Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Barefeats disputes Apple's iMac G5 claims

JOD8FY said:
I was surprised that the 1.5Ghz PB beat out the 1.8Ghz G5 iMac in some cases. How can this be? :confused:

Also, Barefeats only used 256MB RAM. However, I'm sure Apple is really questioning the 5200 now. I say the next revision will have the 6800 Ultra :D. Tuesday anyone? :p

JOD8FY
Click to expand...


WWDC 2005...20" will get the 128 card option...and maybe a new fan to cool it given there is apparently losts of space in the 20" case bu the 17 is a bit tight... :p
 
I dont understand not having a better video option, but it could be the whole tier structure of pro vs consumer and imac vs powerbook & powermac crap. why no 9700 mobility option? Is this about the customer or apple? amazing ! no wonder Carmack made his speel about Doom3 and the Mac version.
 
JOD8FY said:
I was surprised that the 1.5Ghz PB beat out the 1.8Ghz G5 iMac in some cases. How can this be? :confused:

Also, Barefeats only used 256MB RAM. However, I'm sure Apple is really questioning the 5200 now. I say the next revision will have the 6800 Ultra :D. Tuesday anyone? :p

JOD8FY
Click to expand...

The reason the powerbook killed the 1.8Ghz iMac G5 in gaming was the fact that the powerbook has a radeon 9700 mobility which uses the RV360 (9600pro/xt) VPU, the 9600pro/xt is more then twice as fast as a 5200u.
 
Dont Hurt Me said:
I dont understand not having a better video option, but it could be the whole tier structure of pro vs consumer and imac vs powerbook & powermac crap. why no 9700 mobility option? Is this about the customer or apple? amazing ! no wonder Carmack made his speel about Doom3 and the Mac version.
Click to expand...

I don't buy it when people say that the 5200 was picked because it creates less heat or is not as big of a component. What horsecrap. They can put a laptop video card into the iMac and that would suffice... MORE than suffice in the case of the 9700 Mobility.

Apple blew this one. Sorry to say.
 
Anyone else tired of Apple shortchanging the consumers?

Just so that the consumer machines won't cannibalize their underpowered Pro machines (excluding the newest PM G5s), they shortchange the customers with underpowered machines. What comes out is less bang for the back in HW compared to PCs. How much can a great OS make up for cheap HW?

Personally, I am like many others around here. I would like a new PC at home, but I have no need to spend the space and money for a PM G5. Yet, I don't want to buy a box with already obsolete components, even if it supposed to be "cheap".

Apple, if you want the loyalty of "CONSUMERS" than gives us decent HW and SW and we'll pay your damn premium. Just don't waste our time arguing about if a 3 year old graphics card can cut it now or 2 years down the road.
 
The Barefeats Saga Continues:

"October 5th, 2004 -- iMac G5 vs iMac G4 GAP UPDATE
We obtained both an iMac G4/1.25 and an iMac G5/1.8 today. We tested them with dual 512MB memory modules (just like Apple did) and used all the same settings for Halo and UT2004 that Apple did. The gap between our two test units is 39% and 52% respectively for Halo and UT2004. Apple's lab retested today still getting 179% and 214% respectively.

We've narrowed the discrepancy down to the iMac G4. They get the same numbers we get on the iMac G5. But their iMac G4 is getting only half the frame rates that ours is generating.

If you have an iMac G4/1.25 and full versions of Halo and UT2004, I need your help -- PLEASE. I want to see if you can duplicate our results using the same setup we used. Please email me asap so I can give you a detailed test procedure.

We're hesitant to publish our new graphs until we get confirmation."

From http://www.barefeats.com

Anyone want to help Rob out?
 
whooleytoo said:
The fact that Apple's benchmarks gave just percentages and no exact framerates should have been enough to make people suspicious already.
Click to expand...

Maybe they didn't mean faster framerates at all, but rather faster loading time, or quiting time (difference given in milliseconds).
 
tace said:
Personally, I am like many others around here. I would like a new PC at home, but I have no need to spend the space and money for a PM G5. Yet, I don't want to buy a box with already obsolete components, even if it supposed to be "cheap".
Click to expand...


Come on, just buy a used DP 1.8 or 2.0 with a couple GB, and you'll be (almost) too busy creating and having fun to follow threads of this nature.
 
keysersoze said:
The Barefeats Saga Continues:

"October 5th, 2004 -- iMac G5 vs iMac G4 GAP UPDATE
We obtained both an iMac G4/1.25 and an iMac G5/1.8 today. We tested them with dual 512MB memory modules (just like Apple did) and used all the same settings for Halo and UT2004 that Apple did. The gap between our two test units is 39% and 52% respectively for Halo and UT2004. Apple's lab retested today still getting 179% and 214% respectively.

We've narrowed the discrepancy down to the iMac G4. They get the same numbers we get on the iMac G5. But their iMac G4 is getting only half the frame rates that ours is generating.

If you have an iMac G4/1.25 and full versions of Halo and UT2004, I need your help -- PLEASE. I want to see if you can duplicate our results using the same setup we used. Please email me asap so I can give you a detailed test procedure.

We're hesitant to publish our new graphs until we get confirmation."

From http://www.barefeats.com

Anyone want to help Rob out?
Click to expand...
wish i could but i only have a 1.4 quicksilver. barefeats tests look about right to me after seeing benches on single 1.6 & 1.8 powermacs. fx5200 doesnt help much with those machines or any for that matter. Like many have said frames below 30 mean slideshow and frag.
 
keysersoze said:
UPDATE FROM BAREFEATS: :eek:

"September 30th, 2004 -- APPLE BANS TESTING IN RETAIL STORES. Yesterday, I was informed by the local Apple Retail Store Business Specialist that "The retail stores will no longer be available for equipment testing." Many of the articles you have read on BareFeats.com (including the recent iMac G5 article) were produced through the cooperation of the local Apple Retail Store. My job just got a lot harder."

http://www.barefeats.com/quick.html
Click to expand...

Personally I smell a class action coming on against apple within a year or two. I have known for quite some time (as well as other people, but a majority of mac users are headstrong little steve jobs followers) that apple smudges their results a lot. Especially with g5 based products. Whenever I do little tests of my own they were always much different than apple.

but definitly the imac g5 has a POS video card and it is not that good at gaming at all (the card that is). If the imac got a decent card then maybe the results would be kinda "good" but not nearly as good as apple claims.
 
NusuniAdmin said:
Personally I smell a class action coming on against apple within a year or two. I have known for quite some time (as well as other people, but a majority of mac users are headstrong little steve jobs followers) that apple smudges their results a lot. Especially with g5 based products. Whenever I do little tests of my own they were always much different than apple.

but definitly the imac g5 has a POS video card and it is not that good at gaming at all (the card that is). If the imac got a decent card then maybe the results would be kinda "good" but not nearly as good as apple claims.
Click to expand...
barefeets guy said:
They get the same numbers we get on the iMac G5.
Click to expand...
 
NusuniAdmin said:
Personally I smell a class action coming on against apple within a year or two.
Click to expand...
There are 3 kinds of lies - lies, damn lies, and benchmarks.

If they send the guy a test machine, I'd be more inclined to believe the results. As I said in the other thread, the Apple Store and CompUSA models seem really slow. My sister's boyfriend had an iBook that seemed much faster than the same model I played with in an Apple Store. My Beige G3 running 10.2 seemed faster than an eMac running 10.3 even, I kid you not.

I didn't get it either, but as has been mentioned, they are sending him test machines, which is even better. Where's the problem? I suppose we do hold Apple up to a higher standard. If you can't trust them, who can you trust?

I mean really, doesn't the new Microsoft Office increase productivity by up to 50%?
 
keysersoze said:
The Barefeats Saga Continues:

"October 5th, 2004 -- iMac G5 vs iMac G4 GAP UPDATE
We obtained both an iMac G4/1.25 and an iMac G5/1.8 today. We tested them with dual 512MB memory modules (just like Apple did) and used all the same settings for Halo and UT2004 that Apple did. The gap between our two test units is 39% and 52% respectively for Halo and UT2004. Apple's lab retested today still getting 179% and 214% respectively.

We've narrowed the discrepancy down to the iMac G4. They get the same numbers we get on the iMac G5. But their iMac G4 is getting only half the frame rates that ours is generating.
Click to expand...

I am really glad this is the descrepency and not some over inflated results for the G5.
 
The Saga Continues (10/7/04)...

Apple claims differing iMac G4 results are due to screen size differences in test models:

"We've narrowed the discrepancy down to the iMac G4. They get the same numbers we get on the iMac G5. But their iMac G4 is getting only half the frame rates that ours is generating. Apple says it's because we're using a 20" iMac G4/1.25 while they are using a 17" iMac G4/1.25. Both machines have exactly the same specs other than screen size, but we're both running at 1024x768. Apple has promised to explain in writing how this is possible and may possibly send me their 17" iMac G4/1.25 to test. (What an amazing turn of events!)"

http://www.barefeats.com
 
keysersoze said:
The Saga Continues (10/7/04)...
Apple says it's because we're using a 20" iMac G4/1.25 while they are using a 17" iMac G4/1.25. Both machines have exactly the same specs other than screen size, but we're both running at 1024x768.
Click to expand...


???

:confused:
 
from the sound of it it seems apple is just making up stuff now in hopes of saying that htere claim is even remotely true.

Screen size should not effect the proformeces. A higher reseslution would but since they where run at the same res I see little to no hope of a 17in pulling it off unless they take the time to modifiy a little to make it a little slower
 
keysersoze said:
"We've narrowed the discrepancy down to the iMac G4. They get the same numbers we get on the iMac G5. But their iMac G4 is getting only half the frame rates that ours is generating. Apple says it's because we're using a 20" iMac G4/1.25 while they are using a 17" iMac G4/1.25. Both machines have exactly the same specs other than screen size, but we're both running at 1024x768. Apple has promised to explain in writing how this is possible and may possibly send me their 17" iMac G4/1.25 to test. (What an amazing turn of events!)"

http://www.barefeats.com
Click to expand...


Oops. That sounds a bit odd. I still wonder if the original G5 results were with a 128 Meg video card which for some reason they decided to not release in the first round of new G5 iMacs...
 
aswitcher said:
Oops. That sounds a bit odd. I still wonder if the original G5 results were with a 128 Meg video card which for some reason they decided to not release in the first round of new G5 iMacs...
Click to expand...

Barefeats blows yet another hole in Apple's iMac G5 claims (10/12/04):

http://www.barefeats.com/imacg5b.html

"THE FINAL TWIST
My request for readers with an iMac G4/1.25GHz machine (or access to one) has paid off. As of 5AM Sunday, October 10th, I received HALO and UT2004 results for a 17" iMac G4/1.25. The results matched our 20" iMac G4/1.25, thereby refuting the claim by Apple that a 17" iMac G4 is inherently slower. Apple's test iMac G4 unit is either "uniquely slow" or something else is "haywire."

CONCLUSION
More than two weeks have passed since my first posting of results. It's been a wild ride. I've contended from the start that iMac G5 is a great machine at a great price. It has as much as a 93% advantage over the iMac G4 running iLife apps.

However, when it comes to two of the top 3D "run-and-shoot" games, rather than the 179% to 212% advantage proudly reported by Apple, we are now convinced that the real numbers are more like 39% to 93%. Those are still good numbers. We still think the iMac G5 is a great replacement for the iMac G4, but words like "unparalleled 2D and 3D graphics performance" are a bit over the top."
 
I think that is settled, then.

I am glad to see that the 1.25 GHz G4 iMac 17" and 20" have similar performance..... such a strange remark by Apple.

I agree that the new iMac is a gr8 iLife machine, but it still is below par for gaming or Motion, and probably other future CoreImage related apps.
 
MacsRgr8 said:
I think that is settled, then.

I am glad to see that the 1.25 GHz G4 iMac 17" and 20" have similar performance..... such a strange remark by Apple.

I agree that the new iMac is a gr8 iLife machine, but it still is below par for gaming or Motion, and probably other future CoreImage related apps.
Click to expand...

I still strongly suspect that those test results are with a 128 graphics card in and for supply and/or money and/or heat and/or space reasons the 128 was dropped for the first iMac...but the results remained...
 
Barefeats & robART have since gotten all the specs from Apple.

Turns out the issue was not on the G5 side, but a really slow iMac G4. Who knew the 17" was slower than the 20"... and that the 17" iMac G4 in Apple's performance marketing dept was either unusally slow, or the one that Barefeats had was extremely fast.

Also note that the latest UT patch at the time was 3236, and the G5 gets even faster compared to the G4 with the current patch.

He also got the exact RAM specs, and of course set CPU to the highest setting on the G5, etc.

btw As a request from Barefeats, I've added to the Santaduck Toolpak, so that there's now a Benchmark available to do a botmatch & flyby of the UT2004 DEMO (3334). Of course the results aren't comparable to the the benches for retail, but this way you can compare machines of people who don't own UT2004.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back