iMac Performance Claims Challenged


ZildjianKX

macrumors 68000
May 18, 2003
1,610
0
When they say "older iMacs," I assume that is the last revision G5 iMacs?

10 - 25% is a horrible boost considering all of the iApps are multi-threaded and take advantage of the second core. Is there a way to disable one of the cores to do a raw compare of horsepower? Just curious.

Like someone said in a thread in the games section, the intel Macs are future-proof, just not now-proof.
 

robbieduncan

Moderator emeritus
Jul 24, 2002
24,480
9
London
ZildjianKX said:
When they say "older iMacs," I assume that is the last revision G5 iMacs?

10 - 25% is a horrible boost considering all of the iApps are multi-threaded and take advantage of the second core. Is there a way to disable one of the cores to do a raw compare of horsepower? Just curious.

Like someone said in a thread in the games section, the intel Macs are future-proof, just not now-proof.
Assuming the CHUD tools work as per PPC Macs on the Intel Macs then yes you could disable 1 core.
 

oingoboingo

macrumors 6502a
Jul 31, 2003
988
0
Sydney, Australia
ZildjianKX said:
When they say "older iMacs," I assume that is the last revision G5 iMacs?

10 - 25% is a horrible boost considering all of the iApps are multi-threaded and take advantage of the second core. Is there a way to disable one of the cores to do a raw compare of horsepower? Just curious.

Like someone said in a thread in the games section, the intel Macs are future-proof, just not now-proof.
You can disable one of the CPUs in a dual processor PowerPC system by using Apple's CHUD tools. I wonder if the same thing can be achieved with the new dual core Intel Macs. Any Intel iMac owners want to try it out?
 

d.f

macrumors regular
Jan 11, 2003
185
0
iBooks

this does not bode well for the Cole Solo chips, expected to be used for iBooks...
 

BakedBeans

macrumors 68040
May 6, 2004
3,054
0
What's Your Favorite Posish
In a series of tests - My imac is a TON faster than my 2.1 g5 imac
In a series of tests - Steve even said in the keynote that not everything will be 3 times faster
In a series of tests - People who listen to these ****** reports are dumber than the people who make the reports
In a series of tests - STOP TESTING MACHINES WITH 512 RAM IN THEM
 

atari

macrumors newbie
Jul 30, 2004
14
0
ZildjianKX said:
When they say "older iMacs," I assume that is the last revision G5 iMacs?

10 - 25% is a horrible boost considering all of the iApps are multi-threaded and take advantage of the second core. Is there a way to disable one of the cores to do a raw compare of horsepower? Just curious.

Like someone said in a thread in the games section, the intel Macs are future-proof, just not now-proof.
Only a few of the tests MacWorld has conducted take advantage of the second core. Just compare the IMovie "scores" between the IMacG5 and the PowerMacG5.
Overall the Intel IMacs are already showing promise (particulary in compiling stuff).
 

24C

macrumors 6502a
Nov 9, 2004
519
0
Steve did say "2-3X", but wasn't he referring to SPEC performance, and didn't he qualify this further in his keynote " now everything is not going to run 2-3X, the discs aren't 2-3 times faster etc"

Didn't they see the Photoshop Rosetta demo, and it was slower than an iMac G5? So there are no secrets here. IMO the newer iMacs are only an issue for folks with legacy software that will never get an universally binary (OS9 apps especially) and for the rest, just using the supplied software, expect way better performance than before.
 

edesignuk

Moderator emeritus
Mar 25, 2002
19,077
1
London, England
IMO Apple shot themselves in the foot (as always) by touting it as so much faster in the first place, there's no doubting they're quick, and for UB apps quite a big step up. It's the same with anything though, over-hype just breeds criticism and disappointment.
 

j_maddison

macrumors 6502a
Mar 31, 2003
687
3
Nelson, Wales
edesignuk said:
IMO Apple shot themselves in the foot (as always) by touting it as so much faster in the first place, there's no doubting they're quick, and for UB apps quite a big step up. It's the same with anything though, over-hype just breeds criticism and disappointment.
Spot on, couldn't agree with you more. Mind you I can't help but wonder how much faster a dual core G5 running at the same clock speed would have been, especially if Apple had stopped crippling the frontside bus and allowed it to run at half the processors speed in the iMac.

Jason
 

iJaz

macrumors 6502a
Dec 16, 2004
540
0
Why do they (Steve/Apple) always make these stupid claims?
Why not say "Up to 2x/4x faster" instead of "2x/4x faster"?
You always need some wiggle room.
 

BakedBeans

macrumors 68040
May 6, 2004
3,054
0
What's Your Favorite Posish
24C said:
Steve did say "2-3X", but wasn't he referring to SPEC performance, and didn't he qualify this further in his keynote " now everything is not going to run 2-3X, the discs aren't 2-3 times faster etc"

Didn't they see the Photoshop Rosetta demo, and it was slower than an iMac G5? So there are no secrets here. IMO the newer iMacs are only an issue for folks with legacy software that will never get an universally binary (OS9 apps especially) and for the rest, just using the supplied software, expect way better performance than before.
Spot on, couldn't agree with you more.
 

iJaz

macrumors 6502a
Dec 16, 2004
540
0
24C said:
Steve did say "2-3X", but wasn't he referring to SPEC performance, and didn't he qualify this further in his keynote " now everything is not going to run 2-3X, the discs aren't 2-3 times faster etc"

Didn't they see the Photoshop Rosetta demo, and it was slower than an iMac G5? So there are no secrets here. IMO the newer iMacs are only an issue for folks with legacy software that will never get an universally binary (OS9 apps especially) and for the rest, just using the supplied software, expect way better performance than before.
Go to apple.com there you will see a picture of a MacBook Pro with the text "4x faster" and an Intel iMac with the text "2x faster". Of course some people (most people?) don't read the fine print of the tech specs or didn't watch the keynote and will end up beleiving that they actually are 2x/4x faster all around.
 

asthma

macrumors newbie
Jul 18, 2005
27
0
Southern Maine
BakedBeans said:
In a series of tests - My imac is a TON faster than my 2.1 g5 imac
In a series of tests - Steve even said in the keynote that not everything will be 3 times faster
In a series of tests - People who listen to these ****** reports are dumber than the people who make the reports
In a series of tests - STOP TESTING MACHINES WITH 512 RAM IN THEM
My thoughts exactly, you cant do a fair test on the new iMac unless it has a minimum of 1Gig of ram. I'm not 100% sure but i don't think that an OS that requires a minimum of 256Mb and has two cores, is going to run all that great with 512Mb of ram.

Asthma
 

BakedBeans

macrumors 68040
May 6, 2004
3,054
0
What's Your Favorite Posish
iJaz said:
Go to apple.com there you will see a picture of a MacBook Pro with the text "4x faster" and an Intel iMac with the text "2x faster". Of course some people (most people?) don't read the fine print of the tech specs or didn't watch the keynote and will end up beleiving that they actually are 2x/4x faster all around.
These claims refer to SPEC tests, its really that simple - its the truth. what people think is up to them.
 

iJaz

macrumors 6502a
Dec 16, 2004
540
0
BakedBeans said:
These claims refer to SPEC tests, its really that simple - its the truth. what people think is up to them.
I am not going to argue about that, I know that!
It's just that the press has told a different story and I don't think Apple has made enough to tell the real version.
It's sad because people will probably be angry at Apple when they don't feel a 2x/4x speed enhancement.
 

BakedBeans

macrumors 68040
May 6, 2004
3,054
0
What's Your Favorite Posish
iJaz said:
I am not going to argue about that, I know that!
It's just that the press has told a different story and I don't think Apple has made enough to tell the real version.
It's sad because people will probably be angry at Apple when they don't feel a 2x/4x speed enhancement.
Im not up[set because I feel it :)

I sent the 2.1G5 back (the noisiest fan ever) and got the intel..... great move
 

Photorun

macrumors 65816
Sep 1, 2003
1,216
0
NYC
BakedBeans said:
In a series of tests - My imac is a TON faster than my 2.1 g5 imac
In a series of tests - Steve even said in the keynote that not everything will be 3 times faster
In a series of tests - People who listen to these ****** reports are dumber than the people who make the reports
In a series of tests - STOP TESTING MACHINES WITH 512 RAM IN THEM
I'll add to this...
My PentiumIII could CLOBBER my PentiumIV (which was hyped as faster than the PIII)
My G3 ccould beat the PIV which had twice the clock speed
My G5 tower wasn't that much faster than my G4 tower
MY girlfriends G5 iMac is as fast as my dual G5 tower which has slightly faster clock and two CPUs and more RAM.

Point being your computer is a tool for the job, does it work? Yes? Good, SHUT UP ALREADY!
Point two, it's progress people, when all the coding is done for the Intel it will be faster, just like it took a long time for coders for peecees to make the crap for Microsuck Windoze run faster on a P4 than a P3 it's the same thing here, and this held true for G4 over G3 (wasn't immediate) and for G3 over 604, 60x over 680x0, etc. Welcome to the world of advancing computers.
Point three, Jobs loves razzledazzle, he's part shuckster but not as bad as Microsuck ("Vista offers a new world of security" - Bill Gates meanwhile virus writers have already propegated over 100 new viruses for it), you think Microsuck lusers get worked up about their sh***y OS? No, they don't, they should, they don't though! And Jobs DIDN'T lie, he said "not everything," pay attention, stop whining and trying to find ways to twist words.
Point four, embrace the future or go curl up in a ball and become a hermit.

Thank you.
 

plastique45

macrumors regular
Jan 10, 2005
106
0
"My G3 ccould beat the PIV which had twice the clock speed
My G5 tower wasn't that much faster than my G4 tower"


Lol, yeah, right. Pull those fairies and elves out of your computers, please?
 

Peace

macrumors Core
Apr 1, 2005
19,466
3,831
Space--The ONLY Frontier
From the macworld article :

One application, however, constantly disappointed us during our testing: iMovie 6. Not only was this brand-new version of Apple’s video-editing application equally buggy on both platforms, but it was dramatically slower at compressing and exporting video on the Intel-based system than on the G5—so much so that we suspect iMovie’s poor performance is the result of a bug within iMovie rather than any intrinsic failure of the iMac.
We used iSquint to compress the same movie for iPod video playback

why wouldn't they just use iMovie to export it to iPod ?
 

road dog

macrumors regular
Mar 12, 2004
196
0
Peace said:
why wouldn't they just use iMovie to export it to iPod ?
because they said it was buggy... and i don't disagree... every new ilife introduces new bugs and doesn't fix the old ones... and oh yeah... where the upgrade price... oh, doesn't exist.

btw - how many times can faster performance of large iphoto libraries be the main new feature in iphoto... um... for the last 3 years that's what they've been hyping as the new iphoto improvements.
 

Peace

macrumors Core
Apr 1, 2005
19,466
3,831
Space--The ONLY Frontier
road dog said:
because they said it was buggy... and i don't disagree... every new ilife introduces new bugs and doesn't fix the old ones... and oh yeah... where the upgrade price... oh, doesn't exist.
I have found no bugs in iMovie yet..