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.
More Intel iMac Benchmarks (Native and Rosetta)
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hmmm... they tested the speeds with iLife... iPhoto does not need that much power (at least not from the processor. The graphics card is working here). And since the new iMacs still have the same hard drives as the G5 version, it's no surprise they won't get a lot faster. You might want to see if the processor is doing the jobs at 100%. The SysStats widget shows processor load pretty well so I'd like a comparison showing the CPU load. I bet the intel works less than the G5.
Thus these are not reasonable benchmarks IMHO. Either do pure CPU-Benchmarks that don't use any memory at all or do multitasking tests, i.o. run all iLife apps at once doing exactly the same things on both mashines and compare the times. The Core Duo should handle this much better than the G5.
As for apps runnung through Rosetta, I believe one core is doing the translating the app while the other core actually runs the app. So no dual power for rosetta apps. And remember: Rosetta is simulating a G3. Now show me a G3 that runs Photoshop as fast as the new iMac using Rosetta.
Thus these are not reasonable benchmarks IMHO. Either do pure CPU-Benchmarks that don't use any memory at all or do multitasking tests, i.o. run all iLife apps at once doing exactly the same things on both mashines and compare the times. The Core Duo should handle this much better than the G5.
As for apps runnung through Rosetta, I believe one core is doing the translating the app while the other core actually runs the app. So no dual power for rosetta apps. And remember: Rosetta is simulating a G3. Now show me a G3 that runs Photoshop as fast as the new iMac using Rosetta.
On a serious note...kainjow said:I wonder how the Quad "ProMac" will compare to its PPC equivalent
I put forward that the Intel based PowerMac that are in the pipeline for late year will have a few extra bonuses thanks to using Intels chipset. One will likely be hardware RAID support for SATA attached disks (the chipset will have it as an option, just a question of Apple supporting it).
dr_lha said:
I dont give a crap about the finish. I give a crap that its got a 2+ghz processor and a GeForce 6800 or 7800 graphics chip in it and runs Maya today. (well, months ago really)
If MS decides not to pursue VPC, then I think that, between QEmu, GuestPC, and Bochs, at least one of them is going to be a usable alternative. My impression is that, at least as far as Bochs is concerned, it is written in a fairly rigorous way, like other OSS, and should not be that hard to port. And I think it's going to be a LOT faster on a Core Duo Mac than it is today. Even if a Core Duo emulates a Pentium M (single proc) running at say 1GHz, this will be well into the useful range for many tasks.
I think this shows that Intel is all hype.
The Imac could have been bumped with dual core G5, and it would have been faster than the "new" core duo.
This is also the reason why the powermacs has not been switched to Intel.
There is still no X86 machine that can touch the dual dual G5.
Shure. I can build a AMD dual dual system, but it costs at least 30% more than the G 5 system.
For powerbooks.
The 2 ghz G4 performs at the same as a 2 ghz Intel. If Apple had put some time into freescale and got the dual core G4ors instead?
The switch to X86 is only about money for Jobs/Apple. Not to give us the best computer they can deliver. I think it's sad.
Apple is mediocre now.
The Imac could have been bumped with dual core G5, and it would have been faster than the "new" core duo.
This is also the reason why the powermacs has not been switched to Intel.
There is still no X86 machine that can touch the dual dual G5.
Shure. I can build a AMD dual dual system, but it costs at least 30% more than the G 5 system.
For powerbooks.
The 2 ghz G4 performs at the same as a 2 ghz Intel. If Apple had put some time into freescale and got the dual core G4ors instead?
The switch to X86 is only about money for Jobs/Apple. Not to give us the best computer they can deliver. I think it's sad.
Apple is mediocre now.
Sorry no it doesn't if you are talking about a Core Duo (and not just because the Core Duo has two cores either).shompa said:
It would be about the same (assuming you could get dual core G5 in the iMac form factor without much more active cooling)... but the Core Duo is a LAPTOP CPU that is holding its own against a DESKTOP CPU.shompa said:
The reason why, saying it a different way, is that the Apple wants to use a desktop CPU in the PowerMac and those are coming later this year from Intel.shompa said:
You are way off on this.shompa said:
shawnce said:
Right. So the real winner is the MacBookPro that goes from G4 directly to core duo. The actual PowerMacs are still great mashines, but the G5 won't really improve in the future. They are already water cooled in the PowerMac... But 64 bits still has advantages on the 32 on the core duo. Do do the math: the Quad G5 has 4x64 bits while a Quad core duo would only have 4x32 bit. So for complicated computations which are based on 64 bit, the G5 will win.
But Steve promised us to fulfil the prophecy... errr the switch until the end of this year. So I wonder what the PowerMac (or MacPro) will have. A 64 bit version (yet to come) of the core duo chip would be right. But honestly when using a PowerMac I wouldn't care for "performance per Watt". I mean, it's not a PowerSavingMac, it's a PowerMac. It is meant to be hot, loud and fast. So I guess (hope) they will put some cranked up Intel chip in there and keep the water cooling that surpass the G5 in every discipline. And why not put 8 Cores in that baby? Dual G4, Quad G5, Octa intel... it doubles at every new chip, right?
I'm expecting to see a quad core chip from Intel for the end of the year... Octa MacPro sounds quite sexy to me. 
I never quite get the gripping. If you want a dell buy a dell. If you want a mac buy a mac. I guarantee that 80% of software will be universal binary before the end of the year if Apple has anything to say about it. (with free or discount upgrade to the universal binary)
512 MB hamstrings Rosetta?
Note also that MacCentral loaded each with only 512 MB of ram, which likely has a bigger impact on the Intel iMac running programs in Rosetta - much more likely to need to page out/in to VM. We all know that OS X loves ram, so to run one program on a processor running natively, while the other runs the program in emulation, neither of which has much ram, heightens the difference. That's not to say it isn't real-world, because many people may only buy the stock iMac. It would be insteresting to see if running the test on both systems having 2 gig of ram has an impact.
Note also that MacCentral loaded each with only 512 MB of ram, which likely has a bigger impact on the Intel iMac running programs in Rosetta - much more likely to need to page out/in to VM. We all know that OS X loves ram, so to run one program on a processor running natively, while the other runs the program in emulation, neither of which has much ram, heightens the difference. That's not to say it isn't real-world, because many people may only buy the stock iMac. It would be insteresting to see if running the test on both systems having 2 gig of ram has an impact.
Guys, don't forget that the switch to Intel is about more than outright speed. It's about performace per watt.
Intel's road map is fairly clear.MrCrowbar said:
In late 2006 Intel will be shipping a processor they call Conroe that is a high-performance multi-core derivative of Merom. The Merom is a enhanced revamp of Yonah (aka Core Duo) targeted to replace the Yonah in Q3 (possibly Q4). In other words the Merom is a laptop CPU.
The Merom will out perform the Yonah in likely every metric (estimates of 20-30% better clock for clock over the Yonah). The Conroe will out perform the Merom by removing the low power requirements of a laptop chip. In other words the Conroe is a desktop CPU. Both the Merom and Conroe support 64 bit (among other technologies).
Of course Apple could surprise us by using a Pentium D relative in a PowerMac if the don't want to wait until near the end of the year... I personally hope not.
Finally Woodcrest (server version of Conroe supporting multiple packages in a system) could also show up in a high-end PowerMac (replace the Quad).
...but to sum things up... Apple isn't putting a laptop chip into the PowerMac replacement, it will be a true desktop/workstation class chip from Intel.
Going off of what Arn said on the first page about Transitive technology, this leads me to think that if you never turn off one of the new Intel Macs (which most of us never turn off our Macs anyway) you would eventually not even notice the speed lag of Rosetta, because it will have compiled all the neccessary code it needs to make the PowerPC apps run on the Core Duo. I assume this plays into how much RAM you have, as I am (again) assuming that some of this code is stored on the RAM for fastest access possible.
Overall, not bad at all. This is shaping up to be an awesome year for Apple (and us).
Overall, not bad at all. This is shaping up to be an awesome year for Apple (and us).
Agreed. That's not terrible for emulation, and 1/3 to 1/2 native speed is not out of line with what's been seen previously since WWDC. As for me, I think I'll be waiting until most of the apps run natively on Intel before I buy a new Mac so I don't have to deal with the problem.Dr. Dastardly said:
shawnce said:
Right. We won't be disappointed on the new pro mashines, I think. Apple let us a bit down on speed bumps recently, so the next should be a "giant leap for Mac kind" (nice one huh?).
By the way, I like the ballmer videos. I bet Bill is paying a lot to get this guy out of the sanatorum after the keynotes.
Macintouch also has an "early" review of the iMac Core Duo which doesn't sound quite as ominous as Macworld's. One thing Macintouch mentioned about Rosetta that I don't remember seeing being alluded to at all in Macworld's G5/Core Duo Rosetta bake-off was this kind of interesting tidbit:
From what I've read so far, there seems to be a general consensus among those who have actually had hands-on use is that the new iMac feels lightning fast when dealing with the OS and it's now-native apps and iLife. Rosetta impressions vary, but all seem to acknowledge that, while apps under Rosetta obviously aren't as fast as G5 native counterparts, Rosetta aint no slouch either. If you're using an app that's mostly pegging your G5/G4 system and it hasn't been released as a universal app yet, you pretty much know what to expect.
"Rosetta (i.e. Transitive's QuickTransit) works by translating PowerPC machine language code into an intermediate form, which it then can analyze and optimize, then converting this back to the foreign Intel machine language. Any speed penalty in this intermediate step is paid back in the next feature, code caching. QuickTransit doesn't have to convert code each and every every time it encounters it (the Achilles Heel of Apple's original 68000 emulator); it caches recently translated code for reuse, and when that cached code is called repeatedly, QuickTransit spends time further optimizing the code, so the most frequently used parts of a program become faster and faster as you use them."
From what I've read so far, there seems to be a general consensus among those who have actually had hands-on use is that the new iMac feels lightning fast when dealing with the OS and it's now-native apps and iLife. Rosetta impressions vary, but all seem to acknowledge that, while apps under Rosetta obviously aren't as fast as G5 native counterparts, Rosetta aint no slouch either. If you're using an app that's mostly pegging your G5/G4 system and it hasn't been released as a universal app yet, you pretty much know what to expect.
Hilarious videos, I hadn't seen the "ad" one before. I think you meant to spell Monkey though?shawnce said: