More Intel iMac Benchmarks

hmmm... interesting... very interesting indeed. i dont care what the numbers tell me now... because I want one!

Well I have my 20 in Duo waiting for me at home with 256 VRAM and 2 GB of RAM and I'll be picking it up tomorrow so I'll see first hand how it stacks up to my Rev B iMac. One thing I found somewhat interesting was the game performance. The Duo had 2 more FPS, not really impressive, unless the game was running under Rosetta. If that's the case there may be a huge jump once the game is Universal. I can't wait to see how WoW will run on my new iMac once it's Universal. If the test done earlier are true then I may have a hard time turning WoW off (not that I don't already:eek: ;) ).

The G5 is still a great CPU (while we await Intel's next generation chips this summer/fall) but it's important to be intelligent about comparing speeds. The article makes a good point about that, and about possible software bottlenecks that are making Intel Macs test slower than they might. (And no, they're not REALLY saying a Core Duo rivals a quad G5.)


"old applications, that do not run natively on the Intel processor, run about half as fast as they would run on a G5 machine"

Sounds like an older-that-a-year-ago G4 user like me will have few gripes during the (temporary) Rosetta phase :)


"There are precious few applications that take complete advantage of multiple processors"

True--but ALL apps take "INcomplete" advantage: if nothing else, OS X will give the current foreground app a CPU to itself, moving the OS, other apps, and background processes to the other CPU(s). And many single-CPU apps call on OS X features that themselves ARE multi-CPU aware.

But I like seeing consumer machines go dual core: it means app developers (and Apple) have incentive to do even more with multiple CPUs, for even more kinds of app.

One thing I found somewhat interesting was the game performance. The Duo had 2 more FPS, not really impressive, unless the game was running under Rosetta.

InsideMacGames and TheMacObserver have had some game tests lately, and other reviews have mentioned games too. Results vary, but it sounds like across the board--from older games right up to Doom 3--Rosetta delivers 75%-85% of G5 speed. That ain't bad, and it means older games can run smoothly without ever needing to be ported.

It also shows the better GPU found in the new iMacs. Given that, a straight comparison can't be made to the G5 iMacs. (But comparisons can be made to Rosetta games vs. updated Universal versions.)

One thing i never understood if im doing something processor intensive

i might only see it at 80% usage or something but it takes a long time. why doesnt it use 100% and get it done faster

Well I have my 20 in Duo waiting for me at home with 256 VRAM and 2 GB of RAM and I'll be picking it up tomorrow so I'll see first hand how it stacks up to my Rev B iMac. One thing I found somewhat interesting was the game performance. The Duo had 2 more FPS, not really impressive, unless the game was running under Rosetta.

From the website:

Scores in dark orange are from applications that run natively on both Intel Macs and G5 Macs

The game benchmark is in white, so I guess that means it was run in Rosetta.

What's striking to me is that all but two of the native apps are at least twice as fast on the Intel and a couple are nearly 3x faster. One is close to 2x (90%) faster and one is 67% faster. So perhaps Stevie-boy didn't lie after all.

One thing i never understood if im doing something processor intensive

i might only see it at 80% usage or something but it takes a long time. why doesnt it use 100% and get it done faster

Could be bottlenecked by the hard drive or RAM.

Could be bottlenecked by the hard drive or RAM.

Or the user...
:p

When running the QuickTime encodes the Power Mac Quad G5/2.5GHz took 86.25 seconds.The Intel iMac Core Duo 2.0GHz took 176.60 seconds

The article is rubbish - they start out comparing the intel iMac Core Duo 2.0GHz against the Power Mac Quad G5/2.5GHz. Now I thought that this was interesting, until you get down to the actual comparisons at the bottom and they are then comparing the timings between the iMac G5/1.8GHz and the iMac Intel Core Duo 2.0GHz.

What the hell happened to the Power Mac Quad G5/2.5GHz that the article started out with. It should have been this that they used in the comparison chart at the bottom of the article and not the iMac G5/1.8GHz.

The article is rubbish - they start out comparing the intel iMac Core Duo 2.0GHz against the Power Mac Quad G5/2.5GHz. Now I thought that this was interesting, until you get down to the actual comparisons at the bottom and they are then comparing the timings between the iMac G5/1.8GHz and the iMac Intel Core Duo 2.0GHz.

What the hell happened to the Power Mac Quad G5/2.5GHz that the article started out with. It should have been this that they used in the comparison chart at the bottom of the article and not the iMac G5/1.8GHz.

Why? They are comparing two different versions of the same computer that sells for the same price. It tells us what the switch to intel did for the iMac.
The Quad G5 was just to prove their point a little more.