Intel Macs are...Wow!

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by MonksMac, May 6, 2006.

  1. MonksMac macrumors 6502a

    MonksMac

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Location:
    DFW
    #1
    Well today I finally had a chance to use some of the new Intel machines,and boy are they fast! Even the Core Solo Mini was speedy! The new Intel iMacs run Tiger so fast and fluidly!:) :) :)
     
  2. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #2
    I've only gotten to use one, a MBP 1.83 with 512 RAM. I wasn't that impressed. It wasn't noticably more responsive than my ibook. Then again, it was only base RAM, and I didn't really push it, so I probably need to give it more of a chance.
     
  3. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #3
    ?!? :confused: I have a similar iBook as well as a stock 1.83 GHz 17" iMac and the iMac is significantly faster than the iBook for CPU intensive tasks like video compression. The iMac is also significantly faster than my 2 year old 2.8 GHz Dell.

    B
     
  4. Max on Macs macrumors 6502

    Max on Macs

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Location:
    Milton Keynes, UK
    #4
    I have used that iBook (1.33GHz) with 1GB RAM in it and I find the 1.83GHz stock MBP much, much faster and more responsive in all respects to it...
     
  5. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #5
    Well as I said, I didn't try compressing video or anything like that. But just playing around, the MBP didn't impress me. And I went in prepared to be impressed.
     
  6. zorg macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    #6
    Are the MacBook Pros 1.86 GHz faster than the G5 Dual 2 GHz? How about the Dual 2.5 Ghz, and the Quad?
     
  7. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
  8. truz macrumors 6502a

    truz

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Location:
    Florida
    #8
    I hope the macbooks (ibooks) are a bit fast as well. I would like to see a 1.83ghz core duo chip in the macbook or better. along with a 80gig hd or better ;)

    The macbook pros are sexy tho :D I almost got a 1.83ghz 15.4" for $1600 new a few days ago. I backed out as I would like to have a smaller screen when away from home as 15.4" in a bit big to pull out in a public area.
     
  9. zorg macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    #9
    I too hope that the Mac Books will be that fast, and that they will be released on Tuesday, like the rumors say.
     
  10. truz macrumors 6502a

    truz

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Location:
    Florida
    #10
    Yea,
    I hope they are released on tuesday. rumors suck ;)
     
  11. zorg macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    #11
    I still don't see why they would realease the new ones so quick...but w/e...
     
  12. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #12
    benchmarks show a dual 2.0 MBP running about equal with a dual 2.0 G5 for many tasks, including running pro apps.

    So it's safe to say that the 1.86 is slower than any dual G5 (except a 1.8 maybe), and that a dual 2.5 would smoke any MBP. A quad is in a whole different league.
     
  13. zorg macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    #13
    Do you have a site to these benchmarks?
     
  14. zorg macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    #14
    Its funny because when my friend tested the MBP 1.83 vs. the Dual 2 GHz G5, the MBP ran a lot faster. He checked the first like 500 prime numbers with terminal (MBP did it 2 or 3 times faster), and also for games and stuff it is faster/ better.
     
  15. runninmac macrumors 65816

    runninmac

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Location:
    Rockford MI
    #15
    How in the world did you do that?
     
  16. alep85 macrumors regular

    alep85

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    #16
    Quick?! They couldn't release this new product any sooner, with educational buying season coming. Apple wants DEARLY to steal some more of Dell's fire when college kids go out to buy laptops, what better than a sexy MacBook that comes in a nice little size for your backpack, comes in black and white (can anyone else see they're REALLY using the Halo Effect from the iPod video here?), runs Windows in case you need it for a few things, and is adequately priced to compete in the lower end market. IF this thing has the specs ThinkSecret and others have been talking about, I think we could see a bigger demand for these babies from BOTH incoming freshmen and educational departments.

    THAT, my friend, is why Apple is getting these babies out, and not a moment too soon.
     
  17. MonksMac thread starter macrumors 6502a

    MonksMac

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Location:
    DFW
    #17
    No I was not talking about WoW!:p
     
  18. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #18
    why yes, yes I do. :)

    linky

    linky2

    the second link is a lot more informative. Suffice to say, a dual 2.0 MPB and a dual 2.0 G5 are close.
     
  19. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #19
    Well, you appear to have been selective about what you took from that article - the Final Cut Pro tests were similar (the MBP being slightly faster on all but one of the tests), but the Motion2 tests shows the MBP smoking the dual G5:
    Of course, I'm being selective in not mentioning the Compressor 2 tests. (Do you get my not so subtle point about benchmarks?)
     
  20. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #20
    Benchmarks may not be great, but what's the alternative? Subjective reports that a MBP "feels" as faster/faster/slower than a G5? Zorg asked how they compared, and these benchmarks answer that question as well as anything is going to, short of actually using both systems for an extended time.

    I realize I oversimplified, and one may beat the other at various times, but I stand by my statement that a dual 2.0 MBP and a dual 2.0 G5 are "about equal."

    from the conclusions:
     
  21. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #21
    Well, it depends on what you need to do. I'm a Java developer, and Java on the PPC Macs sucked. Badly.

    My choice for Java development was always Linux , but my 17" iMac is not only 50% faster than my Dell running Windows (with a 25% faster CPU), but is equal to Linux on the same machine (i.e. 1.83GHz Intel iMac/Mac OS X == 2.26GHz P-M Dell/Linux for single threads). It's close to 3x faster than the newer PPC Macs at equivalent clock speeds.

    That's a major factor for me ... I don't use any Pro apps.
     
  22. MonksMac thread starter macrumors 6502a

    MonksMac

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Location:
    DFW
  23. vgoklani macrumors regular

    vgoklani

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    #23
    it depends on what you are using; aperture is still faster on a dual G5....plus, you can add more ram to a dual G5 - and that is a much bigger factor!
     

Share This Page