iMac 1.8 Ghz G5 Benchmarks

punkmac · Sep 15, 2004

scores

dombi 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.

Thanks guys.

This would put it on par with at least the powermac 1.8 (great!) Just cram it with RAM!

Wonderful, Now I have even more conflict. Powermac vs. iMac.

Exactly the same thing when buying my iMac G4!

AAARRRGHHH!

We'll see with some real world test.

I.

macshark · Sep 15, 2004

As the percentage (perceived) value of the LCD monitor with respect to the rest of the system gets higher, this may be the first case where Apple may provide official "midplane" upgrades to Mac owners some time in the near future - how about next fall?

A cool choice would be a midplane upgrade board that has a 0.65u PPC975GX with dual 2.5GHz cores and NVidia 6600SE chip?

Xtremehkr said:
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?

iHack · Sep 15, 2004

GFLPraxis said:
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.

And it was not even dual channel RAM - with two same spec DIMMs its memory performance will double. Anyone any idea what this will do for the xbanch score? It should be possible to calculate that...

RazorWriter · Sep 15, 2004

20" LCDs

Now that it's been brought up, I'd really like to know more about the 20" LCD screen in the new imac besides simple resolution - how does it compare as far as brightness, viewing angles, etc, with the new 20" Apple Display?

Anyone seen one in a store yet?

kgarner · Sep 15, 2004

I'm pretty sure if we ever do see mid-plane upgrade kits it will be from a third party and not supported by Apple. Still I have used those upgrade cards with great success and would probably buy a mid-plane upgrade for my iMac (after it was out of warranty).

aswitcher · Sep 15, 2004

I really want to see what the performance difference will between a 20" with half and a full gig. Gotta figure out if the extra half gig is worth it...

Xtremehkr · Sep 15, 2004

macshark said:
As the percentage (perceived) value of the LCD monitor with respect to the rest of the system gets higher, this may be the first case where Apple may provide official "midplane" upgrades to Mac owners some time in the near future - how about next fall?

A cool choice would be a midplane upgrade board that has a 0.65u PPC975GX with dual 2.5GHz cores and NVidia 6600SE chip?

Maybe Apple is going to pioneer a new approach to selling computers by designing something that will remain stylish for a longer period and then selling upgrades to that system. It would mean that upgrading an Apple gets much cheaper and adds incentive to designing good looking computers.

It would also make things easier for Apple as there would be fewer parts that need to be built, which could mean that Apple has fewer supply problems as the number of things that can go wrong decrease.

It's like being able to re-use the same canvas everytime you have a better idea. Eventually you would want to replace the canvas, but not nearly as often as people do now.

kgarner · Sep 15, 2004

Xtremehkr said:
Maybe Apple is going to pioneer a new approach to selling computers by designing something that will remain stylish for a longer period and then selling upgrades to that system. It would mean that upgrading an Apple gets much cheaper and adds incentive to designing good looking computers.

It would also make things easier for Apple as there would be fewer parts that need to be built, which could mean that Apple has fewer supply problems as the number of things that can go wrong decrease.

It's like being able to re-use the same canvas everytime you have a better idea. Eventually you would want to replace the canvas, but not nearly as often as people do now.

Now that is an intriguing possibility. That would be really cool. Just buy an upgrade kit instead of a new computer and have it be covered and supported. I like it. It would be like upgrading your old PC, but you get to keep the stylish and small case instead of some ugly box. Never thought of that option before.

inkswamp · Sep 15, 2004

Is the graphics card really that bad?

I keep hearing all this griping about the graphics card and I have to wonder if it's really as bad as some of you make it sound. I admit that I know almost nothing about graphics cards (which includes comparing different cards to each other) but when I went to NVidia's site, it appears that the card in the iMac G5 is about mid-range of what they offer. Is that really so bad for a consumer machine?

And to use the graphics performance yardstick-du-jour, the card appears to be a step or two above the lowest-end NVidia card recommended by id for playing Doom3 (assuming the graphics requirements will be the same on the Mac version as it is on Windows.) I would never buy a computer aimed at the home user expecting a high-end graphics card. Why do so many of you have that very expectation?

Maybe someone here can clarify what all the griping is about.

nutmac · Sep 15, 2004

Versus 1.25 GHz G4 iMac

Code:

Results                         134.71                                  123.6
System Info
  Xbench Version                1.1.3                                   1.1.3
  System Version                10.3.5 (7P35)                           10.3.5 (7M34)
  Physical RAM                  256 MB                                  256 MB
  Model                         PowerMac8,1                             PowerMac6,3
  Processor                     PowerPC G5 @ 1.80 GHz                   PowerPC G4 @ 1.25 GHz
    L1 Cache                    64K (instruction), 32K (data)           32K (instruction), 32K (data)
    L2 Cache                    512K @ 1.15 GHz                         256K @ 1.25 GHz
    Bus Frequency               600 MHz                                 167 MHz
  Video Card                    GeForce FX 5200                         GeForce FX 5200
  Drive Type                    ST380013AS                              ST380011A
CPU Test                        136.48                                  149.73
  GCD Loop                      91.90  3.59 Mops/sec                    141.89  5.54 Mops/sec
  Floating Point Basic          285.46  1.03 Gflops/sec                 151.14  546.58 Mflop/sec
  AltiVec Basic                 122.14 3.55 Gflops/sec                  153.15  4.45 Gflop/sec
  vecLib FFT                    100.86  1.57 Gflops/sec                 155.14  2.41 Gflop/sec
  Floating Point Library        241.02  9.65 Mops/sec                   148.07  5.93 Mops/sec
Thread Test                     84.47                                   109.67
  Computation                   53.04  716.03 Kops/sec, 4 threads       78.13  1.05 Mops/sec, 4 threads
  Lock Contention               207.38  2.60  Mlocks/sec, 4 threads     183.93  2.31 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test                     210.75                                  124.04
  System                        229.53                                  126.71
  Allocate                      616.09  401.87 Kalloc/sec               803.41  524.06 Kalloc/sec
  Fill                          209.06  1664.14 MB/sec                  115.88  922.44 MB/sec
  Copy                          150.07  750.36 MB/sec                   72.46  362.28 MB/sec
  Stream                        194.81                                  121.48
  Copy                          166.59  1217.79 MB/sec [G5]             116.57  852.15 MB/sec [altivec]
  Scale                         169.44  1250.43 MB/sec [G5]             115.63  853.36 MB/sec [altivec]
  Add                           224.87  1439.19 MB/sec [G5]             119.2  762.91 MB/sec [altivec]
  Triad                         239.16  1461.27 MB/sec [G5]             136.77  835.68 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test            188.34                                  133.11
  Line                          189.47  4.82 Klines/sec [50% alpha]     126  3.21 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
  Rectangle                     156.19  10.99 Krects/sec [50% alpha]    125.49  8.83 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
  Circle                        193.08  4.45 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]   147.47  3.40 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
  Bezier                        167.62  1.82 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]   130.85  1.42 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
  Text                          268.61  4.38 Kchars/sec                 138.24  2.25 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test            187.25                                  126.76
  Spinning Squares              187.25  131.04 frames/sec               126.76  88.71 frames/sec
User Interface Test             209.37                                  154.11
  Elements                      209.37  67.34 refresh/sec               154.11  49.57 refresh/sec
Disk Test                       79.19                                   91.86
  Sequential                    67                                      102.99
    Uncached Write              69.51   28.97 MB/sec [4K blocks]        101.73  42.41 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write              43.58   17.85 MB/sec [256K blocks]      91.18  37.34 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read               68.48   10.84 MB/sec [4K blocks]        130.27  20.62 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read               128.78  52.03 MB/sec [256K blocks]      96.46  38.97 MB/sec [256K blocks]
  Random                        96.82                                   82.9
    Uncached Write              94.15   1.41 MB/sec [4K blocks]         66.54  1.00 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write              91.65   20.67 MB/sec [256K blocks]      84.32  19.02 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read               92.34   0.61 MB/sec [4K blocks]         91.12  0.60 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read               111.69  22.99 MB/sec [256K blocks]      96.27  19.81 MB/sec [256K blocks]

kgarner · Sep 15, 2004

inkswamp said:
I keep hearing all this griping about the graphics card and I have to wonder if it's really as bad as some of you make it sound. I admit that I know almost nothing about graphics cards (which includes comparing different cards to each other) but when I went to NVidia's site, it appears that the card in the iMac G5 is about mid-range of what they offer. Is that really so bad for a consumer machine?

And to use the graphics performance yardstick-du-jour, the card appears to be a step or two above the lowest-end NVidia card recommended by id for playing Doom3 (assuming the graphics requirements will be the same on the Mac version as it is on Windows.) I would never buy a computer aimed at the home user expecting a high-end graphics card. Why do so many of you have that very expectation?

Maybe someone here can clarify what all the griping is about.

I agree, i just went to Dell and of the computers they list in the Home computer section, only one of them even listed what graphics card they came with. An that was the "high-end" home unit. Serious gamers are not buying the PCs that are targeted at the home comsumer. Why should we expect Apple to market their home computer to this crowd as well.

crazzyeddie · Sep 15, 2004

nutmac said:

Code:

Results                         134.71                                  123.6
System Info
  Xbench Version                1.1.3                                   1.1.3
  System Version                10.3.5 (7P35)                           10.3.5 (7M34)
  Physical RAM                  256 MB                                  256 MB
  Model                         PowerMac8,1                             PowerMac6,3
  Processor                     PowerPC G5 @ 1.80 GHz                   PowerPC G4 @ 1.25 GHz
    L1 Cache                    64K (instruction), 32K (data)           32K (instruction), 32K (data)
    L2 Cache                    512K @ 1.15 GHz                         256K @ 1.25 GHz
    Bus Frequency               600 MHz                                 167 MHz
  Video Card                    GeForce FX 5200                         GeForce FX 5200
  Drive Type                    ST380013AS                              ST380011A
CPU Test                        136.48                                  149.73

...

I think that verifies that the system must have been set to Automatic instead of Highest. It is impossible for a G5 1.8ghz to preform worse than 1.25ghz G4.

squeak · Sep 15, 2004

And when you do add memory to these G5 iMacs Take a tip from the
developer note(http://developer.apple.com/document...per_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G5/iMacG5/index.html)

on Ram Expansion:

"The main logic board of the iMac G5 computer has two DDR SDRAM expansion slots for unbuffered DDR400 (PC3200) dual in-line memory modules (DIMMs) for a maximum memory of 2 GB.

Each memory slot can contain 256 MB, 512 MB, or 1 GB of double data rate synchronous dynamic RAM (DDR SDRAM). The iMac G5 contains 256 MB of factory installed DIMM. The iMac G5 supports CAS latencies of 2, 2.5, 3, 4, and 5.

Additional DIMMs can be installed. The combined memory of all of the DIMMs installed is configured as a contiguous array of memory. The throughput of the 400 MHz memory bus is dependent on the DIMMs installed. If only one DIMM is installed, the memory bus is 64-bit. If two non-identical DIMMs are installed, there are two 64bit memory buses. If two identical DIMMs are installed, the memory bus is 128-bit. Identical DIMM pairs have the same size and composition and provide the fastest and most efficient throughput.
-squeak

kgarner said:
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.

jyavenard · Sep 15, 2004

That's pretty bad score really!

Mudbug said:

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

I score 130.95 with my Powerbook G4 1.5Ghz (with a 7200 rpm disk)
The CPU score is
CPU Test 181.29
GCD Loop 174.57 6.82 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 179.16 647.89 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 184.74 5.37 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 187.99 2.92 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 180.57 7.23 Mops/sec

So seeing that a G4 @ 1.5Ghz CPU would outperform a 1.8Ghz G5 sounds like something was screwy with the first XBench result

Jean-Yves

macidiot · Sep 15, 2004

RazorWriter said:
Now that it's been brought up, I'd really like to know more about the 20" LCD screen in the new imac besides simple resolution - how does it compare as far as brightness, viewing angles, etc, with the new 20" Apple Display?

Anyone seen one in a store yet?

Looking at the specs on Apple's site, the ACD is superior. Its brighter and has a better viewing angle. Also, there is no listing of what the iMac's pixel response time is, a very disconcerting omission. One would think it is inferior to the ACD. To me, that is the most important spec. Most lcds have good brightness and viewing angles. Having recently switched from a crt to the acd, I would think that lower pixel response time would be awful. I see enough ghosting and dot crawl with the acd.

applekid · Sep 15, 2004

Hmmm, I like what I'm hearing about what could be done with these midplane upgrades. I doubt Apple would ever allow users to access it. It's probably to make production easier and more possible to refresh the iMac line with faster processors and graphics card with time.

Oh, and I want real world tests. Not XBench.

Michael Vance · Sep 15, 2004

Those OpenGL scores are extremely low. You probably could not find any model PC made in the last four years that scored that low.

Xtremehkr · Sep 15, 2004

Graphics cards

I vacillate on this issue. I've said already that in my opinion the gamers are a minority amongst computer users. I've found that gaming is pretty popular though and that gamers use it to beat Apple over the head constantly and that some people are put off by that. At the very least I would like to see the option to upgrade the card. And that looks as though it may be a reality. Why not thrash M$ in every element of computing?

macidiot · Sep 15, 2004

inkswamp said:
I keep hearing all this griping about the graphics card and I have to wonder if it's really as bad as some of you make it sound. I admit that I know almost nothing about graphics cards (which includes comparing different cards to each other) but when I went to NVidia's site, it appears that the card in the iMac G5 is about mid-range of what they offer. Is that really so bad for a consumer machine?

And to use the graphics performance yardstick-du-jour, the card appears to be a step or two above the lowest-end NVidia card recommended by id for playing Doom3 (assuming the graphics requirements will be the same on the Mac version as it is on Windows.) I would never buy a computer aimed at the home user expecting a high-end graphics card. Why do so many of you have that very expectation?

Maybe someone here can clarify what all the griping is about.

Well, the 64MB 5200 is about a $25 card. Typically you see 128MB for this card. Also, its at the low end. The issues are this:

Its a low end card, especially considering the price of this computer and given the fact that going with a 128MB card would add about $10 to the cost. Going with a 9600 would add about $40, if that.

Its soldered to the board, meaning there is no upgrade path available.

There is no BTO option for a better card for those who would like one.

And finally, while this card is acceptable today, it will probably be seriously outdated in 12 months. Considering most Macs are kept far longer than 12months, this becomes an issue. Put another way, I have a dual 1Ghz MDD. Not very old at all. But the ATI 9000 card it came with is already scraping the bottom of the barrel. At least I have an upgrade path, though it is somewhat limited.

While its unrealistic to expect a $400 video card in an iMac, it is not unrealistic to expect a $75-100 card in an iMac.

andyduncan · Sep 15, 2004

squeak said:
If two non-identical DIMMs are installed, there are two 64bit memory buses. If two identical DIMMs are installed, the memory bus is 128-bit. Identical DIMM pairs have the same size and composition and provide the fastest and most efficient throughput.
-squeak

Well, then I'm going to stick my neck out here and say I'm glad Apple DIDN'T put more than 256 megs of ram in it. I would want at least a gig, and though I'm not really in the market for one of these I'd recommend a gig to anyone running OSX, even my mom. If they shipped it with a 512meg dimm it would be difficult to find a matching sibling to enable interlacing (are they still calling it interlacing?), and if they shipped two 256meg dimms you'd have to throw them away (or ebay 'em).

iGary · Sep 15, 2004

It must be the RAM.

My Machine usually returns 140's from XBench...

I was thinking of selling my machine and getting an iMac, but not so sure now.

Detlev · Sep 15, 2004

So, for a Newbie to benchmarks. Do I run out and buy this thing or what? How does it look? How does it feel? Does it run smoothly? Any problems noticed yet? Are you folding?

alexf · Sep 15, 2004

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.

Processor performance setting is what the poster meant (I assume). This should always be set to highest before doing the XBench test.

huzzah · Sep 15, 2004

I posted the inital benchmark for the iMac G5

I posted the inital benchmark for the iMac G5. We are a primarily a Mac (about 150 G4's and G5's and 20 PC's) retail store. Our applications include heavy SQL user on several XServe's. We also have several new 2 x 2.5 GHZ G5's as servers now.

We ordered many Imac G5's as terminals for order and sales stations. This is our first delivery. This iMac does have a 17" screen; not 20". We have our own applications benchmarks (real world) performance so XBench (which is really screwy) and Cinebench mean little to me.

In a real world perfomance test, the iMac G5 is .948 (exactly) of an G5 1.8 SP (repeatable). That to me, is amazing because of the 600 MHZ FSB.We are ecstatic. All this with a great and very clear 17" screen. These iMac G5's are beautiful and quite snappy even with 256 MB. In fact, now I believe the 1.6 GHZ will do the job for us.

Xbench has reported CPU values on this iMac from 125.72 to 162.11; go figure. Maybe a new architecture ?? The one I submitted was in the middle. Disk benchmarks are more repeatable. Cinebench was also variable (mostly, as you know, due to screen depth and resolution). Maybe I have a sick machine; but I'm not complaining because the real world benchmarks are outstanding.

The interior of the machine is gorgeous and solid and will not disappoint anyone.

Maybe, additional benchmarks will clear up the variable nature of the tests I ran.

My analysis: $3000+ worth of quality equipment for $1499.

I give this machine an A.

jouster · Sep 15, 2004

I got 42.24.

Hmmmm. Guess I won't be doing any complex 3D renders anytime soon.

On the other hand, my score is prettily palindromic.

Edit: rev A TiBook 400, 1 GB RAM

iMac 1.8 Ghz G5 Benchmarks

macrumors regular

macrumors member

macrumors regular

macrumors member

macrumors 68000

macrumors 603

macrumors 68000

macrumors 68000

macrumors 68030

macrumors 603

macrumors 68000

macrumors 68030

macrumors newbie

macrumors member

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68020

macrumors newbie

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502a

macrumors regular

Guest

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

macrumors newbie

macrumors 68000

Our Staff