Apple Releases Intel iMac

[Ravenflight]

Well, before we get ahead of ourselves, that was one source claiming that 1080p was dropping frames and that was on the MacBook Pro.
Could very well be the bandwith clogging like someone stated earlier.

This is from the MacNN forum regarding the Intel iMac:

"First of all, the specs aren't BS. Go play with one of the machines at the expo yourself. I had 3 1080p videos playing flawlessly at once."

"Core Duo could play one 1080p H.264 movie, maaaaaybe two on a good day, but for three they must be using the X1600 for acceleration. I'm happy to hear that Apple added support for that to the driver."

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=281357&page=3

This is of course just another source claiming that. But he has first hand experience with the iMac Intel himself.

Well, I just got back from the Apple Store Glendale Galleria. They had one Intel iMac (Intelimac?) on display- strangely the price card next to it made no mention of the new specs and just said 20" G5 iMac. However when I clicked on "About This Mac" it definately said "Core Duo 2Ghz"

I checked out the playback performance of h.264 1080p with the "Higher Ground" preview and the 1080p "Superman Returns" trailer. Both played seamlessly with no dropped frames or stutters that I could discern. However when I tried to reduce both to half size and play them at the same time it caused Quicktime to crash. So I was unable to verify the claim of being able to play more than one at the same time. The iMac I was trying it with only had 512MB of Ram and 128MB of Video Ram though. Perhaps with more memory it may be able to accomplish that feat. Playing these videos on the 20" Imac though made me realize why I really want an Intel Mac that I can attach a 23" Cinema Display to. 20" is just too small to do 1080p justice. Hopefully the Intel Mini's will have ATI's h.264 decoding or they come out with a 23" iMac soon!

 

[nomacyet]

[...]

Which part of - ''we are switching to intel'' dont you get?

[...]

dual 2ghz v single 2.1
x1600 v x600

same price - more future proof - twice as fast.

whats the problem?

Well, BakedBeans, I take it you've seen some of the test results of the Intelimac starting to dribble out, especially today's MacWeek article. Looks like the answer to the original question that I posed is not only might an imac with a 970MP have been just as fast as the Core Duo, it might actually have significantly out performed the new Intel machines without loosing Altivec, 64 bit, or the ability to run OS9 & VPC stuff, not to mention avoiding slogging along in emulation mode for most of the major non-Apple software for the next year. Even if it would have increased the power dissipation enough to require a case redesign, that would have been trivial compared to switching CPU brands. In fact, it turns out the Intelimac is barely faster than the current 970FX imac. At some stuff; actually slower in some cases. Much worse than I thought even when I was being skeptical.

Not twice as fast, probably orphaned (by better Intels coming soon), and hostile to its heritage software - that's the problem.

(BTW, what good is the X1600 in an imac - from what I can tell, it's main advantage over the X600 is that you can run more than one of them together, but the imac only has room for one GPU and no ability to add more. I assume there's more to it than that, but it's hard to get a good comparison from ATI's site.)

Maybe Apple can still pull off a successful transition if Intel has something much better than the Core Duo coming, but as the opening shot the Intelimacs sure are starting to look like a dud. They've definitely gone off like a wet fire cracker in the press.

Too bad your response to my question was so full of snide remarks - must make your words taste bitter now that you have to eat them.

 

[GregA]

Looks like the answer to the original question that I posed is not only might an imac with a 970MP have been just as fast as the Core Duo, it might actually have significantly out performed the new Intel machines without loosing Altivec, 64 bit, or the ability to run OS9 & VPC stuff, not to mention avoiding slogging along in emulation mode for most of the major non-Apple software for the next year.

The figures are underwhelming, unfortunately. I take it that the snappiness people are seeing is largely due to the graphics card (the interface and Quicktime speeds).

That said, if Apple is moving to Intel and the chips are not twice the speed of what they're replacing... they need to pick where they'll have the most impact or atleast not a negative impact.

EVERY laptop will see a large enough speed gain. The iMac will see a small speed gain. It will be more challenging when it gets to the PowerMacs - though to be fair the Pentium-M based chip designs will not see their desktop-specific derivatives till later this year.

I would have liked to see dual-core G5s in the iMac, I agree it would have been fast. I'd also have liked to see Motorola's dual-core chip in the laptops - I'm sure it also would have given the Core-Duo's a run for their money. I also hear that the simpler design of the PPCs gives them a brighter future than Intel's chips (assuming equal r&d!!!!).

I assume there are other reasons for the Intel switch. Maybe ViiV is part of it? Maybe DRM? Maybe IBM didn't want to put in as much R&D anymore? Perhaps it's just that Apple is readying an AMAZING new product and they need the flexibility of doubling their chip purchases with no notice? Assuming it's not the speed or wattage, they still have to make people happy with the swap and they've picked the right products to start it. I am surprised they're not keeping their 2 year migration, I thought that was to keep their edge with high end machines on G5s.

 

[johnnybluejeans]

Well, BakedBeans, I take it you've seen some of the test results of the Intelimac starting to dribble out, especially today's MacWeek article. Looks like the answer to the original question that I posed is not only might an imac with a 970MP have been just as fast as the Core Duo, it might actually have significantly out performed the new Intel machines without loosing Altivec, 64 bit, or the ability to run OS9 & VPC stuff, not to mention avoiding slogging along in emulation mode for most of the major non-Apple software for the next year. Even if it would have increased the power dissipation enough to require a case redesign, that would have been trivial compared to switching CPU brands. In fact, it turns out the Intelimac is barely faster than the current 970FX imac. At some stuff; actually slower in some cases. Much worse than I thought even when I was being skeptical.

I don't think the comparisons MacWeek provided were very fair. Here is the article I want to see: A 2.1Ghz G5 iMac w/ 2Gb of RAM vs. a 2.0Ghz CoreDuo w/ 2Gb of RAM. If these publications insist on comparing Photoshop and other apps that require Rosetta, then these tests cannot be performed on a machine with 512Mb of RAM because the Intel machine gets strangled.

On every test I have seen using native applications (iLife apps), the CoreDuo wins hands down.

It is silly to think about what things would have been like with a Dual Core G5 in the iMac because it never happened and it never will happen.

The Core Duo is a great chip, it is just getting dogged for two reasons.

1) It is in the first generation of a transitional machine.
2) PowerPC zealots can't stand to be on the same architecture as a Windows machine.

 

[geiger167]

Had my 20' model with 2 gig of ram for a couple of days now and been delighted by the experienced. All native apps run at much faster speed and the new app Iweb makes some very proffesional looking web pages (much better than frontpage which I was using previously) Of the none native apps I've tried I have had no issues yet, office works perfectly and faster than my previous experience with it on a g4 emac, vlc media player works perfectly for my media needs i.e divx/xvid files/mpegs etc, also installed Unison for newsgroup header downloads and wasnt expecting it to work but it has functioned perfectly for me. Had no problems connecting to wireless network in the UK with a belking router on NTL. No issues with IDiisk and syncing. Had a blast with photobooth taking snaps and using the filters. Installed MSN messanger my preferred chat software, works perfectly. Garageband opens faster and plays a shed load of track I couldnt get it to run before. result by far the best mac ive ever worked on (the 2 gig of ram no doubt helps lol)

One niggle, use a m-audio usb powered midi keyboard the radium 49, doesnt work and isnt recognised in the midi set-up, so anyone who's actually got a usb midi keyboard to wok on the iintel mac please give me a shout and let me know how you did it.

Start up from cold by the way is the fastest i've ever seen that includes the dual core pentium PC I have. It goes from chime to full desktop in under 30 seconds. I cant hear the fans at all it's quiet as a mouse.