imac 2-3x faster powerbook 3-4x faster what a load of rubbish

[Macmadant]

This is very unlikely apple was telling us the g5 was twice as fast as any pc now they moved to intel it's intel chips that are faster, it's proberly no faster.
btw i refuse to use the name "macbook pro"

 

[MacTruck]

They always say that. They can't say its slower. According to them its faster than the dual 2.3ghz G5. I am waiting for benchmarks. But what good is speed if you can't run any software. Good luck in doing the photoshop test. No these macs won't be good for anything but web surfing until January 2007.

 

[dubbz]

This is very unlikely apple was telling us the g5 was twice as fast as any pc

They did? (I don't remember). If so, that was ******** too.

And the chips the Apple in that case was comparing to are much different from the ones Intel have now.

And you should never believe what they say about performance. That's true for anyone who's trying to sell something. Wait for independent reviews and benchmarks.

 

[bousozoku]

Probably for most things, the new machines are faster. For Photoshop, they probably won't be, even after Photoshop is running natively.

 

[unfaded]

To be fair, I think it will be 2x times faster than the previous iMacs just based on the fact that there are TWO cores.

So one core being 1.5 times faster than a the one core of the G5 really isn't unbelievable, especially if you take the video card into consideration a well.

 

[Little Endian]

I believe the statements are true for both imac and Powerbook. True in the sense that they can be 2-3 x and 3-4 times faster respectively in the best possible case scenarios with certain applications. The Intel machines are Dual core Machines compared to Single cored G5 machines. Most of the benches that Apple Posted are optimized to take advantage of Multiple Processors or cores so the comparison to a single cored G5 is moot. Also they only post in house software benches and non-shipping beta benches.

The Graphics benches are also no real indication of intel performance in contrast to G5 performance. They are using X1600 in the new intel macs in comparison to the 9700Mobility and Radeon X600 in the G4/G5 machines. The Modo and Doom 3 benches are almost exclusively dependent on the GPU. X1600 automatically gives a 50%-100% increase in Graphics intensive Apps in comparison to the 9700 Mobility and X600 even in a machine with exact same processors.

So Apple's statements are true just twisted for sales benefits. I think the Single core G5 will still be faster when compared with applications not optimized for Multiple cores. Also Apps that are not Universal Binary will perform better on G5. Remember there are almost no shipping apps that are Universal binary. Finally even once Universal Binary Apps ship some of them may still have better optimization for Altivec than intel SSE2/3 and MMX.

I can't wait to get my first intel Mac to do benches I think we will finally see how both Intel and PowerPC performance have been widely misunderstood. Both architectures have their strong points and will be very interesting to compare.

 

[iSaint]

Watch the keynote...Steve showed two important benchmarks for both the new iMac and the MacBook.

 

[devman]

No these macs won't be good for anything but web surfing until January 2007.

Your definition of "anything" must be pretty narrow...

I think that's a ridiculous statement.

 

[Lacero]

Did you even bother to watch the keynote? I thought Steve explained pretty well the performance increase was about the processors themselves and not the entire system. Geez, if you're going rant, might as well base it on something solid.

Here's to the Crazy Ones ​

 

[bodeh6]

So the iMac went from 64-bit to 32-bit correct. I did not see anything mentioned on Intel's website about dual core being 64bit.

 

[Lacero]

64-bit is so overrated. Nobody, outside of the scientific community requires double digit GBs of RAM. Apple really played the G5 off as some sort of superchip, but the move to Intel means 64-bit claims will be put off for several more years. Not until at least 16GB of RAM is affordable enough for the average consumer ~ I'm guessing in about 4 years.

Here's to the Crazy Ones ​

 

[ortuno2k]

Unless you're running specifit apps that require a G4 or G5 processor, the new Intel Macs should do it. Like in my case. I'm a student.
I really don't run any apps that require these processors. Maybe Final Cut from time to time, but that's not a big deal because they're releasing an update soon (as per Mr. Jobs on the keynote).
I'll get one mid-February, early March (depending when they're available).
I'm returning my recent 15" PB purchase today, and will wait 'till these are in.

 

[Little Endian]

Did you even bother to watch the keynote? I thought Steve explained pretty well the performance increase was about the processors themselves and not the entire system. Geez, if you're going rant, might as well base it on something solid.

Here's to the Crazy Ones ​

I did watch the keynote all steve mentioned about performance was the SPEC benches which don't correlate to real world application performance and all I was doing was stressing that to the original poster. The SPEC benches Apple used were SMP aware. What I am ranting about though is comparing a Dual Core chip to a single core chip and the strong performance difference between GPUs. Look at Apple's homepage and what do you think the average lay person thinks when they see the advertisement of 4x faster for Macbook and 2x faster for imac? The average person translates that into real world application performance and thus the original poster posted.

 

[mad jew]

So the iMac went from 64-bit to 32-bit correct. I did not see anything mentioned on Intel's website about dual core being 64bit.

You'll have to build that 140 node supercomputer out of the old G5 iMacs then.

 

[bodeh6]

The current MacBook Pro is an awesome machine. If I upgrade anytime soon, then it will be now problem with Intel because the only software outside of what is already installed on from Apple (which is all native now to Intel in 10.4.4) I need is MS Office, PhotoShop Elements (very light use), and a few minor apps.

 

[caveman_uk]

No these macs won't be good for anything but web surfing until January 2007.

In a word - Bollocks.

Apple may have chosen the benchmarks to show the machines in the best possible light (can you blame them) but to claim they're only good for web surfing is complete hyperbole.

 

[Will_reed]

I think the benchmarks are bs as well.

 

[MacRohde]

I think the benchmarks are bs as well.

Hey eveyrbody, hold your horses. Close the thread. Discussion is over. Will_reed think's the benchmarks are bs. No need to pursue this any further. I'm gonna cancel my buy right now.

Why don't you all just relax and go take a crap or something instead of getting so worked up.

As Steve said he's not telling us that the overall system will perform 2-3 or 4-5 times faster than other Macs. The said numbers are reffering to specialised integer- and floating-points-bechmarks. Still, that's pretty awesome I'll say.

Or maybe it would have been better if they were slower? Or?

Relaaaaaaax y'all, let your hair down, and stop obessing over your computer.

 

[toughboy]

Apple couldnt do what they wanted with IBM's stuff.. Intel couldnt do what they wanted with boring "dull" pcs.. I think thats a perfect match.

I cant recall IBMs CEO to come to stage with moonwalk costume and say to an Apple CEO "we are ready Apple".. Apple found himself a colorful playmate, even that is fine with me..

Coming to software nag done by MacRumors readers, come on guys they didnt release a Powermac, its an iMac and a MacBook.. You whinned about how slow PowerBook was, thats replaced. The Man and his team gave you what you wanted 6 months before due, be satisfied once, ok?..

By the way, what does an home user, using his/her iMac do, that cant be done with dual core processor and Rosetta? 2-3 months later all apps will be native and this will all be solved. As I said, be satisfied once..

At least now we dont have to wait to buy a Mac just because this Intel transition.

And MacBook Pro is an awesome name. I guess iBook will stay same as iMac did.. Now I'm curious about the name of PowerMacs.. we'll hopefully see that in June too..

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

This is very unlikely apple was telling us the g5 was twice as fast as any pc now they moved to intel it's intel chips that are faster, it's proberly no faster.
btw i refuse to use the name "macbook pro"

Throw in a game of Doom or whatever and you will be amazed at the difference those frames make. G5/G4s are slow dogs in consumer gaming. All you have to do is look at Pc benches in gaming vs G5/G4 and its very clear. Apples new iMac is now 5 stars in my book and really only the the hardest core gamer might be upset but this opens up all PC gaming on the " iMac " Wow very cool, Apple is leaving the dog days of ppc

 

[Lacero]

Let's see what sort of Open GL optimization can be achieved now that they've moved over to x86. Doom rates should be higher than under PPC.

Here's to the Crazy Ones ​

 

[bodeh6]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Doom 3 compiled for the PowerPC and not universal? Thus if running it on one of the new iMacs or MacBook Pros it would have to go through Rosetta thus affecting performance?

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Apple does have a history of spinning benches we will have to wait for those new reports and benches which should be anyday.

 

[Morn]

SPEC tests. I really don't think they compare well to any real world tasks. But it's not like they had anything else as a universal binary to test. *notes Jobs grumping about the lack of a x86 photoshop.*

I can't wait for the windows vs osx tests on the macbook. Both are microkernel OS's, well, really hybrid kernels. It will be really interesting to see which kernel has the most overhead.

 

[jadekitty24]

Why don't you all just relax and go take a crap or something instead of getting so worked up.

This really should be "Quote of the Year"!