LCD iMac Benchmarks

Xapplimatic

macrumors 6502
Oct 23, 2001
417
0
California
Fair comparison? Maybe...

It's not exactly fair to pit a new iMac against a Power Mac when the PowerMacs compared all have system buss speeds 33% higher.. Then again, the iMac to a comparably equipped G4 PowerMac is about 33% less in price and has a more ergonomicly adjustable screen.. trade offs.. trade offs...

Hopefully Apple will get smart and offer their small and medium sized LCD flat panels for Power Macs on stands which do the same trick as the iMac positioning wise. Can't they just take a new iMac case or an old cube, add a few pounds of heavy metal inside to keep it weighted, and attach their PowerMac LCD screens to the neck? That'd be pretty sweet!:D
 

moby1

macrumors 6502
Jan 28, 2002
256
0
Sunny San Diego
Yes but what if you DO need the SuperDrive

Looks like the iMac is pretty comparable to the 733 exept for gamers.

The SuperDrive really makes the iMac a great value for those of us who want to start archiving data on DVD's as opposed to having to sort through a dozen CD's everytime to find something.

Plus, don't tell me the new iMac won't start a whole new wave in DVD ripping!

- time for me to go check shipping status on my iMac order...(again)
 

Luk3

macrumors newbie
Feb 6, 2002
1
0
iMac G4 w/o altiVec?????

theimac.com wrote:


The new iMac gains the PowerPC G4, which the PowerMac has had for 2-3 years now. Running at 700 and 800Mhz, the new iMac gains a lot of the speed of the present PowerMac, which has a maximum speed of 867Mhz. The PowerMac will still have a slight speed advantage in some applications, and in many Velocity Engine enhanced applications like Media Cleaner, and the like.


Does it means, that there is no AltiVec engine in iMac v2 G4
 

Stike

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2002
1,010
4
Germany
22 Frames p/s in UT ??? Is this a joke?:eek:
I must believe that game must have some crappy code!
 

scar_ace

macrumors newbie
Jan 13, 2002
11
0
London, England
Re: iMac G4 w/o altiVec?????

Originally posted by Luk3
theimac.com wrote:


The new iMac gains the PowerPC G4, which the PowerMac has had for 2-3 years now. Running at 700 and 800Mhz, the new iMac gains a lot of the speed of the present PowerMac, which has a maximum speed of 867Mhz. The PowerMac will still have a slight speed advantage in some applications, and in many Velocity Engine enhanced applications like Media Cleaner, and the like.


Does it means, that there is no AltiVec engine in iMac v2 G4
Please tell me this isn't true is it?? I'm getting a bit doubtfull of my soon to be new imac.
 

irmongoose

macrumors 68030
Why dont you look at the official Apple site for once???

It clearly states the velocity engine........ the barefeats people must have meant that the Powermac takes more advantage of it... i dont know... but the alti-vec engine IS in the iMac, that much is obvious



irmongoose
 

abe

macrumors member
Jan 8, 2002
60
0
I also doubt that the Quake3 framerates are correct.

Does Quake3 support 2 processors??? I always thought that games do not support more than 1 processor ...
 

arn

macrumors god
Original poster
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
14,500
1,784
Originally posted by abe
I also doubt that the Quake3 framerates are correct.

Does Quake3 support 2 processors??? I always thought that games do not support more than 1 processor ...
Quake 3 does support 2 processors.

arn
 

gandalf55

macrumors 6502
Apr 13, 2001
343
0
boston
its all bus speed... which includes all of those Ghz machines out there... you could come out with a 300Ghz chip, but with a 133Mhz or 100Mhz board, whats the difference gonna truly be?
 

IndyGopher

macrumors 6502a
Nov 3, 2001
782
1
Indianapolis, IN
Originally posted by irmongoose
Why dont you look at the official Apple site for once???

It clearly states the velocity engine........ the barefeats people must have meant that the Powermac takes more advantage of it... i dont know... but the alti-vec engine IS in the iMac, that much is obvious

irmongoose
Or perhaps, upon reading that official Apple site you mentioned, you'd come to the conclusion that the absence of L3 cache in the iMac is what they counted on for making the difference. Just a thought.
 

Sayer

macrumors 6502a
Jan 4, 2002
981
0
Austin, TX
Uhm, actually

Its the Cache stupid. The new iMac lacks any Level 3 cache at all. The G4 towers tested do.

Believe it or not the CPU runs off the cache above and beyond main memory the vast majority of the time. Only as a last resort is main memory accessed because it is in fact so slow compared to the cache. The memory controller also pre-fetches data that the CPU may need next so its right there ready to go in the really fast cache (level 2 or 3).

The new iMac only has 256k on-chip cache. The old G4 towers had Level 3 cache up to 2 meg. There's your performance boost source.

All this whining about bus speed is silly, there is not a direct 33% performance increase in a 133 MHz bus vs 100 MHz. Either get a clue or get off this ranting about crap you are not familliar with.
 

blakespot

Administrator
Jun 4, 2000
1,316
49
Alexandria, VA
Re: Uhm, actually

Originally posted by Sayer
Its the Cache stupid. The new iMac lacks any Level 3 cache at all. The G4 towers tested do.

...

The new iMac only has 256k on-chip cache. The old G4 towers had Level 3 cache up to 2 meg. There's your performance boost source.

All this whining about bus speed is silly, there is not a direct 33% performance increase in a 133 MHz bus vs 100 MHz. Either get a clue or get off this ranting about crap you are not familliar with.

I'm afriad not--the G4 733 in this test also lacks an L3 cache. The pre-Quicksilver G4 733 tower (old, graphite case) was the only 733 to sport an L3 cache (as it was the top-end model before the Quicksilvers came out).

The low-end Quicksilver (both in those released this past summer and the ones released a few days ago) has always lacked L3 cache.

(But you do provide generally sound advice at the very end...)


blakespot
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Re: Re: iMac G4 w/o altiVec?????

Originally posted by scar_ace


Please tell me this isn't true is it?? I'm getting a bit doubtfull of my soon to be new imac.
This isnt true. Get your son that iMac of prepare to be handed a guilt trip from hell.

AltiVec is the signature feature of the PowerPC G4. They do have a version without it however, and its called the PowerPC G3.
 

blakespot

Administrator
Jun 4, 2000
1,316
49
Alexandria, VA
Originally posted by abe
I also doubt that the Quake3 framerates are correct.

Does Quake3 support 2 processors??? I always thought that games do not support more than 1 processor ...

Indeed, Quake 3 supports dual processors directly. Another game that does is Giants: Citizen Kabuto done by OmniGroup (though the PC original does not). Both of these games run like lightning on my dual G4 800 + GeForce 3 @ 1024x768x32.

As stated by an OmniGroup developer a while back, if a game is running under OS X, even if it is not multithreaded (and as such written to take advantage of dual processors) then it will benefit from dual. The sound libraries accessed by the game will be put on a different processor by the OS X kernel, and general OS housekeeping duties will take place on the "free" processor, leaving just the demanding game engine to run on the other CPU.

This is a huge incentive for even lazy developers to code their games for OS X. (Aside from the fact that OS 9 is clearly on the way out.)


blakespot
 

blakespot

Administrator
Jun 4, 2000
1,316
49
Alexandria, VA
Re: Re: Re: iMac G4 w/o altiVec?????

Originally posted by Unregistered

AltiVec is the signature feature of the PowerPC G4. They do have a version without it however, and its called the PowerPC G3.

There are other architectural subtlties that differentiate the G3 from the G4. A G4 is not simply a G3 with AltiVec slapped onto it. The G3 is evolved from the PowerPC 603e, while the G4's father was the PowerPC 604. Etc, etc, etc...


blakespot
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Re: Uhm, actually

Originally posted by Sayer
All this whining about bus speed is silly, there is not a direct 33% performance increase in a 133 MHz bus vs 100 MHz. Either get a clue or get off this ranting about crap you are not familliar with.
Actually there is a direct performance increase from having a 33% increase in bus speed. In a system where the clock multiplier is around 8 or 9 you will get a bottleneck in the bus, the processor will process data alot faster than the bus can transfer. Hence the increase in speed of the two systems imac Vs Powermac. I am not sure about the details of why this is, but i know that it works this way.

You are the one who needs to get a clue.
 

Xapplimatic

macrumors 6502
Oct 23, 2001
417
0
California
Thanks Spikey..

Actually, I believe the reason why a 33% faster buss makes a faster machine is that it is the transport highway between RAM and the PPC chip (no, not talking about cache, talking about main memory ) as well as the graphics port controller. If data can't be sped as fast across the buss as any one of those devices wants it, hence a slowdown has occurred and a device made to wait. Surely an 800 MHz processor at times will outprocess how much data can be fed it by a buss that's only 1/8 its speed. Especially given a 128 bit Altivec engine. Any increase in the buss speed is going to greatly relieve potential data bottlenecking at the buss. Why do you think everyone in the gaming department is screaming for DDR-RAM for main memory? They want more data to get across that buss faster. DDR effectively doubles how much can get across Megahert for Megahert.
 

blakespot

Administrator
Jun 4, 2000
1,316
49
Alexandria, VA
Well, at least we've got massive L3 caches on the upper end units that does make up for the 133MHz (vs 266MHz DDR) system bus...


blakespot