Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!
  • Did you order new AirTags? We've opened a dedicated AirTags forum.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
52,419
14,127
Thanks to one of our readers, we have some early benchmark results on a 20" 1.8 Ghz G5 iMac.
Cinebench results:
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
Processor : iMac G5
MHz : 1.8 GHZ
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : 10.3.5

Graphics Card : 5200
Resolution : 1440x900
Color Depth : millions
****************************************************
Rendering (Single CPU): 243 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 228 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 558 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 695 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.05
****************************************************
and an Xbench score of 134.71 (full Xbench details in thread)
 

Mudbug

Administrator emeritus
Jun 28, 2002
3,847
1
North Central Colorado
Xbench details

iMac G5 1.8 -- 256 MB arrived. Have not yet upgeaded memory:
Code:
Results	134.71	
	System Info		
		Xbench Version		1.1.3
		System Version		10.3.5 (7P35)
		Physical RAM		256 MB
		Model		PowerMac8,1
		Processor		PowerPC G5 @ 1.80 GHz
			L1 Cache		64K (instruction), 32K (data)
			L2 Cache		512K @ 1.15 GHz
			Bus Frequency		600 MHz
		Video Card		GeForce FX 5200
		Drive Type		ST380013AS
	CPU Test	136.48	
		GCD Loop	91.90	3.59 Mops/sec
		Floating Point Basic	285.46	1.03 Gflop/sec
		AltiVec Basic	122.14	3.55 Gflop/sec
		vecLib FFT	100.86	1.57 Gflop/sec
		Floating Point Library	241.02	9.65 Mops/sec
	Thread Test	84.47	
		Computation	53.04	716.03 Kops/sec, 4 threads
		Lock Contention	207.38	2.60 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
	Memory Test	210.75	
		System	229.53	
			Allocate	616.09	401.87 Kalloc/sec
			Fill	209.06	1664.14 MB/sec
			Copy	150.07	750.36 MB/sec
		Stream	194.81	
			Copy	166.59	1217.79 MB/sec [G5]
			Scale	169.44	1250.43 MB/sec [G5]
			Add	224.87	1439.19 MB/sec [G5]
			Triad	239.16	1461.27 MB/sec [G5]
	Quartz Graphics Test	188.34	
		Line	189.47	4.82 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
		Rectangle	156.19	10.99 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
		Circle	193.08	4.45 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
		Bezier	167.62	1.82 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
		Text	268.61	4.38 Kchars/sec
	OpenGL Graphics Test	187.25	
		Spinning Squares	187.25	131.04 frames/sec
	User Interface Test	209.37	
		Elements	209.37	67.34 refresh/sec
	Disk Test	79.19	
		Sequential	67.00	
			Uncached Write	69.51	28.97 MB/sec [4K blocks]
			Uncached Write	43.58	17.85 MB/sec [256K blocks]
			Uncached Read	68.48	10.84 MB/sec [4K blocks]
			Uncached Read	128.78	52.03 MB/sec [256K blocks]
		Random	96.82	
			Uncached Write	94.15	1.41 MB/sec [4K blocks]
			Uncached Write	91.65	20.67 MB/sec [256K blocks]
			Uncached Read	92.34	0.61 MB/sec [4K blocks]
			Uncached Read	111.69	22.99 MB/sec [256K blocks]
 
Comment

kgarner

macrumors 68000
Jan 28, 2004
1,512
0
Utah
Finally! Now I can really start drooling over my imminent purchase. Some counter examples would be appreciated.
 
Comment

andyduncan

macrumors regular
Jan 21, 2003
172
0
settledown said:
is that good or bad?

i need a comparison to maybe the powermac g5

this Bare Feats article has these numbers for the cinebench rendering:

DP G5 2.5ghz: 649
DP G5 2.0ghz: 522
DP G4 1.42ghz: 247
PB G4 1.5ghz: 135

So this score of 243 is pretty good. The gigantic caveat being that this is just one type of test.
 
Comment

coconn06

macrumors regular
Jun 14, 2003
197
0
King of Prussia, PA
Pretty good

After a quick Google search, it appears as if these results are comparable to even a dual 1.8 GHz PowerMac. Not in all aspects of course (like memory; there is one fewer processor and a slower system bus). But the numbers look good, reinforcing my decision to buy one as soon as I can.
 
Comment

azdude

macrumors 6502
Sep 27, 2003
388
16
What's up with the XBench score of 134? My 15" 1.5GHz Powerbook gets 150. Shouldn't a 1.8G5 w/ full size SATA hard drives do significantly better? (True, I bet this is with the stock 256 RAM).
 
Comment

smitty078

macrumors member
Sep 2, 2004
61
0
I'm betting that this person had their performance setting in the energy system prefs set to "automatic". I get a better xbench score than that on my 15" 1.5ghz G4 powerbook when it is set to "highest". If I put my powerbook on "automatic" on the other had, the imac crushes me.
 
Comment

kgarner

macrumors 68000
Jan 28, 2004
1,512
0
Utah
This site has a bunch of xBench scores to compare against. It looks very good so far. I am very excited to be buying one of these now. (As if I weren't before)
 
Comment

rog

macrumors 6502
Apr 9, 2003
388
68
Kalapana, HI
Anyone have SP 1.8 Tower results for comparison? I wonder how much difference the bus speed and graphics chip make.
 
Comment

smitty078

macrumors member
Sep 2, 2004
61
0
lol.. funny that two 15" powerbook owners posted almost the same thing at the same time (i can assure you it was not planned). Maybe the 15" powerbooks just rock that much.
 
Comment

andyduncan

macrumors regular
Jan 21, 2003
172
0
actually this Bare Feats article has even more numbers, including some wintel machines.

of note:

DP Xeon 3.06ghz: 655
DP Opteron 2.0ghz: 523
DP G5 1.8ghz: 471
SP P4 3.2ghz: 384
SP G5 1.8ghz: 251
SP G5 1.6ghz: 222

So faster than a 1.6 G5, practically a dead heat to the single processor 1.8 G5. And the test looks like it slightly favors raw Ghz (IMHO).

(edit: these are Cinebench render test scores)
 
Comment

Bluefusion

macrumors 6502
Apr 25, 2003
257
0
New York, NY
smitty078 said:
I'm betting that this person had their performance setting in the energy system prefs set to "automatic". I get a better xbench score than that on my 15" 1.5ghz G4 powerbook when it is set to "highest". If I put my powerbook on "automatic" on the other had, the imac crushes me.

Nope. There is no "Automatic" setting for Energy Saver on desktop machines--what would it be used for? No battery, thus, no energy conservation system. You control system sleep and display sleep, that's it.

So this score is a little odd.
 
Comment

caveman_uk

Guest
Feb 17, 2003
2,390
1
Hitchin, Herts, UK
For comparison my Dual 1GHz G4 MDD just got 131 on xbench. My MDD really got it's ass kicked on floating point and memory bandwidth. Interestingly the GF 5200 got better openGL scores than my Radeon 9000. I've also got 3 times as much RAM as the G5 so the G5 was hindered by that. It's not hugely better than a Dual G4 so it looks like I'll be upgrading to a dual G5 next time...
 
Comment

Stike

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2002
1,014
7
Germany
What about those XBench numbers previously posted? With 1 GB RAM, the iMac scored 155 points there...
 
Comment

sugarprobe

macrumors newbie
Sep 22, 2003
19
0
Winnipeg, MB, Canada
My Dual 2 G5 Has Energy saver on it, Auto,Highest,Reduced.

Bluefusion said:
Nope. There is no "Automatic" setting for Energy Saver on desktop machines--what would it be used for? No battery, thus, no energy conservation system. You control system sleep and display sleep, that's it.

So this score is a little odd.
 
Comment

GFLPraxis

macrumors 604
Mar 17, 2004
7,115
418
azdude said:
What's up with the XBench score of 134? My 15" 1.5GHz Powerbook gets 150. Shouldn't a 1.8G5 w/ full size SATA hard drives do significantly better? (True, I bet this is with the stock 256 RAM).

That XBench score is on a RAM-starved iMac. Only 256 MB. How much RAM does your PB get?
 
Comment

BrianKonarsMac

macrumors 65816
Apr 28, 2004
1,102
83
the 5200 ultra is ALOT better than your 9000. a 5200 is comparable (slightly better) than your 9000. people shovel way too much **** on the 5200 just because it's from nvidia. check some benches.

this score is WAY lower than i had hoped for. my 933QS scores about 115-120, and my 1.33 12" scores about 120 - ~130 (high 20s), and would do much better with a 5400 or 7200 rpm HD. im starting to wonder if the xBench scores aren't exponential, meaning if the difference between 5 points at say 90, is smaller than at 130.

o well, good, but not as impressive as i was thinking. i guess G4's really were faster clock for clock, and just had an antiquated memory controllers. o well, size matters :D .

ah didnt see it was on a ram diet....~160 is much better (though i was hoping for 170-180).
 
Comment

JW Pepper

macrumors regular
Jul 21, 2002
210
3
It's quite clear that the iMac G5 is on a par with a DP G4 1.42, both the cinebench and xbench results confirm this. This is a fantastic result. A 20" iMac with a 250GB HDD and maxed out ram will be a formidable machine and is likely to outrun any G4 system.
 
Comment

longofest

Editor emeritus
Jul 10, 2003
2,865
1,488
Falls Church, VA
G5's DO have energy saver settings

Bluefusion said:
Nope. There is no "Automatic" setting for Energy Saver on desktop machines--what would it be used for? No battery, thus, no energy conservation system. You control system sleep and display sleep, that's it.

So this score is a little odd.

With the advent of the G5's, Apple did start introducing the "automatic" "highest" and "reduced" settings to the desktop line. While the application is obvious for laptops (battery life), for desktops, the application became heat and sound related. Because G5's run hotter as you turn up the power, they therefore require more air to run through them which makes them run louder (the fans). So, the automatic setting will let the OS decide when to turn down the power to the G5. The Highest setting, in the meantime will always keep the power pumping (and your house sounding like an airport), and the reduced setting will always keep the power reduced, and therefore allow you to sleep at night.
 
Comment

Sabbath

macrumors 6502a
Sep 18, 2003
534
0
London
It's not as good as I was expecting, I can remember seeing a some xbenches someone did at the expo at around 150something which would seem more realistic. I would expect the processor is set to automatic (not high) and once some reasonable quantity of ram is in their it will perform very nicely. Lets remember this is just a benchmark and not representitive of all aspects of performance.
 
Comment

kgarner

macrumors 68000
Jan 28, 2004
1,512
0
Utah
Definitely agree with the posts regarding more RAM. I think that Apple really should have made it 512 standard on at least the top two models. At any rate it is good to have some ammo for when I go to the wife to say I need more memory. :D
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.