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.
iMac 1.8 Ghz G5 Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
Anyway, this iMac looks great and fast... still too bad about the 5200 Ultra-Crappy Vid Card.
not true
What would it be used for? Well, err, saving energy?
I'm sitting at my desktop dual 2.5ghz g5 and I have automatic/highest settings.Bluefusion said:
What would it be used for? Well, err, saving energy?
What, no dual channel benchmarks on the G5 iMac yet?
And is there any other benchmark program people can use besides XBench? It stinks.
And is there any other benchmark program people can use besides XBench? It stinks.
Wrong... let me tell you something
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.
Bluefusion said:
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.
Wow!
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...
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!?!?!JW Pepper said:
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...
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 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
Bluefusion said:
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.
illumin8 said:
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.
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.Mav451 said:
There was a thread here that said that they got an Xbench of 250 on a iMac G5 20" I think it was.
kgarner said:
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
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.punkmac said:
punkmac said:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?