iMac 1.8 Ghz G5 Benchmarks

[Koyder]

The Xbench score is surprisingly low. My 1.25 GHz iMac G4 scores 127.

 

[slipper]

The Xbench score is surprisingly low. My 1.25 GHz iMac G4 scores 127.

i was going to have my sister upgrade her 17" 1.25ghz G4 iMac, but if this is the case, forget about it.

 

[keysersoze]

I personally think xBench rots. My scores have been anywhere from 125 - 155. It makes no sense, because the hardware stayed the same.

Anyway, this iMac looks great and fast... still too bad about the 5200 Ultra-Crappy Vid Card.

 

[goron]

not true

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.

I'm sitting at my desktop dual 2.5ghz g5 and I have automatic/highest settings.
What would it be used for? Well, err, saving energy?

 

[slipper]

err, saving energy?

why would we want to do that?

 

[FuzzyBallz]

What, no dual channel benchmarks on the G5 iMac yet?

And is there any other benchmark program people can use besides XBench? It stinks.

 

[myapplseedshurt]

Wrong... let me tell you something

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.

Are all of you forgetting that this processor is SO hot? here's what's happening... the os monitors the temp, when it gets to a certain level, it will either nap the proc or powertune to a lower freq. This is not dis-ableable!! there is no way apple would let the proc heat up beyond a point just to increase some benchmarks. Hence the design is limiting performance, and unlike the proc, that is not cool.

 

[illumin8]

Wow!

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.

That's frickin' amazing! Does anyone realize that for $1899, you are now getting the same computer that would have cost you $3998 a year ago!?!?!

PowerMac G4 1.42 DP - $2699
20" Cinema Display - $1299
Total - $3998

-or-

iMac G5 1.8 20" - $1899

Which one would I rather have? I think you can guess...

 

[myapplseedshurt]

appendage to above statement

I should have qualified that with the following:
the reason they monitor temp so much is BECAUSE of the design. I mean, 2 inches thick with a couple of small fans? for the 970, that simply isn't enough. So they are stuck with a design which requires the proc to stay at a temp well below it's true high-end temp range.

We will need to see the hardware monitor data for temps, and compare to 1.8 Powermac's temps for each proc. I hope I'm wrong... cause I want to buy one

 

[i_am_a_cow]

is that good or bad?

i need a comparison to maybe the powermac g5

I think the one at the Apple Store got like 280 on XBench when i tested.

 

[Windowlicker]

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.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. I'm on a dual 1.8 and have the option available in my energy saver prefpane.. the other possibility of course is that I have a bug of some kind on my system, but I highly doubt it.

 

[Mav451]

That's frickin' amazing! Does anyone realize that for $1899, you are now getting the same computer that would have cost you $3998 a year ago!?!?!

PowerMac G4 1.42 DP - $2699
20" Cinema Display - $1299
Total - $3998

-or-

iMac G5 1.8 20" - $1899

Which one would I rather have? I think you can guess...

Why do i have the gut feeling that the iMac LCDs are not even close to the new Apple Cinema displays? I'm thinking they are probably either the old 20" or the same ones as the original G4 iMac line.

20-inch (viewable) widescreen TFT active-matrix LCD, 1680 x 1050 pixels, millions of colors

millions doesn't inspire much confidence for me -_-

 

[kgarner]

millions doesn't inspire much confidence for me

Just because it doesn't say 16.7 million colors? This is a pretty standard way of displaying this information. When you select the color depth on your Mac it says millions not 16.7 million. At lest that's how it's been on the last several Macs I've used.

 

[swissmann]

My Xbench for my DP 1 GHz Powermac G4 = 137.43
My Xbench for my DP 2 GHz Powermac G5 = 203.85

 

[punkmac]

which benchmarks are correct?

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.

So which is it? 134 or 243 ?!!?

I.

 

[kgarner]

So which is it? 134 or 243 ?!!?

I.

Different benchmarks. 234 for Cinebench and 134 for Xbench.

 

[punkmac]

bench

Different benchmarks. 234 for Cinebench and 134 for Xbench.

So in Xbench it stinks and cinebench it rocks?

What does a Single 1.8 get in Xbench?

Thanks,

I.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

There was a thread here that said that they got an Xbench of 250 on a iMac G5 20" I think it was.

 

[BakedBeans]

Different benchmarks. 234 for Cinebench and 134 for Xbench.

134..... thats a bit low isnt it?? i thought it would way out perform my powerbook 1.5 15inch superdrive

but nope... alas it doesnt

 

[kgarner]

So in Xbench it stinks and cinebench it rocks?

What does a Single 1.8 get in Xbench?

Thanks,

I.

The measure different things and have different scales so you can't compare the two scores. You can only compare scores like Cinebench to Cinebench of two different computers. One site I found had a range from 93 to 150+ for a single 1.8. This will vary a bit depending on configuration (RAM, Bus speed, etc.) and can vary a bit from test to test on the same machine.

 

[kgarner]

There was a thread here that said that they got an Xbench of 250 on a iMac G5 20" I think it was.

I think I remember hearing that one had a gig of RAM. I think that RAM makes a lot of difference in the Xbendh scores. The 134 was from the stock 256MB configuration.

 

[dombi]

So in Xbench it stinks and cinebench it rocks?

What does a Single 1.8 get in Xbench?

Thanks,

I.

punkmac: According to the following page, the single processor G5 1.8 scores anywhere from 120-190 in XBench. I am guessing that there are lot of factors that result in this variation... Energy saver setting, faster hard drives, better graphics cards...etc. I would say that looking at this report, they are pretty comparable. Throw in about 1GB of RAM into the iMac G5 and it will run noticably better.

 

[GFLPraxis]

So in Xbench it stinks and cinebench it rocks?

What does a Single 1.8 get in Xbench?

Thanks,

I.

It got that crappy score because the iMac tested in XBench was RAM starved- it only had 256 MB, and it's recommended you get 512 for good performance in OS X.

 

[Xtremehkr]

Upgradeable G5?

I know I posted this in another thread as well, but if it means what I thnk it does it's pretty exciting news.

G5 iMac parts you can install.

AirPort Extreme Card

Memory - DDR 400 MHz (PC3200) SDRAM

Hard drive

Optical drive

Power supply

LCD display

Modem card

Mid-plane assembly (contains the main logic board, the G5 processor, fans, NVIDIA graphics processor, and so forth).

It certainly seems to suggest that the midplane can be replaced and includes the Graphics card that everyone has been so unhappy about. What does it mean?

 

[dombi]

I know I posted this in another thread as well, but if it means what I thnk it does it's pretty exciting news.

G5 iMac parts you can install.

[/b]

It certainly seems to suggest that the midplane can be replaced and includes the Graphics card that everyone has been so unhappy about. What does it mean?

Yeah, who knows, maybe in the future we will see "midplane" upgrades. That would actually be awsome, although this iMac is already a kickass machine IMHO.