G5 vs Rosetta

[sintaxi]

I know it is more important to compare the G5 with Intel running Native. But I want a good machine now. and want to know exactly how a Intel jacked with RAM would compare against the G5. All Rosetta. If the performance is reasonable I may go for an intel machine.

So, anyone know any good links for this comparason or have some personal experience they can share?

 

[cnakeitaro]

an intel iMac is a GOOD machine. It may run the non-native apps a little slower with Rosetta, but its plenty fast atleast for me coming from an iBook G3. And when all the apps you use are universal, that Intel Machine will be better than an iMac G5.

There is nothing wrong with the machine, infact its much better than the iMac G5 and will last you much longer. The iMac G5 will depreciate much quicker than an intel machine.

 

[AJBMatrix]

Why dont you look at the Photoshop Benchmarks posted here in the forum. Most people are finding that it is just as fast as a G5 Duel Core.

 

[jacobj]

Why dont you look at the Photoshop Benchmarks posted here in the forum. Most people are finding that it is just as fast as a G5 Duel Core.

I must have missed that. According to most reviews they are generally running non-native apps at 35-45% of a G5 imac. Please post links if I am wrong, but even SJ said it was slower.

 

[AJBMatrix]

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/136593/

Test ran in Adobe Photoshop CS.

Intel iMac (2Ghz Core Duo) w/ 2GB Ram & 256mb VRAM = 51 seconds
Power Mac G5 (Dual 2Ghz) w/ 4GB Ram & ATI 9600 128mb VRAM = 53 seconds

All I can say is... wow.

Mmmm. Photoshop CS2

Intel iMac 2GHz w/ 2GB Ram & 256 VRAM = 56 secs
Powermac G5 Dual 1.8Ghz w/ 2.5 Gb Ram & ATI X800XT 256 = 55 secs


OMG Does Cs2 add those extra 5 sec's... That's 5 sec's of my life I'm never going to get back... Added to the 15 that is takes me to write that I'm never going to get the 5... Added to the .... Aghhh stuck in a time loop

 

[AJBMatrix]

More Testing Done!

Thought you might want another tester.

I'm amazed - I just got my Intel iMac (2.0 GHz 1.5GB ram, 256vram) and ran the test - 49:02!!! I was expecting Photoshop CS to c-r-a-w-l but it's performing 2.5x better than my previous powerbook! I'm extremely impressed, I can't wait to see how it performs once Adobe releases UBs - I bought this system to be my pro mac for years to come, looks like it will be doing a superb job

20" iMac Core Duo 2.0GHz, 256 vram, 1.5GB , 250GB/7200rpm

 

[FarSide]

Some Professional Benchmarks & Tests:

Nothing against those homemade-tests, but I do prefer professional opinions...

NON-UNIVERSAL [scroll down]

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

 

[risc]

arstechnica reviewed the iMac Core Duo here are the rosetta results, don't believe the hype here rosetta is very very slow! Photoshop is HEAPS slower than running on a Power Mac G5 Dual Core.

 

[AJBMatrix]

Well, I would rather have the results from real people using them on a daily basis. I would like to see it in action and judge based on a user not a score given by some company.

 

[risc]

How does some filter test here show you anything? All of the professional Photoshop benchmarks are saying the machines are heaps slower, if the computer actually feels slower to you is very subjective _BUT_ compared to the Power Mac G5 Dual Rosetta sucks that's life move on...

Unless you are buying an iMac Core Duo to run pro apps I doubt you'll notice, but it is something to consider when purchasing the machine. Photoshop universal binaries may not be here until 2007, it all comes down to what you do with your machine.

 

[FarSide]

arstechnica reviewed the iMac Core Duo here are the rosetta results, don't believe the hype here rosetta is very very slow! Photoshop is on average 4 to 6x slower than running on a Power Mac G5 Dual Core.

[http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/imac-coreduo.ars/1

Thx for this post! This is one of the best reviews I've seen so far - regarding PowerPC vs. Intel
AJB Matrix - I do think all test done by professionals showed the same results.
It's a hype going on...PowerPC 970 is worthless. That's just not the fact.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Emulators always slow things down, so I find it hard to belive that Photoshop under Rosetta runs at the same speed as native, especially against a Dual Core G5.

If you need to do heavy Photoshop work RIGHT NOW, there is only one option: the PowerMac G5.

 

[seabass069]

I just bought the iMac G5. I added 1 gb of ram and rocks. Don't waste your money on a machine that is already having problems. Why pay extra for a little bit of speed when you need to use Rosetta just to run MS Office and Adobe, which runs slower than the iMac G5. Save yourself some money and go to an Apple Store and get iMac G5 w/sight.

 

[AJBMatrix]

But did you notice that the machines that were running Photoshop in your bench marks were running with the following specs:

iMac Intel: 512 RAM
iMac G5: 512 RAM
PowerMac: 4.5 GB RAM

Now you look at the benchmarks and tell me if they were all that bad. We know that Rossetta takes a lot of RAM to run. Why not run them on better systems. Up the RAM in all of them to at least a Gig. But you should have the PowerMac at the same stats as the others with RAM. I thought we were testing out Processors not RAM. Try to make the systems as equal as possible.

 

[jacobj]

Emulators always slow things down, so I find it hard to belive that Photoshop under Rosetta runs at the same speed as native, especially against a Dual Core G5.

If you need to do heavy Photoshop work RIGHT NOW, there is only one option: the PowerMac G5.

I compleely agree. I have seen iMac Core Duos running Rosetta and there is no way they are faster...maybe on the occassional thing where teh Core Duo CPU has a huge margin over the G5, but it can't be the trend.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

My guess is that basic Photoshop work will run OK under Rosetta but large projects with lots of filters etc. will choke the Intel Macs. The multi-CPU PowerMacs, on the other hand, will chug along without issues. The Steve said as much at MWSF, and despite the RDF most people admit that Rosetta (however good it may be) is a stop-gap for consumers. But pro users should avoid it if possible.

 

[risc]

But did you notice that the machines that were running Photoshop in your bench marks were running with the following specs...

Don't barefeats only use the memory that comes standard with the machine? In their benchmarks the Core Duo using Rosetta is still running at 33% of the speed of the app running natively on a Power Mac G5 Dual.

You can argue about this for as long as you want but anyone who thinks about it will realise that emulation isn't the answer. It's a nice stop gap as mentioned above but deciding which machine to buy should be based on the apps you use not The Steve Jobs RDF!

 

[AJBMatrix]

Emulation is not the answer but it is a great hold over till it all can be converted. You never know until you try. Plus how many filters do you use when using photoshop. Normally I have to do some layers, and a lot of "air brushing" the models. As well as whitening the teeth. You have no idea how yellow some of them can get. Athens, having UGA right here (I am a student) has lots of models that are willing to have there photos taken.

 

[the Helix]

It's odd that...

I've been to the Apple stores in San Francisco and Corte Madera and I find it odd that none of the display iMacs (intel version) have the Adobe CS suite installed.

I came to the store wanting to see how Rosetta would feel "live" - why on earth would they not have the Adobe CS suite installed when they used to have it installed on all the Macs prior to the Intel version?

Something smells fishy...

My 2 cents.

 

[nospleen]

I just bought the iMac G5. I added 1 gb of ram and rocks. Don't waste your money on a machine that is already having problems. Why pay extra for a little bit of speed when you need to use Rosetta just to run MS Office and Adobe, which runs slower than the iMac G5. Save yourself some money and go to an Apple Store and get iMac G5 w/sight.

What problems does the intel imac have, besides the front row issues? I have yet to hear any complaints of over heating or noise issues that are known G5 issues.

 

[sintaxi]

All this info is fantastic. But none seem consistent. One test impresses me at how well Rosetta runs and others make it look dog slow. I cant help but think the Core Duo with only half gig RAM has something to do with it. I would never buy a computer with only 512mb RAM.

Running Photoshop CS2
Core Duo 2.0Ghz with 2gig RAM (Rosetta) VS. Mac Mini 512mb RAM
Who you Got??????

 

[jaw04005]

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/136593/

I would just like to say that I followed the directions of the test in that specific thread. During that test, my iMac Core Duo beat my PowerMac G5 (2Ghz Dual). However, using other filters and actions that were not blurs—the iMac Core Duo was considerably slower. By considerably, I mean 2x to 3x as slow (in my personal tests). Also, the slower responsiveness of Photoshop CS running in Rosetta is noticeable.

 

[jaw04005]

What problems does the intel imac have, besides the front row issues? I have yet to hear any complaints of over heating or noise issues that are known G5 issues.

I don't know how anyone can complain about the noise of the new iMacs. It's virtually non-existent except on boot (you hear the sound of a fan on high). Also, in a quiet room (without a ceiling fan) you may hear the hard drive clicking. Remember, this is a notebook chip with a notebook motherboard running in a 2" case. It should run cool and quiet.

 

[cr2sh]

I used the intel over the weekend running a series of non-UB programs, with high resolution images, running filters and translations... then I turned around and did the same thing on a dual core PM at 2.3GHz.

The PM did it in 60% of the time.

The difference is very noticable.

I ended up buying the 2.1GHz iMac for $1199 and went home happy.

 

[plinden]

I used the intel over the weekend running a series of non-UB programs, with high resolution images, running filters and translations... then I turned around and did the same thing on a dual core PM at 2.3GHz.

The PM did it in 60% of the time.

The difference is very noticable.

I ended up buying the 2.1GHz iMac for $1199 and went home happy.

Hmm, so where an Intel iMac took 10 minutes, the dual core PM took 6 minutes? And you ended up getting a slower single core G5? I'm sure you are happy with the G5 iMac for $500 off its old price (I almost bought a G5 iMac before Christmas but something made me hold off on it), but 60% seems pretty good speed for emulation.

What memory was in the Intel vs the PM? What speeds are you getting on the G5 iMac for the same tasks?

For all the benchmarks showing the Intel iMac slow at Photoshop, there's another test showing that adding more memory speeds it up considerably.