iMac 1.8 Ghz G5 Benchmarks

MacRumors · Sep 15, 2004

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 · Sep 15, 2004

Xbench details

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

Code:

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 · Sep 15, 2004

is that good or bad?

i need a comparison to maybe the powermac g5

kgarner · Sep 15, 2004

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

Expedition · Sep 15, 2004

Resolution : 1440x900

?

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

andyduncan · Sep 15, 2004

settledown said:
is that good or bad?

i need a comparison to maybe the powermac g5

this Bare Feats article 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 · Sep 15, 2004

Pretty good

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 · Sep 15, 2004

Expedition said:
?

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

Correct...Yes...it is

RadiusMan · Sep 15, 2004

That's not too shabby.

azdude · Sep 15, 2004

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 · Sep 15, 2004

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 · Sep 15, 2004

This site 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 · Sep 15, 2004

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

smitty078 · Sep 15, 2004

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 · Sep 15, 2004

actually this Bare Feats article 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 · Sep 15, 2004

smitty078 said:
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 · Sep 15, 2004

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 · Sep 15, 2004

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

sugarprobe · Sep 15, 2004

My Dual 2 G5 Has Energy saver on it, Auto,Highest,Reduced.

Bluefusion said:
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 · Sep 15, 2004

azdude said:
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 · Sep 15, 2004

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

.

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

JW Pepper · Sep 15, 2004

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 · Sep 15, 2004

G5's DO have energy saver settings

Bluefusion said:
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 · Sep 15, 2004

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 · Sep 15, 2004

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.

iMac 1.8 Ghz G5 Benchmarks

macrumors bot

Administrator emeritus

macrumors regular

macrumors 68000

macrumors newbie

macrumors regular

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502a

macrumors newbie

macrumors 6502

macrumors member

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502

macrumors member

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502

Guest

macrumors 65816

macrumors newbie

macrumors 604

macrumors 65816

macrumors regular

Editor emeritus

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68000

Our Staff