Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
See

stevesien said:
Original single G5 1.8 w Radeon 9800 SE, 1.5GB ram
Results 124.41
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7M34)
Physical RAM 1536 MB
Model PowerMac7,2
Processor PowerPC 970 @ 1.80 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.80 GHz
Bus Frequency 900 MHz
Video Card ATY,R350
Drive Type ST3160023AS
CPU Test 120.78

iMac G5
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

So we have the iMac G5 scoring 134 with 256MB Ram and the Original single G5 1.8 w Radeon 9800 SE, 1.5GB ram scoring 124.

Based on that info, regardless of Xbench's qualities, we must conclude that the iMac is a very quick machine in comparison.
 
Even better

PROCESSOR ON MAX:

Results 158.28
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7P35)
Physical RAM 512 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


This shows the iMac far outstripping the PM with 1/3 the RAM
 
Converted2Truth said:
This is where you're wrong. If you plan on playing any FUTURE games, this card will leave you wanting. Then again, if you don't plan on playing ANY future games, then go ahead and spend a ton of money on something that you don't need. You said it yourself that you're old imac does everything you want!...

All of the Apple product line will eventually not allow you to play any "FUTURE" games. All video cards will eventually not allow you to play any "FUTURE" games.
What is your point?
 
corbin_a2 said:
I ran the Xbench test with the energy saver processor performance first on auto then on highest. What a difference!

PROCESSOR ON AUTO:

Results 89.19
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7P35)
Physical RAM 512 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 89.19
GCD Loop 61.45 2.40 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 126.67 458.08 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 61.43 1.78 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 99.25 1.54 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 180.58 7.23 Mops/sec


PROCESSOR ON MAX:

Results 158.28
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.5 (7P35)
Physical RAM 512 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 158.28
GCD Loop 103.04 4.02 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 165.17 597.29 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 123.47 3.59 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 202.39 3.14 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 358.38 14.35 Mops/sec

My question is as far as running my iMac on a normal day what setting should I set? Is there a reason to leave it on auto?


Do you have 2x256 MB Ram with the same cl-value or is it 1x512 MB ?
 
myapplseedshurt said:
do you know what the cooling solution is in an xserve? I would think they wouldn't care about noise, and would have a stack cooling fan system to force air at a much higher rate than what the imac's little fans do.

H. Georgan said:
I've heard that, noise-wise, standing beside an xserve is like standing beside a 747.

it ought to - according to http://www.apple.com/xserve/design.html (which has a good picture of this), the xserve g5 has 8-yes-8 fans - 7 right in front of the processors (drawing air across all components), the other at the power supply. since noise isn't an issue there's no fancy "region" system.

how-ev-er... the diff between the xserve and the imac is smaller than that makes it seem. xserve has higher bus speed (1GHz v. 600MHz), dual processors (total 4GHz v. 1.8GHz), close proximity to other hot things, and much heavier, faster work to do. add that the vertical orientation of the imac reduces the work of the fans and the imac's cooling doesn't seem like a compromise-everything kind of situation.
 
My Dual 2.5GHz w/ 4.5GB RAM

I figured I'd post my results as well.

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : flexoffset

Processor : G5
MHz : Dual 2.5GHz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.3.4

Graphics Card : ATI 9600XT
Resolution : 1600x1200
Color Depth : 24-bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 339 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 607 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.79

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 338 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 937 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1646 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.88

****************************************************

X-Bench
Results 268.25
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3.4 (7L32)
Physical RAM 4608 MB
Model PowerMac7,3
Processor PowerPC G5x2 @ 2.50 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 2.50 GHz
Bus Frequency 1 GHz
Video Card ATY,RV360
Drive Type Maxtor 6Y160M0
CPU Test 242.55
GCD Loop 147.45 5.76 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 396.75 1.43 Gflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 171.54 4.98 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 279.51 4.34 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 524.97 21.01 Mops/sec
Thread Test 250.10
Computation 179.09 2.42 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 414.42 5.20 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 371.62
System 421.79
Allocate 886.91 578.53 Kalloc/sec
Fill 345.53 2750.45 MB/sec
Copy 323.53 1617.64 MB/sec
Stream 332.12
Copy 285.71 2088.50 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 288.11 2126.22 MB/sec [G5]
Add 382.09 2445.36 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 407.21 2488.06 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 312.92
Line 297.68 7.58 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 275.52 19.38 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 290.03 6.69 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 273.58 2.97 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 530.14 8.64 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 215.93
Spinning Squares 215.93 151.10 frames/sec
 
Real world tests

How about some real world tests? Benchmarking programs really don't have much meaning. I'd much rather hear something like, how quickly you're able to rip CD's with iTunes, how quick GraphicConverter was able to do a 15-degree rotation of a 20MB tiff file using its internal algorhythm, how long it took to render a specific PDF file, etc. Or any of the photoshop standards.

--D
 
Sure...
I ran a test on my new G5 using Monaco Profiler Platinum v4.6

Time to generate the CMYK profile: 25.5 seconds using the ECI patches.
I had no other functions going on...just Monaco Profiler.
It took at least 10 minutes on the old but maxed-out G3 350MHz machine that used to make profiles.

I also ran another test:
1. Open 1.2GB image in Photoshop, do a radial blur 22 degrees and 592 pixels
2. Also open a 600MB image in Illustrator containing a bitmap and do the same thing blur operation while Photoshop is doing it's blur
3. Use Stuffit Deluxe 8 to compress a 1.2GB eps file

Time to generate profile with all this going on at the same time: 46 seconds using the ECI patches

----

I just finished a 79.5" x 423.25" photo montage at 72ppi with about 15 images and the whole process only took about two hours.
A similar job on my Dual 800 G4 would have taken 6 or more hours.

----

Photoshop CS with 100% memory allocation (1665 MB)

667MB 16-bit RGB image
Editing step G5(dual 2.5GHz)

Open file G5: 7s
Rotate 90 degrees G5: 10s
Gaussian blur (radius 1 pix) G5: 16s
Layer-levels (build histogram) G5: 9s
Healing brush at 100%- (brush size=19, darken) G5: 4s
Rename and save as TIFF G5: 19s

----

Burn a full DVD at 4x takes roughly 20 minutes from start to finish.
 
Dave00 said:
How about some real world tests? Benchmarking programs really don't have much meaning. I'd much rather hear something like, how quickly you're able to rip CD's with iTunes, how quick GraphicConverter was able to do a 15-degree rotation of a 20MB tiff file using its internal algorhythm, how long it took to render a specific PDF file, etc. Or any of the photoshop standards.

--D

I bet www.barefeats.com will have something up shortly.
 
illumin8 said:
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...

The same computer? No PCI slots! Crappy 16 bit sound and video! It's still OLD technology repackaged to move all those chips they can't sell anymore. It is a *crippled* machine. A DP G4 will still be better for any professional app except scientific number crunching ones, at which the new iMac will killer, but if you're a scientist, you're on an expense account and want the *big* tower anyway. A Radeon 9800 Pro installed on a G4DP dusts the new iMac in video, as does any video capture or PCI 24 bit sound card.

The new iMac is *crippled* (If they had welded 512MB to the motherboard, and still offered two empty 1GB ram slots, they'd have too much competition for their pro models). There's NO other excuse for not using at least a Radeon 9600 in the 20" model.

You'll be weeping when you play 1-2 year old games at 800x600-1024x768 (if you're lucky) on your 20" screen.

Remember - LCD's only look good in native resolution. Scaling makes everything look fuzzy. Even gaming on a DP 1.8 sucks with a NVIDIA 5200.

Get the new iMac for iLife, and nothing else, and don't ask Santa for Doom3. You've been warned!!!
 
smitty078 said:
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.

As a owner of a PowerBook 1.5Ghz 15", I can say that it most definitely doesn't rock. Even at highest processor mode, the thing can't get out of its own way. Audio apps and software synthesizers routinely max it out. Then there's the unreliability of my PowerBook. It just came back from having the display inverter circuit replaced that powers the display back light. Unfortunately, this same problem occured about a few weeks ago and the same thing was replaced then. I suspect that the PowerBook 1.5Ghz just runs too hot for some components to tolerate.

I plan on dumping this lemon before something else goes, and getting a 1.8 Ghz G5 17" iMac to replace it.
 
TheGimp said:
The same computer? No PCI slots! Crappy 16 bit sound

Crappy sound card,eh? Take a look at this:

http://developer.apple.com/document...cG5/03_Input-Output/chapter_4_section_15.html

Quote from Apple's Developer Connection:

"The sound circuitry and audio device drivers support audio data in multiple formats. Both digital and analog outputs support PCM audio at 16 and 24 bits with sample rates of 32.000 KHz, 44.100 KHz, 48.000 KHz, 64.000 KHz, 88.200 KHz and 96.000 KHz. In addition, the Digital Output also supports AC3 audio at 16 bits with sample rates of 32.000 KHz, 44.100 KHz, 48.000 KHz, 64.000 KHz, 88.200 KHz and 96.000 KHz."


No Macintosh has ever had 24bit 96Khz capability before. I'd say the iMac was made for audio apps.
 
A Hands-on Test of The New G5 iMac

I am new to this forum, but I wanted to chime in and let you know of the hands-on experience I just had with both the G5 iMac 1.6G 17", and 20", 1.8 Ghz models.

Just to let you know, I was an apple developer up until the last version of system 9. I changed jobs and they have relegated me to the PC world for the last 3 years. I have been dying to get back to the Mac, and I am at a point where I am ready to buy a new computer.

I currently am doing network and corporate television post production editing, 2D & 3D graphics compositing and animation, as well as a lot of photographic image manipulation on a plain ol' Dell Lattitude C840, 2.4 Ghz Laptop, 1Gig Ram, and nothing else special on it with lots of external firewire drives, tape deck, monitors, speakers, midi keyboards, and USB devices attached. I use Avid Express DV to edit, Photoshop & After Effects, and Maya for my 3D app. I do lots of multi-layered renders in all apps with very acceptable results and time-frames from my laptop PC. This set up has served me quite well for the past 2 years but it is time for an upgrade.

I have been praying that the G5 iMac might be enough of a powerhouse that it could out pace this old boat anchor of a PC laptop, so I would have a good reason to jump ship back to the Apple platform without having to spend $5000 for the minimum set-up of a hi-end G5 dual 2.5G Tower, and still get a reasonable workhorse for under $3 grand, not including software!

So, I spent the last FOUR-AND-A-HALF hours at the Apple Computer store pounding on the newly arrived machines. First, I banged on the 17", 1.6Ghz machine. That only lasted about 10 minutes when I realized that it took at least two minutes just to open Final cut Pro HD. I quickly went to the "Cadillac" of the line hoping to be much more impressed. it too 1 minute and 45 seconds to open FCP HD on that one. ( I opened the same app on the G4 15" PowerBook sitting across the isle from it and it only took 45 seconds to open!)

Unfortunately, I was very disappointed to report that the 20", G5 1.8Ghz iMac, with 512 Megs of ram didn't fare much better. I am sorry to say that is far from the computer powerhouse I had hoped for. In fact it reminded me of the days when I was running the Mac II x! There is NO real time on this computer. with every click there was a considerable delay before the action happened. Programs opened agonizingly slow... and this was with NO other apps open at the same time. You can forget doing much serious Professional work in Final Cut, After Effects, Motion, or Photoshop. Those programs bog the CPU down incredibly, especially at 300 or 600 dpi in PS, or with more that 3 or for layers in AE or FCP.

I actually couldn't believe how slow these machines were! I went back and tried various tests in various software, again and again, with no improved results. You can expect long, intolerable waiting times, just to open any application!

The Apple sales people on the floor seemed like they were avoiding the G5 iMac table all together. Their only comments were, " It will probably run a LOT fasted if you max it out with 2 GIGS of RAM!)". Hmmmm... I seriously doubt that another 1.5megs of ram, at Apple's exorbitant pricing, is going to speed these slow-movers up enough to make enough difference to justify the enormous cost expenditure . I think they sense and know that there are some serious problems with the public image/hype that has been presented for these new machines that they won't be able to live up to. I now understand why Apple has been so quiet about what these machines can really do!

Sure, if you are just going to use Word, do spreadsheets in Excel, Check your email and surf the web every day, this may be the perfect machine for you. But why pay $$$2-3 grand for just that? Just for the coolness of and all enclosed box? There were plenty of computer newby housewives lined up to buy these machines for home that had been swayed by this mystique. But for those of us that need even moderate computer processing power to accomplish any truly creative work on a professional level, this iMac is whack! (Pardon my poetic license!)

As much as I hate to admit it , I was able to get a bid for a screaming Tower PC, with a 3.6G Pentium 4 w/hyperthreading (virtual Dual processor) Windows XP Pro, 2.5 TERABYTES, yes Terabytes of 7200 rpm storage configured into a mirrored 0+1 RAID , 6 x Firewire 800 ports, 4 firewire400 ports, 8 USB 2.0 ports, all the legacy ports you could want, even a FLOPPY Drive!, a top of the line ATI or Radeon Graphics card, digital 7.1 audio I/O, analog stereo I/O, gigabit Ethernet, a 56k modem, TWO DVD+-RW DUAL Layer drives, a wireless keyboard and mouse, and a 21" wide screen flat-panel monitor.

The bid came out to be close enough in price to the high-end fully loaded 20" iMac G5, that in the "more-bang-for-the- buck" category there is just no comparison between the two. AND I get so much more productivity from the PC's processing power that I could EVER get from this sad little iMac, let alone, even the higher end Mac Dual G5 2.2Ghz tower! > :( I am truly bummed! :(

Apple....what were you thinking! I though you were the computer for the REST of US!!!

Back to my PC to get some work done!
 
I can hardly believe what I just read?! :confused: But, to each his own. I have had a dual 1.8 and now I have the new imac. I personally think it is very fast, and I think this mac is going to be a hit. I am not just saying that because I own one, because I would sell it in a second if I did not like it. I am running 1.25 gigs of ram, but even with less, I am sure the machine will fare well. On 85% of the things I have done with my new imac, I could hardly notice the difference between this and my old dualie.
 
nospleen said:
OH, almost forgot. 1 min. and 45 seconds to open Final Cut HD?? Were you kidding?

I'm dubious. Would be very surprised if anyone finds Final Cut Pro HD (yet) installed on an iMac display machine in an Apple Store.
 
Try setting the machine to Highest

Chaostopher said:
I am new to this forum, but I wanted to chime in and let you know of the hands-on experience I just had with both the G5 iMac 1.6G 17", and 20", 1.8 Ghz models.

Just to let you know, I was an apple developer up until the last version of system 9. I changed jobs and they have relegated me to the PC world for the last 3 years. I have been dying to get back to the Mac, and I am at a point where I am ready to buy a new computer.

I currently am doing network and corporate television post production editing, 2D & 3D graphics compositing and animation, as well as a lot of photographic image manipulation on a plain ol' Dell Lattitude C840, 2.4 Ghz Laptop, 1Gig Ram, and nothing else special on it with lots of external firewire drives, tape deck, monitors, speakers, midi keyboards, and USB devices attached. I use Avid Express DV to edit, Photoshop & After Effects, and Maya for my 3D app. I do lots of multi-layered renders in all apps with very acceptable results and time-frames from my laptop PC. This set up has served me quite well for the past 2 years but it is time for an upgrade.

I have been praying that the G5 iMac might be enough of a powerhouse that it could out pace this old boat anchor of a PC laptop, so I would have a good reason to jump ship back to the Apple platform without having to spend $5000 for the minimum set-up of a hi-end G5 dual 2.5G Tower, and still get a reasonable workhorse for under $3 grand, not including software!

So, I spent the last FOUR-AND-A-HALF hours at the Apple Computer store pounding on the newly arrived machines. First, I banged on the 17", 1.6Ghz machine. That only lasted about 10 minutes when I realized that it took at least two minutes just to open Final cut Pro HD. I quickly went to the "Cadillac" of the line hoping to be much more impressed. it too 1 minute and 45 seconds to open FCP HD on that one. ( I opened the same app on the G4 15" PowerBook sitting across the isle from it and it only took 45 seconds to open!)

Unfortunately, I was very disappointed to report that the 20", G5 1.8Ghz iMac, with 512 Megs of ram didn't fare much better. I am sorry to say that is far from the computer powerhouse I had hoped for. In fact it reminded me of the days when I was running the Mac II x! There is NO real time on this computer. with every click there was a considerable delay before the action happened. Programs opened agonizingly slow... and this was with NO other apps open at the same time. You can forget doing much serious Professional work in Final Cut, After Effects, Motion, or Photoshop. Those programs bog the CPU down incredibly, especially at 300 or 600 dpi in PS, or with more that 3 or for layers in AE or FCP.

I actually couldn't believe how slow these machines were! I went back and tried various tests in various software, again and again, with no improved results. You can expect long, intolerable waiting times, just to open any application!

The Apple sales people on the floor seemed like they were avoiding the G5 iMac table all together. Their only comments were, " It will probably run a LOT fasted if you max it out with 2 GIGS of RAM!)". Hmmmm... I seriously doubt that another 1.5megs of ram, at Apple's exorbitant pricing, is going to speed these slow-movers up enough to make enough difference to justify the enormous cost expenditure . I think they sense and know that there are some serious problems with the public image/hype that has been presented for these new machines that they won't be able to live up to. I now understand why Apple has been so quiet about what these machines can really do!

Sure, if you are just going to use Word, do spreadsheets in Excel, Check your email and surf the web every day, this may be the perfect machine for you. But why pay $$$2-3 grand for just that? Just for the coolness of and all enclosed box? There were plenty of computer newby housewives lined up to buy these machines for home that had been swayed by this mystique. But for those of us that need even moderate computer processing power to accomplish any truly creative work on a professional level, this iMac is whack! (Pardon my poetic license!)

As much as I hate to admit it , I was able to get a bid for a screaming Tower PC, with a 3.6G Pentium 4 w/hyperthreading (virtual Dual processor) Windows XP Pro, 2.5 TERABYTES, yes Terabytes of 7200 rpm storage configured into a mirrored 0+1 RAID , 6 x Firewire 800 ports, 4 firewire400 ports, 8 USB 2.0 ports, all the legacy ports you could want, even a FLOPPY Drive!, a top of the line ATI or Radeon Graphics card, digital 7.1 audio I/O, analog stereo I/O, gigabit Ethernet, a 56k modem, TWO DVD+-RW DUAL Layer drives, a wireless keyboard and mouse, and a 21" wide screen flat-panel monitor.

The bid came out to be close enough in price to the high-end fully loaded 20" iMac G5, that in the "more-bang-for-the- buck" category there is just no comparison between the two. AND I get so much more productivity from the PC's processing power that I could EVER get from this sad little iMac, let alone, even the higher end Mac Dual G5 2.2Ghz tower! > :( I am truly bummed! :(

Apple....what were you thinking! I though you were the computer for the REST of US!!!

Back to my PC to get some work done!

Processor was on Auto most likely...that accounts for the slow speeds. Its virtually one half as fast in auto as compared to highest. My 1.8g5 blows my 1.5g4 away hands down. And I have used it for motion and fcp and dvdsp3.

Next time you waste 4.5 hours make sure you try opening energy saver!
 
KeareB said:
I'm dubious. Would be very surprised if anyone finds Final Cut Pro HD (yet) installed on an iMac display machine in an Apple Store.

Someone else mentioned that all the Macs in Apple stores boot off a network server (backin Cupertino?). Is it possible that this long boot of Final CUt Pro HD was also streaming from the same server? If so, that might explain the sluggishness of the startup ...
 
The iMac was popular.

I visited the Apple store the day the iMac was put on display and the store people were really helpful. I was impressed by the speed applications opened, ran and closed. It's the newest product, it seems unlikely that Apple hasn't prepared it's people to help move the product.

As always these days, the iPod area was the most crowded. The number of iPod accessories is extensive, people are eating them up as well.

I was surprised that the store only got two machines in. I guess they are having delivery problems as well.

From what I have seen and read the new iMac has been well received. The graphics card is not that important to me, the performance results have been excellent.

My current G3 has a benchmark of 30 or something. It's going to be a nice, big, step up.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.