Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Inside iPod Video, iMac G5, and PowerMac G5
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
shamino
macrumors 68040
For H.264 video. For MPEG-4, its video-out will produce 480x480. Still less than the chip's capabilities, but more pixels than H.264.bentley said:
I suspect Apple will issue a firmware update for higher resolutions if/when they decide to start selling higher resolution video at iTMS, but not before that.
Assuming it's all due to product placement. There may be other concerns (like battery life) with using the chip at 640x480 that makes the resolution unacceptible. Right now, you only get 2 hours of video on the 30G model and 3 hours on the 60G model before the battery gives out. If decoding streams at 4 times the resolution ends up doubling or tripling power consumption (and therefore halving or third-ing the battery life), then I could easily understand a decision to not use those capabilities.
If that's the case, then you'll probably see higher resolutions in a future model, where there is more battery capacity.
shamino
macrumors 68040
The problem is that you really won't get a fair comparison either way. The older PowerMacs have different memory busses, different video cards, etc.lilrabbit129 said:
Comparing the new models to the closest equivalent model from the immediately preceding generation is probably about as fair as you're going to get.
One interesting comparison (which maybe Ars will do) would be to take one of the new dual dual-core 2.5GHz systems and disable one CPU (using the CHUD tools) so you are left with a single dual-core 2.5GHz chip. Compare that against the previous generation's dual single-core 2.5GHz system. I would expect them to be about equal, except in the case of memory (where the faster RAM will show itself), but sometimes surprises happen when you run tests like that.
I wonder if there are any plans to upgrade the Xserve to dual dual-core chips. This would really shine in compute clusters - much more so than for desktop apps, IMO.
shamino
macrumors 68040
dual-single 2.5 vs dual-dual 2.5
Single-threaded apps may not see any difference compared to the dual-single 2.5GHz system. A second processor can help single-threaded apps by off-loading the OS's background processes, but adding two more cores to the mix won't change much, because it will still be only one core running the process.
Of course, those of us who run multiple compute-intensive apps at once will really like it. Compiling multiple files in parallel (for software development) will come close to doubling in speed. If you (for instance), run a few downloads and play a video in the background while web surfing, the extra cores will help, even if all the programs are single-threaded.
I think the dual-dual system will benefit some people greatly, but won't have a very big impact on mainstream users compared to the dual-single 2.7GHz system from the previous generation.
Depends on the apps. Apps that are properly multithreaded, and that use more than two threads, will definitely see improvement.dontmatter said:
Single-threaded apps may not see any difference compared to the dual-single 2.5GHz system. A second processor can help single-threaded apps by off-loading the OS's background processes, but adding two more cores to the mix won't change much, because it will still be only one core running the process.
Of course, those of us who run multiple compute-intensive apps at once will really like it. Compiling multiple files in parallel (for software development) will come close to doubling in speed. If you (for instance), run a few downloads and play a video in the background while web surfing, the extra cores will help, even if all the programs are single-threaded.
I think the dual-dual system will benefit some people greatly, but won't have a very big impact on mainstream users compared to the dual-single 2.7GHz system from the previous generation.
Naimfan
Suspended
I have posted previously that I am not a typical "power user"--probably the most intensive thing I do on my iMac is to burn DVDs of trial exhibits, which will usually include movie clips, photos, documents, etc. And having recently moved to a 2 GHz 20" iMac from a 1.5 GHz 15" Powerbook, I just can't believe I would ever need the processing power of one of the Powermacs. So I find some of what I see as hair-splitting to be quite funny.
I think it's funny because although there are undoubtedly people and organizations for whom the added processing power is a godsend, my impression is that for the vast majority of people buying Powermacs the differences are irrelevant. Although I've not seen benchmarks, I'd be surprised if the new dual core 2.3 is, overall, faster than the still available dual 2.7. I'd be equally surprised if the new Quad isn't noticeably faster than the same dual 2.7.
So for someone who bought a dual 2.5, it does not seem to me that, in general, any of the new machines render the dual 2.5 obsolete, save the new Quad, which really does strike me as a professional workstation. Granted, the new architecture provides improvements in areas that may well be important to certain people for specific reasons. But I have to say I would be resting easy if I had a dual 2.5/2.3/2.7 unless I really really needed the power offered by the Quad.
So overall, I'd say the PM updates strike me as quite good, and I think the performance of the Quad must be just unbelievable.
Best,
Bob
I think it's funny because although there are undoubtedly people and organizations for whom the added processing power is a godsend, my impression is that for the vast majority of people buying Powermacs the differences are irrelevant. Although I've not seen benchmarks, I'd be surprised if the new dual core 2.3 is, overall, faster than the still available dual 2.7. I'd be equally surprised if the new Quad isn't noticeably faster than the same dual 2.7.
So for someone who bought a dual 2.5, it does not seem to me that, in general, any of the new machines render the dual 2.5 obsolete, save the new Quad, which really does strike me as a professional workstation. Granted, the new architecture provides improvements in areas that may well be important to certain people for specific reasons. But I have to say I would be resting easy if I had a dual 2.5/2.3/2.7 unless I really really needed the power offered by the Quad.
So overall, I'd say the PM updates strike me as quite good, and I think the performance of the Quad must be just unbelievable.
Best,
Bob
vassillios
macrumors 6502
i read somewhere that the newer dual proc 2.3's faired a little better than the dual proc. 2.5. I can't remember why, but if this were so, then perhaps the dual core 2.3 runs about the same as the dual proc 2.3.
Naimfan said:
I agree. I noticed something though...If indeed the new quad is +70% more powerful than the previous top of the line, it would put it so far ahead of the dual-core single processor that there would be a huge performance gap. Certainly the largest between any previous set of PowerMacs before (and lets not even attempt to include the whole line up, down to 1.25Ghz mini's).
I know it doesn't really matter, and there is a huge difference between a $500 mini and a $3200 G5, but it is just an observation. Is there really that big of a difference between a 2Ghz Celeron and a 3.XGhz Dual-Core P4?
New PM 2.3 G5 or (old) PM 2.7 G5?
I'm ready to buy a new PM G5 right now (Actually, I was ready last week and was told to wait). I was thinking of buying the new dual-core 2.3, but I just found out that the price of the PM Dual 2.7 has been dropped. The difference in price is now $300. What do you guys think I should do? I'll be using it for music, not for video. I'd like as much power as possible for power-hungry VST plug-ins. What would be the general performance comparison of these 2 machines? Any info is greatly appreciated. Thanks.
I'm ready to buy a new PM G5 right now (Actually, I was ready last week and was told to wait). I was thinking of buying the new dual-core 2.3, but I just found out that the price of the PM Dual 2.7 has been dropped. The difference in price is now $300. What do you guys think I should do? I'll be using it for music, not for video. I'd like as much power as possible for power-hungry VST plug-ins. What would be the general performance comparison of these 2 machines? Any info is greatly appreciated. Thanks.
MacsRgr8
macrumors G3
shamino said:
Exactly.
Take the dreaded Doom 3.
This über-heavy game only uses 1 CPU (or 1 core).
Put the same grx card in the Macs, use the same amount of RAM, and I'm sure the 2.7 GHz G5 will win in FPS.
Things about the updates that suprized me:
- 4 x PCI-Express
- The new nVidia grfx cards (7800 (ok.. expected) and Quadro FX!!!!)
- The non-ATi cards... 😕 Where is the X1800?
Some weird thought (don't flame me!!!):
Remember when Apple had to DEcrease the speeds of their PowerMacs in 1999? (Ya know... from 500 MHz to 450 MHz G4...). But later added the "Two Brains Are Better Than One" principal: dual 450 MHz G4....
Dig this:
From 2.7 GHz down to 2.5 GHz.... same principal: Double The Brains: From Dual, to Dual Dual Cores..... l'histoire se répète? 😱
😛 😀
eric_n_dfw
macrumors 68000
Maybe it's a different article, but the one I saw on Anandtech specificaly showed why OS X's Mach BSD was sorely lacking in server applications like MySQL and Apache web server. The same hardware, when running Yellow Dog Linux had huge performance gains.Hattig said:
Edit: Never mind, I see the mention in article 1 about the memory latency.
Article 1: http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520
Article 2 (where they show the Linux results): http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520
eric_n_dfw
macrumors 68000
Anandtech discussion
FWIW: There's a very small discussion about the anandtech findings here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/147152/
(Trying to keep on topic 😉 )
FWIW: There's a very small discussion about the anandtech findings here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/147152/
(Trying to keep on topic 😉 )
longofest
Editor emeritus
amac4me said:
Don't be surprised if the Dual-Dual stats beat the living crud out of your dual 2.5. But seriously man, your dual 2.5 is still one powerful machine! And besides, rest assured in knowing that people who end up paying for a Quad are paying through the roof for the performance it brings.
new ipod
I don't get why there are so many analysts out there saying that this new video ipod will fail. For starters, IT'S NOT A VIDEO IPOD! That is the point most people seem to be missing. It's an ipod that plays video. So if people don't care about video they still get this new ipod, video is just another feature, (at no extra cost I might add). I like how apple simplified the lineup of ipods so now it's even easier to pick the perfect one for yourself. A bajillion people will buy it this Christmas, and not just because of the video. I myself have a old 3G that is dying on me fast. By eliminating the mini and photo ipods, I will probably get this new one, And like tons of other people I will now be tempted to try out this new video feature. And by adding video to ITMS Apple's got a stranglehold on the market, or they're at least starting to wrap thier fingers around it's neck.
I don't get why there are so many analysts out there saying that this new video ipod will fail. For starters, IT'S NOT A VIDEO IPOD! That is the point most people seem to be missing. It's an ipod that plays video. So if people don't care about video they still get this new ipod, video is just another feature, (at no extra cost I might add). I like how apple simplified the lineup of ipods so now it's even easier to pick the perfect one for yourself. A bajillion people will buy it this Christmas, and not just because of the video. I myself have a old 3G that is dying on me fast. By eliminating the mini and photo ipods, I will probably get this new one, And like tons of other people I will now be tempted to try out this new video feature. And by adding video to ITMS Apple's got a stranglehold on the market, or they're at least starting to wrap thier fingers around it's neck.
vassillios
macrumors 6502
xbench results from my new 2.3 dual proc (2 gb mem, ati 9650)
CPU Test - 116.37
Thread - 113.7
Mem - 96.91
Quartz - 113.11
Open GL - 141.36
user interface - 101.69
Disk - 86.16
ummmm, i was thinking about returning mine, but now i'm not sure....it still beats the dual proc 2.5
CPU Test - 116.37
Thread - 113.7
Mem - 96.91
Quartz - 113.11
Open GL - 141.36
user interface - 101.69
Disk - 86.16
ummmm, i was thinking about returning mine, but now i'm not sure....it still beats the dual proc 2.5
shamino
macrumors 68040
Ultimately, if the computer is fast enough to comfortably run all your apps, all the rest is nothing more than bragging points.darwen said:
My dual 1GHz QuickSilver (approaching 4 years old now) is still more than good enough for everything I use it for. (Web surfing, e-mail, MS Office, some simple FileMaker databases, iTunes, iPhoto and a small number of games.)
The only thing that made my computer feel sluggish was iDVD. But I've only had reason to run that app once the entire time I've owned the computer, and a lot of that time consumed was burning the disc - which I can speed up by simply getting a new optical drive.
I certainly wouldn't object to someone swapping my G4 system for one of the new quad-G5 boxes, and I'm sure I could find stuff to put it to good use, but I don't feel any need to upgrade either.
shamino
macrumors 68040
~Shard~ said:
Wouldn't the road of excess just lead to excess, in this supersize-me world we live in?
shamino
macrumors 68040
Agreed.fed-ex said:
It is interesting, however, that they've eliminated all models from the $500 price point. I was expecting a new model (80G or larger, when larger 1.8" drives are invented) to occupy that position in the lineup.
If videos become popular, increasing the demand for large amounts of storage, maybe we'll see this hypothetical model ship.
vassillios said:
CPU Test:
2.3 Dualcore: 114,32
Thread test:
2.3 Dualcore: 113,74
Memory test:
2.3 Dualcore: 121,99
Quartz graphics:
2.3 Dualcore: 126,64
Open GL:
2.3 Dualcore: 135,38
User Interface:
2.3 Dualcore: 121,58
Disk Test:
2.3 Dualcore: 66,0
TOTALS:
2.3 Dualcore: 108,7 (winner!)