iMac Performance Claims Challenged

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Jan 24, 2006.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    #1
  2. macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    #2
    When they say "older iMacs," I assume that is the last revision G5 iMacs?

    10 - 25% is a horrible boost considering all of the iApps are multi-threaded and take advantage of the second core. Is there a way to disable one of the cores to do a raw compare of horsepower? Just curious.

    Like someone said in a thread in the games section, the intel Macs are future-proof, just not now-proof.
     
  3. Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #3
    Assuming the CHUD tools work as per PPC Macs on the Intel Macs then yes you could disable 1 core.
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #4
    You can disable one of the CPUs in a dual processor PowerPC system by using Apple's CHUD tools. I wonder if the same thing can be achieved with the new dual core Intel Macs. Any Intel iMac owners want to try it out?
     
  5. d.f
    macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    #5
    iBooks

    this does not bode well for the Cole Solo chips, expected to be used for iBooks...
     
  6. macrumors 68040

    BakedBeans

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Location:
    What's Your Favorite Posish
    #6
    In a series of tests - My imac is a TON faster than my 2.1 g5 imac
    In a series of tests - Steve even said in the keynote that not everything will be 3 times faster
    In a series of tests - People who listen to these ****** reports are dumber than the people who make the reports
    In a series of tests - STOP TESTING MACHINES WITH 512 RAM IN THEM
     
  7. macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #7
    Except that it would be replacing a very slow G4. Anything is better than that.
     
  8. macrumors 68030

    Analog Kid

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2003
    #8
    Is that the ugliest picture of a Power... er... MacBook ever?
     
  9. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    #9
    Only a few of the tests MacWorld has conducted take advantage of the second core. Just compare the IMovie "scores" between the IMacG5 and the PowerMacG5.
    Overall the Intel IMacs are already showing promise (particulary in compiling stuff).
     
  10. 24C
    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    #10
    Steve did say "2-3X", but wasn't he referring to SPEC performance, and didn't he qualify this further in his keynote " now everything is not going to run 2-3X, the discs aren't 2-3 times faster etc"

    Didn't they see the Photoshop Rosetta demo, and it was slower than an iMac G5? So there are no secrets here. IMO the newer iMacs are only an issue for folks with legacy software that will never get an universally binary (OS9 apps especially) and for the rest, just using the supplied software, expect way better performance than before.
     
  11. Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #11
    IMO Apple shot themselves in the foot (as always) by touting it as so much faster in the first place, there's no doubting they're quick, and for UB apps quite a big step up. It's the same with anything though, over-hype just breeds criticism and disappointment.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    j_maddison

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2003
    Location:
    Nelson, Wales
    #12
    Spot on, couldn't agree with you more. Mind you I can't help but wonder how much faster a dual core G5 running at the same clock speed would have been, especially if Apple had stopped crippling the frontside bus and allowed it to run at half the processors speed in the iMac.

    Jason
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    iJaz

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    #13
    Why do they (Steve/Apple) always make these stupid claims?
    Why not say "Up to 2x/4x faster" instead of "2x/4x faster"?
    You always need some wiggle room.
     
  14. macrumors 68040

    BakedBeans

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Location:
    What's Your Favorite Posish
    #14
    Spot on, couldn't agree with you more.
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    iJaz

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    #15
    Go to apple.com there you will see a picture of a MacBook Pro with the text "4x faster" and an Intel iMac with the text "2x faster". Of course some people (most people?) don't read the fine print of the tech specs or didn't watch the keynote and will end up beleiving that they actually are 2x/4x faster all around.
     
  16. macrumors newbie

    asthma

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Location:
    Southern Maine
    #16
    My thoughts exactly, you cant do a fair test on the new iMac unless it has a minimum of 1Gig of ram. I'm not 100% sure but i don't think that an OS that requires a minimum of 256Mb and has two cores, is going to run all that great with 512Mb of ram.

    Asthma
     
  17. macrumors 68040

    BakedBeans

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Location:
    What's Your Favorite Posish
    #17
    These claims refer to SPEC tests, its really that simple - its the truth. what people think is up to them.
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    iJaz

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    #18
    I am not going to argue about that, I know that!
    It's just that the press has told a different story and I don't think Apple has made enough to tell the real version.
    It's sad because people will probably be angry at Apple when they don't feel a 2x/4x speed enhancement.
     
  19. macrumors 68040

    BakedBeans

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Location:
    What's Your Favorite Posish
    #19
    Im not up[set because I feel it :)

    I sent the 2.1G5 back (the noisiest fan ever) and got the intel..... great move
     
  20. macrumors 65816

    Photorun

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Location:
    NYC
    #20
    I'll add to this...
    My PentiumIII could CLOBBER my PentiumIV (which was hyped as faster than the PIII)
    My G3 ccould beat the PIV which had twice the clock speed
    My G5 tower wasn't that much faster than my G4 tower
    MY girlfriends G5 iMac is as fast as my dual G5 tower which has slightly faster clock and two CPUs and more RAM.

    Point being your computer is a tool for the job, does it work? Yes? Good, SHUT UP ALREADY!
    Point two, it's progress people, when all the coding is done for the Intel it will be faster, just like it took a long time for coders for peecees to make the crap for Microsuck Windoze run faster on a P4 than a P3 it's the same thing here, and this held true for G4 over G3 (wasn't immediate) and for G3 over 604, 60x over 680x0, etc. Welcome to the world of advancing computers.
    Point three, Jobs loves razzledazzle, he's part shuckster but not as bad as Microsuck ("Vista offers a new world of security" - Bill Gates meanwhile virus writers have already propegated over 100 new viruses for it), you think Microsuck lusers get worked up about their sh***y OS? No, they don't, they should, they don't though! And Jobs DIDN'T lie, he said "not everything," pay attention, stop whining and trying to find ways to twist words.
    Point four, embrace the future or go curl up in a ball and become a hermit.

    Thank you.
     
  21. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    #21
    Apple lying on their benchmarks??


    *Noooooooooo!* :rolleyes:
     
  22. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    #22
    "My G3 ccould beat the PIV which had twice the clock speed
    My G5 tower wasn't that much faster than my G4 tower"


    Lol, yeah, right. Pull those fairies and elves out of your computers, please?
     
  23. macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #23
    From the macworld article :

    One application, however, constantly disappointed us during our testing: iMovie 6. Not only was this brand-new version of Apple’s video-editing application equally buggy on both platforms, but it was dramatically slower at compressing and exporting video on the Intel-based system than on the G5—so much so that we suspect iMovie’s poor performance is the result of a bug within iMovie rather than any intrinsic failure of the iMac.
    We used iSquint to compress the same movie for iPod video playback

    why wouldn't they just use iMovie to export it to iPod ?
     
  24. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    #24
    because they said it was buggy... and i don't disagree... every new ilife introduces new bugs and doesn't fix the old ones... and oh yeah... where the upgrade price... oh, doesn't exist.

    btw - how many times can faster performance of large iphoto libraries be the main new feature in iphoto... um... for the last 3 years that's what they've been hyping as the new iphoto improvements.
     
  25. macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #25
    I have found no bugs in iMovie yet..
     

Share This Page