iMac 1.8 Ghz G5 Benchmarks

[The Man]

I wholeheartedly agree. Some people are fanatical in their defense of Apple, for reasons that make little or no sense to me. Some of their arguments, like how the PM starts with the 5200 so that iMac shouldn't have a better card, make some sense (although the PM having a 5200 is an absolute joke); and other comments are just ridiculous.

The fact is that it is pretty clear to many of us that there is a large demand for a higher end GPU in the iMac. I am personally waiting for the next revision of the iMac in hopes that it will come with (or have at least as an option) a better GPU. If it doesn't then I'll have to get a PM I guess, despite the fact that I'd really like the iMac to help cut down on my workspace clutter.

I agree that the video card is crappy, but have you thought about this. Apple cannot get enough G5 chips right now. So they could place a high end GPU in the iMac, but then everyone would rush to get an iMac. This means that they will have to disappoint many more people as they cannot deliver and the iMac will be heavily on back order, even more than the iPod mini. This means lots of negative publicity! The iPod can take it a little, but not the iMac. Instead, Apple choose to put a low end GPU in there that will get the iMac just through in the eyes of many people, but not for the most demanding. So Apple can balance demand by putting in a crappy GPU. Apple would love to ships many hundreds of thousands more iMacs, but they simply can't right now.

I strongly believe that the crappy GPU is a result of too little G5 CPUs being produced. This is Apple's way of lowering demand to the chagrin of many potential buyers.

 

[Gee4orce]

Sometimes I think that even if Macs came with a $1500 mail-in rebate, somebody would find reason to complain !

 

[Codemonkey]

[snip]Again xBench CAN NOT be used to benchmark systems as it is. Maybe it would become a useful tool if it ever gets updated. However, I would hold your breath. I really think that xBench is a dead product, and probably will not see an upgrade.

so what do you suggest then? Poo-pooing a tool is one thing, but if it's the only reasonably tool available??

 

[Xtremehkr]

Stratergery

If upgrades are to be an option for these iMacs in the future, why would Apple marketing keep that bit of info from us now? It seems to me that that is a selling point and therefore would be a fact worth mentioning at the release of the new iMac.

Apple doesn't really let anyone know what they are doing. I don't think I was predicting what they are going to do anywhere in the thread. If Apple were going to offer upgrades then like anything Apple develops, they will wait until somewhere near the product being ready before announcing anything.

But when it lists the

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

as being replacable, there the possibility that this is an upgradeable machine.

Either that or they think that this machine is going to be used for a long time. Because even if that were an option with my current iMac, it does me no good after three years to be able to replace my old logic board with the same logic board. Or, they think that the new iMac is going to need a lot of repairs, which isn't the company I know.

Apple could let a third party well the replacement parts, but I would rather buy logic boards and G5 processors from Apple. The design of the iMac is neutral enough to sit around for many years to come and a 20" monitor is plenty after three years with a 14.1" CRT.

We'll have to see what happens.

 

[eric67]

so what do you suggest then? Poo-pooing a tool is one thing, but if it's the only reasonably tool available??

cinebench is the reasonable tool

 

[Edge100]

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?

I had the same thought. It would be a neat solution to the "headless" iMac debate. Although it would not allow you to take the screen to another system, it would allow you to bring a new system to the screen (in a manner of speaking).

I think this would be an excellent idea for Apple, as long as the logic board/GPU assembly is easy to remove (which it appears it is!)

Mike

 

[AmigoMac]

cinebench is the reasonable tool

From the Cinebench.com site: NOTE: CINEBENCH 2003 is currently not optimized for the Apple Macintosh G5. Please watch this site for more news about an updated version.

 

[andyblac]

could some of you do apply photoshop filters to one of the samples that come with photoshop, and of course download and install the G5 plugin. then we can compare the results to the G4 iMac.

 

[mkaake]

From the Cinebench.com site: NOTE: CINEBENCH 2003 is currently not optimized for the Apple Macintosh G5. Please watch this site for more news about an updated version.

ahh yes, but it still will let you compare a mac to another mac (g5).

and as for how my mac is against pc's, i don't much care

1. if it's slower in an app that hasn't been optimized, than how is my machine being faster going to make any difference? (like people complaining about Word benchmarks, because the mac version isn't as fast as the windows version or not as optimised - well, guess what? in real life, it doesn't matter if your machine is 82737% faster, if the software you need to run works like crap, it doesn't do you much good, does it?)
2. if my machine does what I need it to do without getting in my way, than it's fast enough for me, and I don't care how fast the computer is sitting next to me.

maybe i'm just not being rational enough though.

 

[kcmac]

I had the same thought. It would be a neat solution to the "headless" iMac debate. Although it would not allow you to take the screen to another system, it would allow you to bring a new system to the screen (in a manner of speaking).

I think this would be an excellent idea for Apple, as long as the logic board/GPU assembly is easy to remove (which it appears it is!)

Mike

A very cool thought. And very environmentally sound if so. Instead of throwing away the computer, just ditch a few guts. This may be more of a factor for institutions. I think most home users would want the new form factor as well

 

[huzzah]

This is so silly !! Video card selection and video performance are NOT the ONLY reasons to buy a new iMac G5. If you are dissatisfied with the 5200 video card, then buy a PM G5 and pick your own video card or buy a Compaq, Sony, or HP "all in one". There is some real innovative design, engineering, and manufacturing (what a joke) !! I guess most of the complainers are gamers only.

Put yourself in Apple's position where performance and price are BOTH factors in the roll out of this machine.

The iMac was ever meant to be (and never will be) the highest performance machine in Apple's line, like many of you seem to think it should. But for $1299 and $1499, it can't be beat in price/performance, unless you desire to run Windows/XP on a poorly designed box. You can do that for less $$, if you wish.

You have to see this machine and use it, to appreciate it. It is, qualitatively, much quicker and much better than the benchmark I posted yesterday. Way faster than the iMac G4's, Powerbook G4's, and all Powermac G4's running our realworld applications and almost equivalent to the 1.8 GHZ G5's with 20" flat panel screens we paid $3400 + for.

Business user:

6 Xserve G5's
3 Xserve G4's
2 2 x 2.5 GHZ G5 DP
8 2 X 2.0 GHZ G5 DP
8 1 X 1.8 GHZ G5 SP
33 iMac G4's
12 eMac G4's
49 Powermac G4's
16 Powerbook G4's
4 iBook G4's
20 Assorted PC's

 

[Jovian9]

Sometimes I think that even if Macs came with a $1500 mail-in rebate, somebody would find reason to complain !

Agreed. Too many complain that they aren't as good as the PowerMacs....or they aren't as cheap as the eMacs, or they will not game as well as PC's. They are what they are.......an all-in-one, easy to set up, beautifully designed, attention grabbing machines. Take it or leave it.

My wife does lots of web design work, it's pretty much what she got her Masters degree in (uses Photoshop, the Macromedia Suite, etc.) and I do lots of video editing and music recording (FCP, GarageBand, iDVD, iMovie, DVDSP, etc.) and we play games (The Sims, Civ 3, Sim City 4, Warcraft 3, plenty of vintage roms, etc.) and we watch DVD's, listen to music (30+GB's), store around 10,000 photos, web browse, use m$, and so on so forth
......the point of this is that we mostly have done this on a G4 17" 1GHz iMac with 768MB RAM.....the model that is over 1 1/2 yrs old. Most people do not do this much on a machine, and if they do they are probably buying PowerMacs. We just sold the G4 iMac and ordered a 1.8GHz 17" iMac. I am not worried at all by Xbench marks and the graphics card. Sure I'd prefer a better card, but since a 19 month old G4 iMac could do everything I wanted it to I'm pretty sure the brand new G5 iMac will too.
Apple is one company that makes their own computers and software. They can't possibly offer every varying selection that people want. They have to make money. So if the iMac is not good enough for you, they want you to buy a PowerMac, so save and buy a one (or look in the 'Special Deals' section where they usually have great deals on their computers and iPods). If both are too expensive they offer a great priced eMac. Do not expect an all-in-one computer to save the universe.

 

[odo]

From the Cinebench.com site: NOTE: CINEBENCH 2003 is currently not optimized for the Apple Macintosh G5. Please watch this site for more news about an updated version.

No it is indeed G5-optimized. Look a little further below. It is the G5 optimized beta of Cinebench!

 

[kcmac]

Nice post and well said Jovian. This new iMac is a joy to use. I have noticed that some of the complaining has quieted once they started shipping. Some of the doubters are maybe having second thoughts?...

 

[benpatient]

um....my dual 1.8 G5 gets 215 on XBench, and I have the 5200 in there.

I consider that a pretty low score.

 

[H. Georgan]

um....my dual 1.8 G5 gets 215 on XBench, and I have the 5200 in there.

I consider that a pretty low score.

My iBook gets 40 on xbench. I also consider that a pretty low score.

 

[myapplseedshurt]

WRONG AGAIN!!

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.

I had a previous post which mentioned that since the desgin limits the top end of the temperature range, powertune or napping is used to slow the proc down. Hence, if they have to scale to half freq, the proc will run at 900 MHz, and the bus at /2!!!!

don't you people get that?

 

[BigEvan23]

Just scored over 160

After some trials and tribulations with replacing a 20 incher I posted a pretty good score on xbench.
1.8ghz
1 gig ram
160gig hd
20 inch
chiggity check it out


Results 161.84
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7P35)
Physical RAM 1024 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 ST3160023AS
CPU Test 171.89
GCD Loop 102.94 4.02 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 284.63 1.03 Gflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 122.97 3.57 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 201.80 3.13 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 360.74 14.44 Mops/sec
Thread Test 104.88
Computation 69.18 933.98 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 216.66 2.72 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 274.92
System 304.80
Allocate 678.55 442.62 Kalloc/sec
Fill 280.34 2231.49 MB/sec
Copy 208.26 1041.32 MB/sec
Stream 250.37
Copy 220.94 1615.10 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 224.60 1657.52 MB/sec [G5]
Add 278.30 1781.15 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 293.71 1794.59 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 210.99
Line 198.57 5.05 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 187.46 13.19 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 208.43 4.80 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 193.53 2.10 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 297.44 4.85 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 200.67
Spinning Squares 200.67 140.42 frames/sec
User Interface Test 258.19
Elements 258.19 83.05 refresh/sec
Disk Test 93.76
Sequential 86.24
Uncached Write 84.70 35.31 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 65.95 27.01 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 84.84 13.43 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 131.17 53.00 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 102.70
Uncached Write 99.81 1.50 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 101.08 22.80 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 95.15 0.63 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 117.30 24.14 MB/sec [256K blocks]

 

[AmigoMac]

No it is indeed G5-optimized. Look a little further below. It is the G5 optimized beta of Cinebench!

Ok, you caught me, I read that but really wanted to set the fire up ... but a beta is a beta

 

[weezer160]

To all the whiners of the performance, CPU or GPU or otherwise, you have two easy choices:

1) don't buy it
2) wait for rev b

and three, which is mandatory, if you're gonna bash it, make sure you state that you're wanting something high end in the first place and that you won't be buying it. and most importantly, you have to state not everbody else has ths same needs as you.
kinda makes you feel stupid for bashing it, doesn't it, once you admit this to everybody else.

 

[dubbz]

OK but there *might* also be a heat reason for Apple's choice of GPU in the iMac: high-end GPU's need their own fan, huge amount of power, not to mention space: the best GPUs available to the PMac line take 2 card slots!!!

What? I don't think anyone's suggested that Apple should put a GF6 6800 into the iMac.. just something less awful than the 5200.

 

[bryantm3]

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

all i need is at least 32 bit colour (dont know what that is on macintosh, i'm using a winblows machine.....

 

[weezer160]

all i need is at least 32 bit colour (dont know what that is on macintosh, i'm using a winblows machine.....

it is 32-bit color

 

[Neuro]

To all the whiners of the performance, CPU or GPU or otherwise, you have two easy choices:

1) don't buy it
2) wait for rev b

and three, which is mandatory, if you're gonna bash it, make sure you state that you're wanting something high end in the first place and that you won't be buying it. and most importantly, you have to state not everbody else has ths same needs as you.
kinda makes you feel stupid for bashing it, doesn't it, once you admit this to everybody else.

Um, sorry, I thought this was a discussion about benchmarks and performance...

 

[stuepfnick]

This is so silly !! Video card selection and video performance are NOT the ONLY reasons to buy a new iMac G5. If you are dissatisfied with the 5200 video card, then buy a PM G5 and pick your own video card or buy a Compaq, Sony, or HP "all in one". There is some real innovative design, engineering, and manufacturing (what a joke) !! I guess most of the complainers are gamers only.

LOL, should this be a joke or what? I really LOVE the new iMac G5, it has such a great design and everything is just perfect, it is even very well priced. The only problem is the graphics card, and IT IS A BIG problem. I for example play a game 1 to 4 times a month.
But I would like to have a better card too, or at least the option to upgrade in the future or BTO.
If only the 20" iMac had a Radeon 9600XT, I would really buy this one. Now I ordered the 17" iMac, although I will be disappointed with the graphics performance.
Think what? I want to run Cinema 4D, as well as Motion. I don't want Dual processor, much memory standard, vaste hard drives or a high end graphics card. Just a simple mid-range graphics board with 128 MB RAM, like it ships with 600 $ PCs.
The Powermac is Overkill for my needs, and it's too expensive for me. I also don't want to sit in front of a crappy CRT all the time. –> I woul be forced to do so with the Powermac, because no money for a long time after purchase.
I just want to invest 60$ more for a Radeon9600XT, which would be absolutely AWESOME!
The thing is: The FX5200Ultra also was in the latest iMac G4 models. There it was placed well and balanced. An iMac G4 couldn't do much with a better graphics card. But the same card in the iMac G5, this is the bottleneck now. This goes for the System: Quartz Extreme, Core Image, Core Video, as well as for Motion, 3D Apps, Games and a lot of other stuff (maybe future versions of Photoshop as well). Maybe you don't understand this, but it's true and it really made me do the purchase with stomache.

It is also horrible to see this extremely weak OpenGL ratings in Cinebench. A 3 year old PC from a friend gets at least twice as good values, and that with a 1.8 Ghz Pentium 4 and a GeForce3Ti500 (the card should be slightly slower than the 5200Ultra) So this is really strange.

Can't someone bring more OpenGL speed tests with enough and best Dual Channel RAM?? I have to think about the purchase and maybe go for the overkill and powerhungry Powermac with an old 17" CRT.

I just don't want to have such a low end card. It is the lowest end for motion and it slows things down really much more, than processor speed. Also in future Mac OS versions, the GPU should take away many tasks from the CPU. I also want to be able to play a game, released in 12 months in an acceptable detail and framerate.
If there would be a seperate board for the GPU, I wouldn't have any problem. So it would be ok for now and next year there can be another low power GPU built into it.