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.
First Impressions of Intel iMac Core Duo
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
truz
macrumors 6502a
I seen a thread about apple saying all windows 64bit can be loaded on the intel imacs. Has someone tried booting the Windows XP Professional x64 yet?
Macrumors said:
More scattered reports have been coming in from users who have started receiving their Intel iMacs. While there's already been a disassembly there have been limited first hand reports.
Macintouch posted their first impressions of the 2.0GHz Core Duo Intel iMac and ran some early Xbench 1.2 benchmarks compared to a 1.8GHz G5 iMac. The results are difficult to interpret, however. While Xbench is a Universal Binary, it is not entirely multiprocessor aware. As a result, it does not generally test both cores of the Dual Core Intel processor. Also, graphics cards are different between the machines, making their graphical performance difficult to compare.
As expected the Intel iMac's OpenGL Graphics test (140.4) bested the G5 iMac's (90.4). The Thread Test which is multiprocessor aware showed a dramatic advantage (198.3 vs 49.75) in the Intel iMac, as expected. The other tests were quite variable, making these results difficult to interpret.
Meanwhile, a side-by-side Intel iMac vs G5 iMac video has been making the rounds showing the Intel iMac booting much faster. The video has spawned some debate about accuracy of the G5 iMac's startup in this particular video. Regardless, another user timed the 1.83GHz Intel iMac's startup at approximate 18 seconds -- users can compare this value to their own machines.
Readers will be interested to know that at least a casual attempt at booting Windows XP has been unsuccessful.
Based on Macintouch's impressions as well as this user's post:
- Intel iMacs are quiet.
- Same startup sound as previous Macs
- Same RAM access slots at bottom under removable panel as the iSight G5 iMac
A reminder that we have running Mac Guide page for the Intel iMac, that will reflect any new information.
illegalprelude
macrumors 68000
topgunn said:
wooo. a good laugh is always appreciated. do you mean the top of the line of 4 years ago?
iSee
macrumors 68040
jacobj said:
The latest versions of iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, Safari, and iTunes are all univeral binaries, so they should run great--a lot faster than on an old powerbook.
Others mentioned handbrake
Photoshop may be a problem, since the universal binary is not ready yet, and it's just the kind of thing that won't run under Rosetta well. Also, I was reading a developer article on Rosetta, and it said that an app, along with all of its plugins have to run as translated PCC, or all intel native. So you need to get universal versions of any plugins you want to use to run PS natively, in addition to a universal version of PS.
Still, the new MBP has a lot of horsepower compared to an older powerbook, so it may run just as well. And once the universal binaries start coming out, it will get a lot faster.
The Java runtime has got to be universal, right? Since it's included with the OS. If so, that will run a lot faster than on your old powerbook. I guess someone who actually has his hands on one of these things could check pretty easily...
kjs862
macrumors 65816
iSee said:
I have the latest versions of OSX (10.4.4) and have ilife 06 installed and when I click get info just the ilife 06 apps are showing up as universal and programs like safari and system preferences are showing up as powerpc. I thought Steve said during macworld that 10.4.4 is fully universal.
mulletman13 said:
There are a few things wrong about your post as well.
First of all, although you are right that an emulator does more than just translate instructions, I think it's still fair to call Rosetta an emulator. Every emulator translates instructions on the fly, and there are loads of emulators out there (called emulators) that do code translation and caching at runtime as well. I think SNES9X is an example for one, though I'm not absolutely sure.
Secondly, WINE is not about running windows apps on darwin. (A port specifically for that is DarWINE). WINE on the other hand has been around quite some time, and mainly emulates the Windows API / Function calls under linux. And even though under linux (on x86 platforms) this involves no instruction emulation, WINE still proved to be rather slow. So it is doubtful whether the mac port of WINE for x86 will be much faster.
ramuman
macrumors regular
Airforce said:
Also, as far as I know, x86-64 Windows XP doesn't support EFI. I use it on my A64 PC and have not found anything indicating it supports EFI. I think this has been reported in the past - it was the Itanium version that supported EFI, not x86-64. Also, like Airforce said, we would have to wait until Merom to know anyway.
nagromme
macrumors G5
Actually, the Pentium M (ancestor of Yonah/Core Duo) DOES come pretty close to high-end desktop Pentium performance. "Beats?" Maybe not always, but with a top GPU it could outrun a LOT of people's desktop gaming rigs. I don't have trouble believing that claim, having read the Pentium M review and head-to-head benchmarks at Tom's Hardware:illegalprelude said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/05/25/dothan_over_netburst/index.html
"we were able to raise the FSB from 133 to 160 MHz without any trouble at all. The result was that our 2.13GHz Pentium M 770 ended up running at 2.56 GHz! At this clock speed, our two year old platform was able to beat the processor heavyweights Athlon 64 FX and Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition in all 3D games!"
Now, even ONE Yonah core is faster than a Pentium M--and the iMac/MacBook Pro have two cores.
killr_b
macrumors 6502a
You must be kidding
The Dell 94 w/ 1.83Ghz, 1GB RAM(2!! dimms), NO gigabit ethernet, Wireless a/g- NO b(like it matters, but...), 100GB HD@5400 RPM and 17" (not WIDE) screen, 256MB video RAM(Not gonna get into the chipset argument), and an 8x DL DVD burner- listed here- http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/inspn_9400?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd IS $2,675- after $300 instant savings. So $2,975.00 US
The Apple Macbook Pro w/ 1.83Ghz, 1GB RAM(1!! dimm) 10/100/1000 ethernet, Wireless b/g RUMORED a support (unless I missed something), 100GB HD@5400 RPM, 15.4" widescreen, and a 4x DL DVD burner- ALSO HAS isight, scrolling trackpad, Sudden Motion sensor(Thank you GOD!), the magsafe connector(yessss!), Firewire 400, support for expanded desktop over DVI w/ 30" display support, and is only 1" thick/ 5.6lbs.- compared to 1.6" thick/ 7.94lbs. Dell- and its the everyday price of $2,499.
Upon greater inspection the Dell has 6 USB and the Apple has 2.
So, Windows has Stand-by and Hibernate- no sleep. (not the same)
Mac has Sleep, so does Vista- meaning its more efficient.
This is only relevant because were talking laptops.
But a Windude is a windude and a Machead is a Machead.
Personaly I think the Macbook is a greater value even vs. Dell's sale price.
B
ThomasM said:
The Dell 94 w/ 1.83Ghz, 1GB RAM(2!! dimms), NO gigabit ethernet, Wireless a/g- NO b(like it matters, but...), 100GB HD@5400 RPM and 17" (not WIDE) screen, 256MB video RAM(Not gonna get into the chipset argument), and an 8x DL DVD burner- listed here- http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/inspn_9400?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd IS $2,675- after $300 instant savings. So $2,975.00 US
The Apple Macbook Pro w/ 1.83Ghz, 1GB RAM(1!! dimm) 10/100/1000 ethernet, Wireless b/g RUMORED a support (unless I missed something), 100GB HD@5400 RPM, 15.4" widescreen, and a 4x DL DVD burner- ALSO HAS isight, scrolling trackpad, Sudden Motion sensor(Thank you GOD!), the magsafe connector(yessss!), Firewire 400, support for expanded desktop over DVI w/ 30" display support, and is only 1" thick/ 5.6lbs.- compared to 1.6" thick/ 7.94lbs. Dell- and its the everyday price of $2,499.
Upon greater inspection the Dell has 6 USB and the Apple has 2.
So, Windows has Stand-by and Hibernate- no sleep. (not the same)
Mac has Sleep, so does Vista- meaning its more efficient.
This is only relevant because were talking laptops.
But a Windude is a windude and a Machead is a Machead.
Personaly I think the Macbook is a greater value even vs. Dell's sale price.
B
illegalprelude
macrumors 68000
nagromme said:
I dont doubt the power of the unit but I have a feeling my PC would have no trouble running against once with ease would be my first thought. My second thought is the type of people who "mod their honda civiic and say they beat a mustang" Great, you are now comparing apples and oranges, no longer stock vs stock
Norse Son
macrumors regular
Nightly Shutdown or Sleep: One User's Ying is Another's Yang...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieNerd
That itself is pretty useless since people should be leaving their macs on most of the time if possible.
But about once a month I do try to do a cycle of Disk Utility/Toss Junk/Empty Trash/Shut-Down & Reboot... That usually gets rid of any mice & 'piders that set up house in my hard drive's dank cellars & hall closets...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieNerd
That itself is pretty useless since people should be leaving their macs on most of the time if possible.
Most of the time I just put it to sleep. About once every couple of weeks I'll at least log out as user, so it has a chance to "clean up after me" when I log in next (takes the trashcan out to the curb, checks the mailbox, cleans the registry & dishes, scrubs away at the annoying ring in the bathtub, you know... that kind of stuff).ksgant said:
But about once a month I do try to do a cycle of Disk Utility/Toss Junk/Empty Trash/Shut-Down & Reboot... That usually gets rid of any mice & 'piders that set up house in my hard drive's dank cellars & hall closets...
Norse Son
macrumors regular
Printer Drivers & Rosetta
What I'm saying is that MacOS X v.10.4.4 for Intel Macs should already contain drivers for most of the popular printer brands (Epson, HP, Canon, Brother, etc.).
Now, as to whether those are at least Universal Binaries, or (hopefully) Native drivers... You'll have to ask the experts. But printing tasks for most (all?) apps is usually "handed off" to Print Center, so I would expect it (as part of the System) to be Native.
Uhm, I don't know about you - maybe you're running some totally exotic or totally ancient printer - but MacOS X PPC has included printer drivers in the System Library. I know that there were problems back in v.10.0 and 10.1, but I think most of those printing issues were solved by the time Jaguar (10.2) arrived.lo5co said:
What I'm saying is that MacOS X v.10.4.4 for Intel Macs should already contain drivers for most of the popular printer brands (Epson, HP, Canon, Brother, etc.).
Now, as to whether those are at least Universal Binaries, or (hopefully) Native drivers... You'll have to ask the experts. But printing tasks for most (all?) apps is usually "handed off" to Print Center, so I would expect it (as part of the System) to be Native.
Kelvin
macrumors member
Now lets compare featues:ThomasM said:
Inspiron has (MBP has not):
*a D-sub VGA connector next to the DVI port
*S-video out
*6-in-1 MC reader
*56kbps modem jack
*lots and lots and lots of USB ports (why?)
MBP has (Dell has not):
*Dual-link DVI for powering a 30" display
*Built-in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR + built-in antenna (Dell optional plug-in, no antenna)
*Built-in wifi + built-in antenna (Dell optional plug-in card, no antenna)
*Gigabit Ethernet
Other (Dell vs MBP)
*17" 2.3MP display vs 15.4" 1.29MP display
*Tray-Load 8x DVD+-RW/DL vs Slot-Load 4x DVD+-RW
*Analog minijack vs Digital Optical + Analog minijack
*80GB HD vs 100GB HD
*ExpressCard/54 vs ExpressCard/34
*53Wh (~3hr) batt vs 60Wh (~4.5hr) batt
*1.6" THICK vs 1.0" thin (37% thinner, 52% smaller by volume)
*7.94Lbs vs 5.6Lbs (30% lighter)
I'm not sure you realize just how much of a difference in weight and size that is. Or maybe you don't care. Maybe you justify it as "a desktop replacement". FYI: some of us give a damn about portability for a portable computer. I can, buy an iMac Core Duo with a bunch of external crap and a big battery and get better specs than that Dell Latitude for less, but what does that prove? Show me a 15" Dell with MBP specs and weight.
If you want to save money buying crap, fine. Don't try to make it look like a good deal though, that's just insulting.
I recently went down to the apple store in valley fair (san jose/santa clara) and played around and restared one of the intel macs- and they are pretty darn fast. it went from pushing the switch to useable in about 15 seconds, and then i opened every app on the dock and it was faster than my dual 2.0 g5. ars's review is slightly skewed in that the intel mac only had the stock 512 memory, whereas his other systems had way more. and the system i played with had 1 gig in there- remember, os x needs a lot of memory. but all said, these things are fast.
oh, and in response to all the java quesions- no dice. gmail, yahoo mail, and anything java related does not work. sorry to you dslreports.com fans.
oh, and in response to all the java quesions- no dice. gmail, yahoo mail, and anything java related does not work. sorry to you dslreports.com fans.
illegalprelude
macrumors 68000
Kelvin said:
having worked in the retail side of electronics for a long time, I cannot agree with you more.
Customer "This sony and compaq almost have the same specs but the sony is $250 more. God I always hate paying for a name brand"
Me in my head "you get what you pay for"
6 months later
Same Customer "omg, you guys sell crap, computer crashed, so slow. Give me another compaq, their still cheaper then those sony's"
Norse Son
macrumors regular
Please don't hold out for a Microsoft EFI Solution
If I were a Windows user (never, ever, ever again!), I wouldn't want to shell out good coin for that rushed release.
And I think you'd be hardpressed to find recent references to Blackcomb's development. Which makes me think it won't see Alpha, let alone, Beta, until late 2010.
No, if people want to run Windows apps on an Intel/EFI Mac, I think the best bet is a "transparent", near-native emulator. And I wonder if Transitive (the company behind Apple's Rosetta?) couldn't come up with a similar emulator to Rosetta that would allow a MacOS X on Intel to run Windows apps without needing to have Windows installed on the Mac... THAT is the Holy Grail of emulation.
MicroSLOW was originally supposed to ship LongSNORE/Vista back in 2003 (search the web for it's timetable). And their beta schedules have recently seen... hmm, how to put it non-snarkily... "experienced flux". And with the news today that XP SP3 has now been pushed to late 2007... Hmm, I smell another rat. I think they are throwing every programmer at Vista - even as they strip its chassis to bare components - just to make some kind of a release this year.bigandy said:
If I were a Windows user (never, ever, ever again!), I wouldn't want to shell out good coin for that rushed release.
And I think you'd be hardpressed to find recent references to Blackcomb's development. Which makes me think it won't see Alpha, let alone, Beta, until late 2010.
No, if people want to run Windows apps on an Intel/EFI Mac, I think the best bet is a "transparent", near-native emulator. And I wonder if Transitive (the company behind Apple's Rosetta?) couldn't come up with a similar emulator to Rosetta that would allow a MacOS X on Intel to run Windows apps without needing to have Windows installed on the Mac... THAT is the Holy Grail of emulation.
bondjw07 said:
You might be surprised!
Take a look at my post over in the mac ad thread https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/2067902/
Norse Son
macrumors regular
The iMac's guts are a laptop with legs...
However, if you read the articles around the web about Yonah, and Intel's official info, you'll see that it's intended for laptops & consumer desktops. Chances are there are a number of PCs out there which have a Pentium M in them - I just lacked reason to look before (or is it because I "can reason" that I never had a reason to shop for Windows PCs)...
The iMac's mobo & innards are essentially what you'd find if you could inflate a laptop by 20% or so. Yes, it does use 3.5" drives, while the laptops use 2.5". But when Apple redesigned the iMac G5, from the "desklamp" G4 predecessor, they managed to fit it into a space occupied by many laptops. And that includes the display, too. That was what amazed people so much about the design. The same can be said about the guts of the mini, which does use 2.5" hard drives.kjs862 said:
However, if you read the articles around the web about Yonah, and Intel's official info, you'll see that it's intended for laptops & consumer desktops. Chances are there are a number of PCs out there which have a Pentium M in them - I just lacked reason to look before (or is it because I "can reason" that I never had a reason to shop for Windows PCs)...
Just played with a 1.83ghz imac for about 30 min- my real quick first impressions:
Boot up time- wow- much faster that ANY mac I have used. Very Very fast.
Screen is very bright and crisp.
So quiet- I could not tell that it was on.
I could feel warm air from the vent in the back after 5 min of use- it must heat up fast.
System seemed snappy. But, in my experiences, almost all mac have a snappy feeling at first that decreases with time and how you use the hard drive.
Apps:
imovie opened very fast and felt great in terms of speed.
Garage Band seemed to take as long to boot up as on my G5 1.6 at work. A little dissapointment started to sneak in...
iphoto- once pictures were converted, it seemed very smooth.
Ran word. Seemed very fast. I hope all "old" binaries work as well.
I was dying to try safari to see the speed that others have posted...
My experience- apple.com came in as chunks- over a 2 meg cable modem. Not as fast as I was hoping from reading posts. Not "instant" Those imacs at the show must have had some popular sites loaded (my guess)
Google.com (oviously much much less graphic) came in instantly- very fast...I only report this as I noticed the speed.
I went to play some videos off my .mac page- choppy at best...
I know network conditions could be playing most of the role here, but I was dissapointed.
The reason why I was playing with this, was a friend just had this shipped Monday and could not get the dhcp to auto detect anything.
I am not sure what the problem was, but out of the box, his imac did not pull in the settings. Actually, the text messege was buggy- two sent overlapping each other on the screen. Not sure if this was the OS, computer, or a mix- but it made me nervous that mabey this baby was rushed...
I was able to enter in his settings, and off he went. Anyone else has set up problems like this?
Well, not sure what this says about me, but I have a macbook on order. I love the powerbook design (except the heat reminds of James HOT PANTS!) I also think the diff between the lattest PB running G4's and the new Intel chips is going to be great. Like others- hate the name. I also hate Apple for always releasing cool things and making me spend money that I don't have.
Boot up time- wow- much faster that ANY mac I have used. Very Very fast.
Screen is very bright and crisp.
So quiet- I could not tell that it was on.
I could feel warm air from the vent in the back after 5 min of use- it must heat up fast.
System seemed snappy. But, in my experiences, almost all mac have a snappy feeling at first that decreases with time and how you use the hard drive.
Apps:
imovie opened very fast and felt great in terms of speed.
Garage Band seemed to take as long to boot up as on my G5 1.6 at work. A little dissapointment started to sneak in...
iphoto- once pictures were converted, it seemed very smooth.
Ran word. Seemed very fast. I hope all "old" binaries work as well.
I was dying to try safari to see the speed that others have posted...
My experience- apple.com came in as chunks- over a 2 meg cable modem. Not as fast as I was hoping from reading posts. Not "instant" Those imacs at the show must have had some popular sites loaded (my guess)
Google.com (oviously much much less graphic) came in instantly- very fast...I only report this as I noticed the speed.
I went to play some videos off my .mac page- choppy at best...
I know network conditions could be playing most of the role here, but I was dissapointed.
The reason why I was playing with this, was a friend just had this shipped Monday and could not get the dhcp to auto detect anything.
I am not sure what the problem was, but out of the box, his imac did not pull in the settings. Actually, the text messege was buggy- two sent overlapping each other on the screen. Not sure if this was the OS, computer, or a mix- but it made me nervous that mabey this baby was rushed...
I was able to enter in his settings, and off he went. Anyone else has set up problems like this?
Well, not sure what this says about me, but I have a macbook on order. I love the powerbook design (except the heat reminds of James HOT PANTS!) I also think the diff between the lattest PB running G4's and the new Intel chips is going to be great. Like others- hate the name. I also hate Apple for always releasing cool things and making me spend money that I don't have.