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.
Anyone received their Intel iMac?
- Thread starter MartinAyla
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
A thread over at MacAddict has benchmarks of the Core Duo iMac showing it performing equal with or a hair better than PPC iMacs, but that it has dramatically slower H.264 export (not the playback, which seems to be doing fine), could you run some tests of this in QT Player or iMovie to confirm?
jhero said:
here's the whole test from that forum, mainly because MacAddict loads so damn slow sometimes:
I went up to the Apple store tonight to buy the iLife '06, and while I was there, I thought I would run some benchmarks on the Quad G5 PowerMac. While doing that, an Apple guy started talking to me and mentioned that they had 3 iMac intel machines that they just set up today. Perfect - I was running video benchmarks anyway, I would just go over and run them on the new iMac. Here are the results (including some tests I did for a Mac Mini article a few months back):
Render 10 Second Ken Burn's Effect
15 seconds, Mac Mini G4 - 1.25 GHz 512 MB RAM
14 seconds, PowerMac G4 - dual 867 MHz 1.5 GB RAM
14 seconds, iMac G5 - 1.8 GHz 256 MB RAM
9 seconds, PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 GHz 512 MB RAM
6 seconds, PowerMac G5 QUAD 2.5 GHz 2.5 GB RAM (processor never above 25%)
13 seconds, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM (5 second delay/stuttor on the "import" of the photo)
Render Six 2 Second Cross Dissolve Simultaneously
60 seconds, Mac Mini G4 - 1.25 GHz 512 MB RAM
57 seconds, PowerMac G4 - dual 867 MHz 1.5 GB RAM
31 seconds, iMac G5 - 1.8 GHz 256 MB RAM
20 seconds, PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 GHz 512 MB RAM
20 seconds, PowerMac G5 QUAD 2.5 GHz 2.5 GB RAM (processor never above 25%)
24 seconds, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM
Export 1 Minute of Video to QuickTime using for CD-ROM Setting (H264)
70 seconds, Mac Mini G4 - 1.25 GHz 512 MB RAM
53 seconds, PowerMac G4 - dual 867 MHz 1.5 GB RAM
35 seconds, iMac G5 - 1.8 GHz 256 MB RAM
22 seconds, PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 Ghz 512 MB RAM
20 seconds, PowerMac G5 QUAD 2.5 GHz 2.5 GB RAM (processor never above 25%)
94 seconds, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM
Create Disc Image in iDVD using Travel Cards theme and 10 Minutes of Video
28 minutes, Mac Mini G4 - 1.25 GHz 512 MB RAM
25 minutes, PowerMac G4 - dual 867 MHz 1.5 GB RAM
12 minutes, iMac G5 - 1.8 GHz 256 MB RAM
9 minutes, PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 GHz 512 MB RAM
5.1 minutes, PowerMac G5 QUAD 2.5 GHz 2.5 GB RAM (processor never above 35%)
10 minutes, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM
Overall, I was disappointed with the iMac duo performance. When I first walked up to the machine and started using it, it felt sluggish right away. Of course, I had just walked from the quad, but still, the apps lagged for a second when they were launched, dashboard stuttered when I first hit it, and I got the beach ball a few times right away when launching iMovie, the clock and activty monitor. Actually, it felt clunky and more like being on a PC the way that it seemed to hesitate for just a moment when doing things. But I was the most disappointed with the render speeds, which were only slightly faster than single processor iMac G5 1.8 Ghz on most test, and half the speed on anything with h264. The h264 export result was so suprising that I tried it a couple of different times with a few different setting, all with the same result - all very slow - about half the speed of the iMac G5. Could this be a case of much of the code still not being optimized for the intel?
Another thing that is still baffling me is the processing CPU % utilized on the PowerMac Quad G5 during rendering. It is still not getting up above 25% to 35% when rendering in iMovie or iDVD. When I exported from iMovie to h264, it took 59 seconds for a 1 minute clip (1000 kbit/s, 720 x 480, 30 fps), and the processor went up to 55%. Of course, all of these test are iMovie and iDVD. I did do a test exporting from Final Cut on the quad, and it was actually slower than iMovie. It took 90 seconds with the processor running at 40%. I guess that I am still baffled what the benefit is of having all the quad power processing sitting there if it is not going to get used the most when you need it - during heavy duty rendering. For that performance, it seems I would be much better of just getting the dual G5 PowerMac, because it gives similar rendering performance as the Quad, but at a far less cost!
Now, a few things. We have two different reports here. We have Bubbasteve here with a new Intel iMac and he says that everything is very fast and speedy and that opening applications is VERY fast. Then we have this guy here that seems reputable and saying how sluggish the Intel iMac seems to feel. They seem to be opposite of each other.
Also, notice how low the RAM was in these tests, could the slow speeds shown be because of things going to virtual memory and mucking up the results...for all the machines that is except for the Quad which had 2.5 gigs.
But I can only think of one thing as he said in his post: Could this be a case of much of the code still not being optimized for the intel?
Its all about PowerPC, Intel are awful - Always have been, always will be - If Apple had to choose between Intel and AMD, they should have chosen AMD.
wasimyaqoob said:
AMD couldn't provide a complete solution to Apple...just CPUs. Apple needed motherboards, chipsets and CPUs. AMD relies on 3rd party people like ASUS or Nvidia to provide motherboard chipsets. Apple would have to rely on both AMD for the chips, then another manufacturer for their motherboard chipsets. It's simply a matter of getting things done for Apple.
But then again, Apple isn't married to Intel. Yes they have agreements etc etc...but nothing is stopping Apple from switching to AMD in the future if they have to. They have that option now, if one company starts futzing around with them they can just switch with no disruption to the OS or applications like they have to do now with the IBM/PPC fiasco. Once the dust settles and the Intel Macs are out in the world chugging along, then they can start thinking about other ways like AMD if they have to.
Staying with the PPC, Apple was a slave to IBM...and let's face it, IBM just wasn't delivering. In the x86 world things are much different. But bottom line, going with Intel here at the beginning was the quickest, least painful way Apple could switch to the x86 world.
more BAD news
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?threadid=60294
Machine Model - iTunes Rip Speed
MacBook Pro 2x1.83 (Macworld demo unit) - 4.5x
PowerBook G4 1.67 (15" 1280x854 model) - 12.5x
PowerMac G5 2x2.0 (rev A) - 25x
that's slower than the origonal eMac....
EDIT: it seems there was a fault on the Macbook. it was later reported as 20x rip speed...phew.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?threadid=60294
Machine Model - iTunes Rip Speed
MacBook Pro 2x1.83 (Macworld demo unit) - 4.5x
PowerBook G4 1.67 (15" 1280x854 model) - 12.5x
PowerMac G5 2x2.0 (rev A) - 25x
that's slower than the origonal eMac....
EDIT: it seems there was a fault on the Macbook. it was later reported as 20x rip speed...phew.
wasimyaqoob said:
WOW how many times can you troll the same FUD through these forums?
Just do a quick search on this guys posts to see how much of this crap he is spreading.
nospleen said:I see you have a 1.5 PB. Try doing something in ilife on both of the machines and time the difference. (please)
I haven't loaded iLife 06 on my PB yet but once I do I will tell you my thoughts
2nyRiggz said:
No, I haven't had to load Rosetta at all... you just open the PPC apps and they run like normal
asencif said:
I can't see any significant change in MactheRipper... havent tried handbrake yet
Office runs fine... no problems with that
Thanks...
Great to know about Mac the Ripper. Now if Handbrake works then Rosetta definitely works better than expected. Are there any other 3rd Party apps you have that are worth testing? Let's see....Macromedia..Flash and Dreamweaver? Toast 7...etc...I appreciate your time on testing this. Thanks.
Great to know about Mac the Ripper. Now if Handbrake works then Rosetta definitely works better than expected. Are there any other 3rd Party apps you have that are worth testing? Let's see....Macromedia..Flash and Dreamweaver? Toast 7...etc...I appreciate your time on testing this. Thanks.
Kelson said:
Ahhh. Yes - things change moving to version 1.2. My 1.42 G4 PM with it's OEM ATI 9000 video card of 64 MB now scores a 56.87. Still compared to the intel iMac score of 58.39 noted on page two of this thread, it adds a bit to the self-esteem of my old PM. My PM is running with 2 GB of RAM and I assume if the intel iMac were to add some additional memory, the gap would widen a ways. It's good to see that my PM is still competitive in terms of current day model performance, though. It's a great machine.
Stopped by the Kansas City Apple store today and suprisingly they had one new 20" iMac in stock so I decided to give it a home. My only real exposure to Apple hardware is the Mac Mini I've had for the past year so can only compare to it. But here are my initial observations:
Boot and reboot time is much faster.
The startup tone is basically the same, but in stereo compared to mini.
Love the screen, great colors and fades out when not in use.
Safari is definitely snappier for the sites I visit.
World of Warcraft does work using Rosetta, but Ironforge was getting only 5 - 10 fps sometimes, elsewhere more like 20 - 25.
Mighty Mouse is very difficult to use in WoW but I like the scroll ball in Safari.
Citrix ICA Java client and native OSX ICA client both seem to work fine.
Nikon PictureProject and it is about the same (ie slow).
Here is the xBench scores for my new 20" iMac:
Results 59.05
System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.4 (8G1165)
Physical RAM 512 MB
Model iMac4,1
Drive Type WDC WD2500JS-40NGB2
CPU Test 77.02
GCD Loop 260.17 13.71 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 90.94 2.16 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 44.69 1.47 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 67.94 11.83 Mops/sec
Thread Test 197.58
Computation 179.75 3.64 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 219.35 9.44 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 102.98
System 117.40
Allocate 128.77 472.90 Kalloc/sec
Fill 107.83 5242.76 MB/sec
Copy 117.44 2425.76 MB/sec
Stream 91.72
Copy 76.44 1578.75 MB/sec
Scale 76.63 1583.05 MB/sec
Add 115.29 2455.98 MB/sec
Triad 113.57 2429.51 MB/sec
Quartz Graphics Test 68.74
Line 66.30 4.41 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 63.45 18.94 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 65.58 5.35 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 88.87 2.24 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 64.97 4.06 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 140.96
Spinning Squares 140.96 178.81 frames/sec
User Interface Test 19.83
Elements 19.83 91.00 refresh/sec
Disk Test 53.47
Sequential 64.80
Uncached Write 36.96 22.69 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 102.16 57.80 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 62.32 18.24 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 113.13 56.86 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 45.51
Uncached Write 16.21 1.72 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 126.28 40.43 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 91.69 0.65 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 135.51 25.14 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Boot and reboot time is much faster.
The startup tone is basically the same, but in stereo compared to mini.
Love the screen, great colors and fades out when not in use.
Safari is definitely snappier for the sites I visit.
World of Warcraft does work using Rosetta, but Ironforge was getting only 5 - 10 fps sometimes, elsewhere more like 20 - 25.
Mighty Mouse is very difficult to use in WoW but I like the scroll ball in Safari.
Citrix ICA Java client and native OSX ICA client both seem to work fine.
Nikon PictureProject and it is about the same (ie slow).
Here is the xBench scores for my new 20" iMac:
Results 59.05
System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.4 (8G1165)
Physical RAM 512 MB
Model iMac4,1
Drive Type WDC WD2500JS-40NGB2
CPU Test 77.02
GCD Loop 260.17 13.71 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 90.94 2.16 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 44.69 1.47 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 67.94 11.83 Mops/sec
Thread Test 197.58
Computation 179.75 3.64 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 219.35 9.44 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 102.98
System 117.40
Allocate 128.77 472.90 Kalloc/sec
Fill 107.83 5242.76 MB/sec
Copy 117.44 2425.76 MB/sec
Stream 91.72
Copy 76.44 1578.75 MB/sec
Scale 76.63 1583.05 MB/sec
Add 115.29 2455.98 MB/sec
Triad 113.57 2429.51 MB/sec
Quartz Graphics Test 68.74
Line 66.30 4.41 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 63.45 18.94 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 65.58 5.35 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 88.87 2.24 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 64.97 4.06 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 140.96
Spinning Squares 140.96 178.81 frames/sec
User Interface Test 19.83
Elements 19.83 91.00 refresh/sec
Disk Test 53.47
Sequential 64.80
Uncached Write 36.96 22.69 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 102.16 57.80 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 62.32 18.24 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 113.13 56.86 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 45.51
Uncached Write 16.21 1.72 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 126.28 40.43 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 91.69 0.65 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 135.51 25.14 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Anyone want to post pictures of your stunning new beasts? I just love me a good picture of Macs
cusqueno said:
Wow! Thanks for posting the benchmark. It looks like in real world performance (taking everything into consideration) we're looking at max 2x previous powerbooks. There are some tasks that are going to be 4-5x faster and there are also tasks that are almost the same. I have a iMac 1.25Ghz and that score isn't even quite 2x mine. The 1.67Ghz powerbooks should close the gap even more.
I really hope those xbench scores are so low because the benchmark doesn't work correctly on Intel, my Dual 1.8 GHz G5 scored 33% higher than that.
- Status