Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases Intel iMac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
iamoneagain said:
I am guessing that is because Alti-Vec (Velocity Engine) is used to do this process. Make no mistake, Intel is great, but when an app. can tap into Alti-Vec on the PowerPC, it does things fast!
sigamy said:
Hmmmm....last I checked my iMac has a G5 in it. Sure it is a 970FX, but I doubt at 1.8Ghz to 2.0Ghz the 970MP runs much warmer in fact it probably runs cooler. Why? Because the 2.5Ghz 970FX Dual needed liquid cooling and the 2.5Ghz 970MP Quad does not.
Apple needed to make the switch mainly because of their laptops and no path forward with PowerPC. A 970MP would have been completely possible in the current iMac, they just decided it was not worth it at this time since the switch was happening anyhow.
The Service Manuals have reached the torrent sites. Item of interest:
-no diagnostic LEDs
-battery moved
-wireless boards and antennas have been separated
-New interface and features for diagnostics CDs
-new methods for formatting HDs
-new methods for entering EFI
-new methods for Target Disk Mode
-EMI shields
-The blue motherboard is gone
-Systems use new diagnostics
-Power On Self Test (POST) uses blinking lights and beeps to diagnose problems.
-no diagnostic LEDs
-battery moved
-wireless boards and antennas have been separated
-New interface and features for diagnostics CDs
-new methods for formatting HDs
-new methods for entering EFI
-new methods for Target Disk Mode
-EMI shields
-The blue motherboard is gone
-Systems use new diagnostics
-Power On Self Test (POST) uses blinking lights and beeps to diagnose problems.
Hi all. I need some advice here.
I purchased an iMac G5 in late December, knowing that the intel macs would be coming out soon. Anyhoo, I absolutely love this computer. It does everything I need it to, with ease. I don't do anything intense with it - only email, surfing, iphoto, itune, some word processing, etc. Nothing intense. I really don't even think I need to purchase any software for it, as it comes with everything I need.
However, after hearing that the new iMac is 2-3x faster, I'm tempted. I have the option of returning the computer for a full refund, no restocking fee or anything, by this Saturday. So, my question to you all is - should I return and buy an intel iMac, or just keep what I have. I'm thinking of just keeping what I have, as it is the last version of the G5, is tried, tested and true. Also, I'm not sure how much faster I need to run my apps. I'm kind of worried that if I get an intel iMac, it might be buggy at first and I won't end up liking it as much.
What would you do?
I purchased an iMac G5 in late December, knowing that the intel macs would be coming out soon. Anyhoo, I absolutely love this computer. It does everything I need it to, with ease. I don't do anything intense with it - only email, surfing, iphoto, itune, some word processing, etc. Nothing intense. I really don't even think I need to purchase any software for it, as it comes with everything I need.
However, after hearing that the new iMac is 2-3x faster, I'm tempted. I have the option of returning the computer for a full refund, no restocking fee or anything, by this Saturday. So, my question to you all is - should I return and buy an intel iMac, or just keep what I have. I'm thinking of just keeping what I have, as it is the last version of the G5, is tried, tested and true. Also, I'm not sure how much faster I need to run my apps. I'm kind of worried that if I get an intel iMac, it might be buggy at first and I won't end up liking it as much.
What would you do?
Daveway said:
Interesting.I was reading this when you posted that :
http://www.tianocore.org/
Excellent read for EFI Open source info..
I would walk in there on Friday and get the new one. Also, the transition isn't as risky as people are making it out to be. They have gone with a good iMac design for awhile and they have been optimising intel for 5 years. It's risk level isn't as high as a brand new design.sers said:
but... how many bit?
Intel CPU's sounds great... but, is it 32bit or 64bit?
excuse my ignorance.. but the IBM G5 is 64bit right?
im guessing theyre 32bit.
oh and also - sorry this should go in an apple website bitch thread.. but:
whats with apple.com straying away from 8x6 minimum website?
im not a big fan of wide websites... especially when im using my ibook at 1024px
woooh!
Intel CPU's sounds great... but, is it 32bit or 64bit?
excuse my ignorance.. but the IBM G5 is 64bit right?
im guessing theyre 32bit.
oh and also - sorry this should go in an apple website bitch thread.. but:
whats with apple.com straying away from 8x6 minimum website?
im not a big fan of wide websites... especially when im using my ibook at 1024px
woooh!
sers said:
This is only true if you didn't open the iMac. If you opened it, you have to pay a 10 percent restocking fee. I know this because my 14 days run out on Saturday too and I called both the Michigan Ave. Apple Store and the toll free number to confirm it.
I'm not swapping mine. I don't believe the benchmark tests and I need to be able to run VirtualPC ... the Intel isn't even dual bootable and Virtual PC may take over a year to come out. The PPC is a great machine, extremely stable, who knows how hurredly put together and jerryrigged the Intel version is.
So I'll let others be the guinea pigs ... my first Intel will be a Rev. B Mac Book Pro.
Newb here!
Seems to me that the only reason NOT to buy an Intel-iMac is potential software problems.
I have a defective iMac G5 sitting in front of me that I'm returning. I'm switching the the Intel-iMac and I'm not even a little bit worried.
If this G5 wasn't defective, I would keep it and continue not to be worried.
Both are good computers that will perform for their owners as advertised.
Seems to me that the only reason NOT to buy an Intel-iMac is potential software problems.
I have a defective iMac G5 sitting in front of me that I'm returning. I'm switching the the Intel-iMac and I'm not even a little bit worried.
If this G5 wasn't defective, I would keep it and continue not to be worried.
Both are good computers that will perform for their owners as advertised.
chicagdan said:
Don't forget that the G5 is 64 bit but the Core Cuo is only 32 bit. Even more important don't forget Altivec. None of the Intel chips and nothing on the Intel road map has anything that comes close to matching Altivec, not even in the same ballpark. Apple's solution is to off load the Altivec duties to the GPU, which is going to really dog down those shiny new ATI chips.
It's by no means clear yet that the Intel iMac will really be faster for end users. I suspect for some tasks that are heavy on vector processing it never will be regardless of how much software gets ported to native x86.
sigamy said:
Is that actually true? As for the 970MP I'm not so sure. I'm not an EE, so I don't really know and I haven't had any luck searching out hard numbers to compare. Anecdotally though, the Power Mac G5 Quad went from 970FX's to 970MP's in the same box with apparently little increase in power dissipation problems. Since the iMac G5 already has a 970FX clocked down to 2.1GHz, presumably it should be able to handle a similar speed 970MP. Even if that was a bit too hot, they could just change the form factor a bit - there's nothing magic about the 2" thickness as it's not a laptop.
I'll be the first to admit I may be way off base here but if so, please, show me the numbers.
As for not getting "any G5 into an iMac", that was just a silly thing for you to say. By definition the iMac G5 has a G5 in it.
Sorry, couldn't resist. I assume you didn't really mean what you wrote.
p0intblank said:
Well, on the surface it looks like the could have much more easily just dropped a 970MP in there and had a dual core machine that would have still been 64 bit, still had Altivec, probably been just as fast in the basics and much faster at vector stuff, and not required any kind of switch. Sorry, but I don't yet see the reason to be happy.
I was starting to get a little excited when folks brought up the dual boot thing, but it looks like the EFI vs. BIOS issue makes that a non-starter.
ailleur said:
Well, it's certainly useful in the CAD world, but then Apple has not been able to get any of the significant player there to port over. They almost had UG, but they blew it by dragging their feet for so many years on making pro grade video cards available for their machines.
As for SSE, from what I recall reading, Altivec just blows all versions of SSE right out of the water. I'm not a programmer and I'm working for memory here, so I admit I may be off. Show me the numbers please.
MacinDoc said:
I believe Mercury Computer just announced a Cell based server.
capran said:
Preach it brother! That's what the mini should have had from the moment it was introduced. I've been waiting all year for it and I was all set to buy yesterday. All I can figure is Jobs must be sacred of ticking off the TV executives. What a sissy! Too bad as I'd rather record shows for free when they're broadcast than pay $2 to buy the same thing later. Besides, they don't sell the stuff I want to watch anyway.
BakedBeans said:
Skip the rants and insults and just show me the numbers please.
Hey, I don't have religeon about which processor they use. All I'm saying is that superficially it looks like they could have gotten just as much bang for the buck, quite possibly more, just by dropping in last year's 970MP instead of tipping over the whole apple cart to switch to last week's Core Duo. I could be wrong - prove it. For Apple's sake I'd love to be proven wrong about it.
I see the new iMac as a great machine. A very nice surprise. I don´t really use any programs that would benefit from 64 bit, so this is no issue for me. 2gig of RAM will also be sufficient. If this is not the case for you, you are probably better off with a Power Mac.
nomacyet said:
What? when did i rant or insult.
Which part of - ''we are switching to intel'' dont you get?
Intel is rolling out across the line - its a good move because the very hot and inefficient G5s wont go in anything small.
Last weeks - do you mean last week as in, old technology or last week as in they were released just last week?
for apples sake - come on guys, let proove him wrong because apple will implode otherwise
dual 2ghz v single 2.1
x1600 v x600
same price - more future proof - twice as fast.
whats the problem?
Couldn't have said it better myself, BakedBeans. I really wish all the bitching would stop. It could be so much worse.
I have to agree with the above posters.
If people are not happy, you can still buy the G5 iMac at apple.com.
They´ve even included screen spanning, and that used to be one of the things seperating the i and Pro lines. Come on, cheer up
If people are not happy, you can still buy the G5 iMac at apple.com.
They´ve even included screen spanning, and that used to be one of the things seperating the i and Pro lines. Come on, cheer up
Well, when somebody really wants to believe something.. its hard to cram the truth down their throat.
So ill try to illustrate how all those people are wrong with a bit of direct transtivity, since there exists no g5 vs yonah benchmark.
First, this very old article which shows the dothan (that is what the yonah is derived from, the dothan is a SINGLE core cpu, so the yonah basically has 2 tweaked out dothan cpu (core))
http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/cpu/dothan/dothan-5.htm
You can see that it is as fast as the athlon fx. Now for those of you who dont follow the x86 side of the hardware market (and somehow still find a way to bitch at how x86 sucks compared to their precious g5) the athlon fx is the 1000$ enthousiast cpu from amd.
Now for some comparaison purpuses between dothan and yonah, we have this article
http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=2663&p=8
which shows that it is always as fast, and in most cases faster.
And finaly, we have this chart that did compare the athlon fx to the g5 a while back. For clarity's sakes, the opteron used in these tests is basicaly an fx that can work in dual cpu configuration and on a different sock. Spec wise it is the same thing.
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&p=5
We can see that the fx will most of the time beat the g5 by a large margin (remember benchmarks in seconds have to be interpreted as "lower is better" since it is the time required to complete the task). It will beat it in all except one test where all cpus are equal and it is behind by 0.5%, well within the margin of error.
So we have yonah>dothan=fx>>g5.
I hope that all those well learned people yapping about how the g5 is the most precious thing in the world and that nothing could come close to it will take the time to read all these and realise that it is nothing special, and that only real advantage is gives you is the ability to say that you are, in fact, using a g5.
So ill try to illustrate how all those people are wrong with a bit of direct transtivity, since there exists no g5 vs yonah benchmark.
First, this very old article which shows the dothan (that is what the yonah is derived from, the dothan is a SINGLE core cpu, so the yonah basically has 2 tweaked out dothan cpu (core))
http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/cpu/dothan/dothan-5.htm
You can see that it is as fast as the athlon fx. Now for those of you who dont follow the x86 side of the hardware market (and somehow still find a way to bitch at how x86 sucks compared to their precious g5) the athlon fx is the 1000$ enthousiast cpu from amd.
Now for some comparaison purpuses between dothan and yonah, we have this article
http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=2663&p=8
which shows that it is always as fast, and in most cases faster.
And finaly, we have this chart that did compare the athlon fx to the g5 a while back. For clarity's sakes, the opteron used in these tests is basicaly an fx that can work in dual cpu configuration and on a different sock. Spec wise it is the same thing.
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&p=5
We can see that the fx will most of the time beat the g5 by a large margin (remember benchmarks in seconds have to be interpreted as "lower is better" since it is the time required to complete the task). It will beat it in all except one test where all cpus are equal and it is behind by 0.5%, well within the margin of error.
So we have yonah>dothan=fx>>g5.
I hope that all those well learned people yapping about how the g5 is the most precious thing in the world and that nothing could come close to it will take the time to read all these and realise that it is nothing special, and that only real advantage is gives you is the ability to say that you are, in fact, using a g5.
ailleur said:
From your last article link:
Most of us don't give a crap about all of these processor drag races, what counts is the software we use. And not only does the Intel chip have a performance issue with Altivec, for now it's going to be run in rosetta much of the time.
The truth is that what Steve said Tuesday was total crap ... no way does a computer with basically the same hardware but a slightly faster processor turn out to be 2 or 3 times faster. I'll grant that the Core Duo is a faster chip, but the quantum leap simply doesn't exist, for now.
chicagdan said:
He clearly said the computer wasnt 2-3x faster, he said that what the specific benchmarks made to test specifically the cpu, that is, integer and floating point calculations, show it to be 2-3x faster. Hell he even said "of course the computer wont be 2-3x faster since all the other components are the same"
As for photoshop, they did not test it, so what they could try to guess about it, i wont really care about.
And it doesnt have performance issue with altivec, it just doesnt have it. It has another SIMD module, sse3. How could intel be to blame that devs could not support sse3 in time? The problem is software, not hardware.
Again steve clearly said (and for the record, it could be anybody that said it, i dont really care about steve jobs, im writing this off a pc and ive only been using a mac laptop for a year and a half, so steve is not my sweetheart) that it was NOT fast enough to run photoshop in emulation mode. But hey, its an imac, not a powermac dual, its not meant for professionnals for whom the speed is everything, its meant for my grandmother so she can surf the web w/o worrying about what she clicks. If photoshop is so important to you that you could not take a performance hit, then youre probably not running an imac in the first place.
ailleur said:
Okay, fair enough ... then why is Apple advertising the computer as two times faster?
And as for the other issues regarding developers tweaking for Intel ... I agree. I also agree that, eventually, this will be the clearly superior platform. But we're not there yet. For pro-sumers or whoever is expected to buy an iMac, you'll see little or no performance gain from this machine over the last G5 and some software you may need (such as Virtual PC) won't run at all. So why buy this machine now? I bought a G5 iMac 11 days ago and I won't be returning it, I think it's still the smarter buy.