Sidebar Sidebar
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)

Lots of techno here - but how's it FEEL?

Just got back from a local computer store which had the new iMac on display - and I must say - my overall impression with regard to basic menu/desktop navigation is that it is very responsive!

(But don't take my word for it - try one yourself!)

As for the benchmarks with regard to rendering, etc: I'm not too worried one way or another; in time, this thing'll smoke 'em!

Unfortunately, I can't say this about the new iPods (nano and video, with all the sluggishness and jitteriness); I will ABSOLUTELY be keeping my gen3 for the forseable future, no matter the battery...
 
shawnce said:
God... sorry just couldn't let this stupid statement slide... :(

Ok you are wrong... on Mac OS X applications get a virtual memory space that is 4 GiB in size (addresses are 32 bits wide)... since the dawn of Mac O X. They do not get access to "real" memory, they operate in a virtual memory sandbox that the Mac OS X virtual memory subsystem maps into physical memory (RAM) as needed. Only when running inside the kernel can you potentially get access to physical memory addresses (usually only when you need to DMA to hardware). Windows acts the same way.

Additionally since Mac OS X 10.4 (when used on a G5) you can implement applications (ones without a GUI, using only libSystem) that have access to a 16 TiB virtual memory space (addresses are 64 bit wide).

Windows XP "32-bit" applications get a virtual memory space that is 2 GiB in size (addresses are 31 bits wide, the high order bit is used for kernel mapping). Windows XP "64-bit" applications get a virtual memory space that is 16TiB in size (actually 16TiB minus 2GiB IIRC).

Both Windows and Mac OS X support 64 bit addresses for physical memory (RAM)... of course the chipset and CPU in the system will often limit the physical address size to something smaller then 64 bits wide. So some aspect of the 64 bit physical address will go unused.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing up a few things Shawnce.

I've honestly never seen GIB used, most of the peeps I know alway used Gig, or Gb. Shows my ignorance.

I should have also stated "physical" memory, instead of "real," since in geek speak everything has such a literal meaning.

Using a switch under WinXP SP2, will actually allow a 32-bit proc to see and use up to 3 Gbs, instead of just 2 Gbs. I've also learned that if you do have a 64-bit proc and more than 4 Gbs of RAM, CS2 under WinXP SP2 will use the extra ram as cache, just like CS2 under OS X instead of hitting the dreaded HDD.

Just to add more to why a 64-bit GUI is a bad idea, none of Adobe's products support Win64.

<]=)
 
shawnce said:
You do realized most of Apples iLife application (iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto in particular) and well as many of Apple frameworks (Core Image, QuickTime, etc.) are fully capable of splitting streaming work across multiple cores when multiple cores are available...
Click to expand...
But almost never with the scaling embodied in the SPEC rate benchmarks....


shawnce said:
You don't see the foot notes??
Click to expand...
Holy Guacamole, Batman!

The footnotes were above the text with the footnote reference.

Apple is really innovative - putting the footnotes in the middle of the page.

My bad, I guess, for expecting to see a "footnote" in the "footer" of the page. (Or maybe the Apple webmeister should do a little more testing of the HTML code....)

JackAxe said:
*LOL* Do you belive your own BS?
Click to expand...
I was going to reply, but others have done a very good job of countering your arguments....

I got my first 64-bit desktop 14 years ago - I really do have a bit of experience in these matters ;). Turn the flames down a little, and at least try to think about what's been written here.
 
Rosetta vs G4

I don't have time right now to read through all of the forum, although I did try to skim through to prevent a dup. type post here. but my apologies ahead of time if it has already been asked.

How does the performance of running a PPC app in Rosette Vs. on a G4 ?
example.
I have a duel G4 1.0GHZ (quicksilver) 1.5GB ram, 200GB Hard drive
Radeon 9800 Pro (128mb vram)

and a powerbook Titanium G4 667mhz. 512MB ram.
how will the apps running in rosetta on the new intel-mac stack up ?

(yes I've posted this in another forum before, but thought it would fit well here. as last time there were no actual benchmarks out yet)

thanks and cheers!
 
AidenShaw said:
I was going to reply, but others have done a very good job of countering your arguments....

I got my first 64-bit desktop 14 years ago - I really do have a bit of experience in these matters ;). Turn the flames down a little, and at least try to think about what's been written here.
Click to expand...

I do apoligize. When I get excited and I'm rushed, my judgement becomes clouded. I went back and read your original reply and realized that I had completely misread and also misunderstood some of your comments and If I had only taken a step back and waited until later this evening, I would not have replied in the manner that I had. :)

<]=)
 
AidenShaw said:
(Or maybe the Apple webmeister should do a little more testing of the HTML code....)
Click to expand...
Weird they show up near the bottom of the page and below the footnote tags inline.
 
ncbill said:
IBM gave up on Apple.

Apple never had any power in the relationship.

Apple's business, at best, represented a tiny fraction of IBM's revenue stream.

There was never any incentive for IBM to deliver that 3GHz G5.

>Too bad IBM and Apple gave up on the G5.
Click to expand...

It actually represented a tiny portion of IBM's PPC revenues (between 2 and 5%), let alone the countless billons that the rest of IBM drags in. I'm surprised that IBM stuck with it for as long as they did.

I'm not really sure that Apple has any greater power in this relationship with Intel, but at least they don't have to worry about paying for custom chip work.
 
x86 Software

Hello people!!

Does anyone know when universal binaries of programs like Adobe CS2, Cinema 4D, Maya, Sketchup and Microsoft Office will become available?

Cheers!
 
I know

mandis said:
Hello people!!

Does anyone know when universal binaries of programs like Adobe CS2, Cinema 4D, Maya, Sketchup and Microsoft Office will become available?
Click to expand...
About 4 days after you give them your credit card number to pay for the fat binary upgrade ! :cool:
 
Advice, Guidance & Your Wisdom

A number of replies discusses the benefits (or lack of) of upgrading from a iMac G5 to and Intel iMac. I assume that most replies refer to the current isight iMac. I have a first gen 1.8Ghz G5 iMac and wiondered if the same advice holds for me. I have already lined up a buyer for my existing Mac and was ready to bite the bullet for a new 20inch. So what shall I do wait, for a revision in August or go for it.

What improvement will I see?
 
Wait until your mostly used software comes in universal binary, then get an iMac. I guess there will be an update on the iMac on April, so this would be a good time. But I would keep the G5 iMac next to the new one, so if you need to run an app that isnt universal, your G5 will run noticably gaster than the Intel one. Maybe you can even figure out how to hook them together, so you can use the old iMac as second screen for the Intel :)
 
I don't agree with these tests to an extent. We're talking about processor speed running on Mac OS X. Not how fast files export cause that's due to processor and hard drive and RAM. There are a lot of test I don't think they ran correctly. I mean Steve was showing Integer and floating point specs - those were killer compared to PowerPC. They should do different tests rather than those that require hard disk. As soon as Adobe comes out with Universal CS2 or UCS3 then the test's may be up to par. It's like if I were to throw in an ATA-33 Hard drive in this, and an ATA-133 Hard Drive in an iBook G3 700MHz, which would win the tests? For those posted, probably the G3 700MHz, cause the Hard Drive performance is greater. ATA-33 vs ATA-133.

That's my 2 cents.
 
Correct. Besides, the things that slow our computers down are memory accesses. If everything would fit into a processors registers, everything would be fine. But actually, the processor spends a lot of time with waiting for data. Thus, your CPU is rarely effectively running on 100% even if it tells you it is (waiting is, in simple words, actually work for the cpu, too ).

I'm pretty sure the Core Duo blows the G5 away in terms of integer and floating point computation, as long as no memory is involved. The Intel iMac got a little boost in RAM speed, but that's all.

But I think the benchmarks only test how many simple operations the processor can do in a given time. The thing is, such simple operations rarely happen in real use. I.e you don't add 2 numbers to just throw the result away and add 2 other number.
 
Sorry if this is posted already...

Did anybody have a look at this? http://barefeats.com/imcd.html

However, it does say that the other computers were running ilife 05. I am not sure how much of a difference that makes, but still pretty interesting. I went over to my father's yesterday and helped him get his dual 2.0 imac set up. It has 2Gb's of ram and it screamed!! I was very impressed!
 
I am waiting for my new intel iMac arriving (shipped this morning from Shanghai) and went to my local Apple store for a test drive this morning. I played google earth which is the only PPC application installed. WOW, the zooming is unbelievely fast. I am convinced that Rosseta is good enough for non-pro applications.
 
Other then that... Looks like the g5 can hold its own considering that you should expect at least this much of a gain just from the 2nd core alone
Click to expand...

Ummm... No.. You do realize that it's really just testing the one processor. Very little software would be benefitting from the dual processor. And, I'd hazard a guess (without really knowing) that Rosetta might not itself benefit from dual cores.

So in a nutshell, the Core offers significant improvements over the G5. Just a pity that its not 64bit like the PowerPC. Steve was fairly quiet about that ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back