you can duplicate our results using the same setup we used. Please email me asap so I can give you a detailed test procedure.

We're hesitant to publish our new graphs until we get confirmation."

From http://www.barefeats.com

Anyone want to help Rob out?

TheGimp
Oct 5, 2004, 08:19 AM
The fact that Apple's benchmarks gave just percentages and no exact framerates should have been enough to make people suspicious already.

Maybe they didn't mean faster framerates at all, but rather faster loading time, or quiting time (difference given in milliseconds).

TheGimp
Oct 5, 2004, 08:23 AM
Personally, I am like many others around here. I would like a new PC at home, but I have no need to spend the space and money for a PM G5. Yet, I don't want to buy a box with already obsolete components, even if it supposed to be "cheap".




Come on, just buy a used DP 1.8 or 2.0 with a couple GB, and you'll be (almost) too busy creating and having fun to follow threads of this nature.

Dont Hurt Me
Oct 5, 2004, 08:39 AM
The Barefeats Saga Continues:

"October 5th, 2004 -- iMac G5 vs iMac G4 GAP UPDATE
We obtained both an iMac G4/1.25 and an iMac G5/1.8 today. We tested them with dual 512MB memory modules (just like Apple did) and used all the same settings for Halo and UT2004 that Apple did. The gap between our two test units is 39% and 52% respectively for Halo and UT2004. Apple's lab retested today still getting 179% and 214% respectively.

We've narrowed the discrepancy down to the iMac G4. They get the same numbers we get on the iMac G5. But their iMac G4 is getting only half the frame rates that ours is generating.

If you have an iMac G4/1.25 and full versions of Halo and UT2004, I need your help -- PLEASE. I want to see if you can duplicate our results using the same setup we used. Please email me asap so I can give you a detailed test procedure.

We're hesitant to publish our new graphs until we get confirmation."

From http://www.barefeats.com

Anyone want to help Rob out?wish i could but i only have a 1.4 quicksilver. barefeats tests look about right to me after seeing benches on single 1.6 & 1.8 powermacs. fx5200 doesnt help much with those machines or any for that matter. Like many have said frames below 30 mean slideshow and frag.

NusuniAdmin
Oct 5, 2004, 08:47 AM
UPDATE FROM BAREFEATS: :eek:

"September 30th, 2004 -- APPLE BANS TESTING IN RETAIL STORES. Yesterday, I was informed by the local Apple Retail Store Business Specialist that "The retail stores will no longer be available for equipment testing." Many of the articles you have read on BareFeats.com (including the recent iMac G5 article) were produced through the cooperation of the local Apple Retail Store. My job just got a lot harder."

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

Personally I smell a class action coming on against apple within a year or two. I have known for quite some time (as well as other people, but a majority of mac users are headstrong little steve jobs followers) that apple smudges their results a lot. Especially with g5 based products. Whenever I do little tests of my own they were always much different than apple.

but definitly the imac g5 has a POS video card and it is not that good at gaming at all (the card that is). If the imac got a decent card then maybe the results would be kinda "good" but not nearly as good as apple claims.

Lancetx
Oct 5, 2004, 09:57 AM
I agree with Apple that the in-store display machines are not suitable for testing nor should they be used for conclusive test results. However, it's nice that they were able to work things out with Robert in order to start sending him test machines to run his tests on as he runs a great site.

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,65200,00.html?tw=wn_1culthead

Counterfit
Oct 6, 2004, 01:02 AM
Personally I smell a class action coming on against apple within a year or two. I have known for quite some time (as well as other people, but a majority of mac users are headstrong little steve jobs followers) that apple smudges their results a lot. Especially with g5 based products. Whenever I do little tests of my own they were always much different than apple.

but definitly the imac g5 has a POS video card and it is not that good at gaming at all (the card that is). If the imac got a decent card then maybe the results would be kinda "good" but not nearly as good as apple claims. They get the same numbers we get on the iMac G5.

solvs
Oct 6, 2004, 02:05 AM
Personally I smell a class action coming on against apple within a year or two.
There are 3 kinds of lies - lies, damn lies, and benchmarks.

If they send the guy a test machine, I'd be more inclined to believe the results. As I said in the other thread, the Apple Store and CompUSA models seem really slow. My sister's boyfriend had an iBook that seemed much faster than the same model I played with in an Apple Store. My Beige G3 running 10.2 seemed faster than an eMac running 10.3 even, I kid you not.

I didn't get it either, but as has been mentioned, they are sending him test machines, which is even better. Where's the problem? I suppose we do hold Apple up to a higher standard. If you can't trust them, who can you trust?

I mean really, doesn't the new Microsoft Office increase productivity by up to 50%?

aswitcher
Oct 6, 2004, 02:13 AM
The Barefeats Saga Continues:

"October 5th, 2004 -- iMac G5 vs iMac G4 GAP UPDATE
We obtained both an iMac G4/1.25 and an iMac G5/1.8 today. We tested them with dual 512MB memory modules (just like Apple did) and used all the same settings for Halo and UT2004 that Apple did. The gap between our two test units is 39% and 52% respectively for Halo and UT2004. Apple's lab retested today still getting 179% and 214% respectively.

We've narrowed the discrepancy down to the iMac G4. They get the same numbers we get on the iMac G5. But their iMac G4 is getting only half the frame rates that ours is generating.



I am really glad this is the descrepency and not some over inflated results for the G5.

keysersoze
Oct 7, 2004, 10:52 AM
The Saga Continues (10/7/04)...

Apple claims differing iMac G4 results are due to screen size differences in test models:

"We've narrowed the discrepancy down to the iMac G4. They get the same numbers we get on the iMac G5. But their iMac G4 is getting only half the frame rates that ours is generating. Apple says it's because we're using a 20" iMac G4/1.25 while they are using a 17" iMac G4/1.25. Both machines have exactly the same specs other than screen size, but we're both running at 1024x768. Apple has promised to explain in writing how this is possible and may possibly send me their 17" iMac G4/1.25 to test. (What an amazing turn of events!)"

http://www.barefeats.com

MacsRgr8
Oct 7, 2004, 03:50 PM
The Saga Continues (10/7/04)...
Apple says it's because we're using a 20" iMac G4/1.25 while they are using a 17" iMac G4/1.25. Both machines have exactly the same specs other than screen size, but we're both running at 1024x768.



???

:confused:

Timelessblur
Oct 7, 2004, 06:04 PM
from the sound of it it seems apple is just making up stuff now in hopes of saying that htere claim is even remotely true.

Screen size should not effect the proformeces. A higher reseslution would but since they where run at the same res I see little to no hope of a 17in pulling it off unless they take the time to modifiy a little to make it a little slower

aswitcher
Oct 7, 2004, 07:54 PM
"We've narrowed the discrepancy down to the iMac G4. They get the same numbers we get on the iMac G5. But their iMac G4 is getting only half the frame rates that ours is generating. Apple says it's because we're using a 20" iMac G4/1.25 while they are using a 17" iMac G4/1.25. Both machines have exactly the same specs other than screen size, but we're both running at 1024x768. Apple has promised to explain in writing how this is possible and may possibly send me their 17" iMac G4/1.25 to test. (What an amazing turn of events!)"

http://www.barefeats.com


Oops. That sounds a bit odd. I still wonder if the original G5 results were with a 128 Meg video card which for some reason they decided to not release in the first round of new G5 iMacs...

keysersoze
Oct 12, 2004, 11:48 AM
Oops. That sounds a bit odd. I still wonder if the original G5 results were with a 128 Meg video card which for some reason they decided to not release in the first round of new G5 iMacs...

Barefeats blows yet another hole in Apple's iMac G5 claims (10/12/04):

http://www.barefeats.com/imacg5b.html

"THE FINAL TWIST
My request for readers with an iMac G4/1.25GHz machine (or access to one) has paid off. As of 5AM Sunday, October 10th, I received HALO and UT2004 results for a 17" iMac G4/1.25. The results matched our 20" iMac G4/1.25, thereby refuting the claim by Apple that a 17" iMac G4 is inherently slower. Apple's test iMac G4 unit is either "uniquely slow" or something else is "haywire."

CONCLUSION
More than two weeks have passed since my first posting of results. It's been a wild ride. I've contended from the start that iMac G5 is a great machine at a great price. It has as much as a 93% advantage over the iMac G4 running iLife apps.

However, when it comes to two of the top 3D "run-and-shoot" games, rather than the 179% to 212% advantage proudly reported by Apple, we are now convinced that the real numbers are more like 39% to 93%. Those are still good numbers. We still think the iMac G5 is a great replacement for the iMac G4, but words like "unparalleled 2D and 3D graphics performance" are a bit over the top."

MacsRgr8
Oct 13, 2004, 03:46 AM
I think that is settled, then.

I am glad to see that the 1.25 GHz G4 iMac 17" and 20" have similar performance..... such a strange remark by Apple.

I agree that the new iMac is a gr8 iLife machine, but it still is below par for gaming or Motion, and probably other future CoreImage related apps.

aswitcher
Oct 13, 2004, 06:47 AM
I think that is settled, then.

I am glad to see that the 1.25 GHz G4 iMac 17" and 20" have similar performance..... such a strange remark by Apple.

I agree that the new iMac is a gr8 iLife machine, but it still is below par for gaming or Motion, and probably other future CoreImage related apps.

I still strongly suspect that those test results are with a 128 graphics card in and for supply and/or money and/or heat and/or space reasons the 128 was dropped for the first iMac...but the results remained...

Santaduck
Nov 7, 2004, 06:47 AM
Barefeats & robART have since gotten all the specs from Apple.

Turns out the issue was not on the G5 side, but a really slow iMac G4. Who knew the 17" was slower than the 20"... and that the 17" iMac G4 in Apple's performance marketing dept was either unusally slow, or the one that Barefeats had was extremely fast.

Also note that the latest UT patch at the time was 3236, and the G5 gets even faster compared to the G4 with the current patch.

He also got the exact RAM specs, and of course set CPU to the highest setting on the G5, etc.

btw As a request from Barefeats, I've added to the Santaduck Toolpak, so that there's now a Benchmark available to do a botmatch & flyby of the UT2004 DEMO (3334). Of course the results aren't comparable to the the benches for retail, but this way you can compare machines of people who don't own UT2004.

keysersoze
Dec 27, 2004, 11:47 AM
Barefeats Update:

Barefeats reports that Apple has changed the graph to more accurately reflect the advantage a G5 iMac has over a G4 (for gaming).

Read about it here:
http://www.barefeats.com/quick.html