To be honest... (Intel iMac vs. Power Mac)

[dwd3885]

After using my intel imac and subsequently taking a few days off from my powermac dual core 2ghz, I thought it couldn't get any better. The intel imac has isight, front row!! How cool!?!

Some of it might have been that I just had the 512MB RAM on it, but I could not do it anymore. I thought it was going to work out but the intel imac was just sluggish, especially while running apps in rosetta. To say, I CAN do most of the things on the intel imac as i can with the powermac (azereus won't run, Flip4mac is troublesome) i went back to the powermac g5 and it is lightyears ahead. It really isn't a close one here folks.

As smooth as I THOUGHT everything was just wasn't the same after going back to the dual core G5.

I just wanted to take back all my statements saying the intel imac is as good as a dual core powermac. The Powermac IS $500 better.

 

[joebells]

thats really not completely fair though how much ram is in your g5?

 

[dwd3885]

thats really not completely fair though how much ram is in your g5?

it has 512 as well. that's the thing. i had 1.5 gigs then i took it out and the powermac still fairs better

 

[unixfool]

it has 512 as well. that's the thing. i had 1.5 gigs then i took it out and the powermac still fairs better

Is your G5 DC Powermac emulating with 512MB of RAM?

Your comparision seems a bit flawed, as (correct me if I'm wrong) Rosetta needs lots of RAM. When those univeral binaries are released, are you willing to bet that your iMac will still be slow? When you put 1.5GB of RAM into the iMac, are you willing to bet that your iMac will still be as slow? When emulation is taken out of the picture, will you still be thinking the iMac is slow? Did you reinstall the OS?

There are tons of factors that affect benchmarking. You didn't mention how you benchmarked, so I'm assuming you didn't. Comparison by seat-of-the-pants isn't benchmarking.

It's well known that the iMac is a new product that is still being worked. Your G5 Powermac has been baking a few years.

 

[dwd3885]

Is your G5 DC Powermac emulating with 512MB of RAM?

Your comparision seems a bit flawed, as (correct me if I'm wrong) Rosetta needs lots of RAM. When those univeral binaries are released, are you willing to bet that your iMac will still be slow? When you put 1.5GB of RAM into the iMac, are you willing to bet that your iMac will still be as slow? When emulation is taken out of the picture, will you still be thinking the iMac is slow? Did you reinstall the OS? There are tons of factors that affect benchmarking. You didn't mention how you benchmarked, so I'm assuming you didn't. Comparison by seat-of-the-pants isn't benchmarking.

It's well known that the iMac is a new product that is still being worked. Your G5 Powermac has been baking a few years.

i did benchmark and the benchmarks turn out positive for the imac (read my other threads). I AM betting the imac still won't be up to par with the powermac even if it has 1.5 gigs ram.

 

[thestaton]

I have a 20" intel iMac with 256Video ram and 2gigs of ram and this thing flys. You are not comparing apples to apples.

 

[unixfool]

i did benchmark and the benchmarks turn out positive for the imac (read my other threads). I AM betting the imac still won't be up to par with the powermac even if it has 1.5 gigs ram.

If not even, it should come close. The iMac is pretty much a dual proc machine, only its cores are on one die. Others have already did their own benchmarking (dunno if they benchmarked against a G5 Powermac though) with very good results. They also took into consideration Rosetta emulation.

Also, it woulda been nice if you'd have said that you've other threads on your benchmarking.

Anyways, the comparison is pretty much apples and oranges. Your G5 is a professional machine and even though the iMac is dual-core, it isn't a pro system. In fact, there's not much to compare against the iMac, as Apple doesn't yet make other non-pro dual-core/dual-proc systems (again, correct me if I'm wrong).

If you don't like your iMac, I'm pretty sure someone will be willing to take it off your hands.

 

[dwd3885]

If you don't like your iMac, I'm pretty sure someone will be willing to take it off your hands.

Somebody already did

 

[Koodauw]

I think the main point here is that until more software is ported to the new chips, the advantages of switching from IBM to Intel will not be truly known. Everyone is really hyped up for comparisons, but it really can't be done accurately at the moment. (in most cases.)

 

[NNO-Stephen]

I'm running an intel iMac right now and it does indeed fly. only problem is that I only have half a gig of RAM. I WILL have more at the end of the week (2GB) but that is the one limiting factor. doing basic basic stuff EVERY DROP of RAM is being used and I'm not even running anything in Rosetta!

 

[BakedBeans]

OK, a few things - get more ram, please. My iMac is fast, really bloody fast and even emulated photoshop results show how fast it is with 2GB RAM in it - its easily beating dual core 2ghz powermacs etc.

Get more ram and wait 6 months for all your apps to be native and then you will see how fast this thing really is.

 

[andiwm2003]

i actually hope that many people will be disappointed. and with the new merom chips coming soon they will sell off their imac's for cheap. that's how i'll go "intel core duo".

 

[MacsRgr8]

We should know by now that an iMac Core Duo is not any faster than a G5 "Core Dual" ( ) running the universal apps like iLife '06.
But it IS faster than the "Core Single" G5 which is now present in an iMac G5.

The idea that a new iMac (Intel) runs the universal binaries at the same speed as a Power Mac G5 Dual, is good. But we have to wait until Rosetta is not needed anymore, before the new iMac can be truly compared to Dual Core Power Macs.

The G5 still is a very, very fast processor. That wasn't the direct reason for Steve's switch to Intel. It was more about the PowerBook's problem....
The G4 simply had... to... go... !

 

[shrimpdesign]

i actually hope that many people will be disappointed. and with the new merom chips coming soon they will sell off their imac's for cheap. that's how i'll go "intel core duo".

G4 < G5 < Core Duo < Merom

In went from G4 to Core Duo, so I'm pretty happy. I wouldn't be able to afford a new PowerMac anyways.

 

[Ja Di ksw]

iMac = Consumor
PowerMac = Professional

What's the big deal?

 

[MacsRgr8]

iMac = Consumor
PowerMac = Professional

What's the big deal?

There is no big deal.

Problem is that people can be disappointed wth the iMac Core Duo's performance.
But that is quite logical.

 

[bugfaceuk]

I have a 20" intel iMac with 256Video ram and 2gigs of ram and this thing flys. You are not comparing apples to apples.

Well you know, techinically... he is...

 

[johnnybluejeans]

Well you know, techinically... he is...

 

[unixfool]

There is no big deal.

Problem is that people can be disappointed wth the iMac Core Duo's performance.
But that is quite logical.

The big deal is that people keep trying to benchmark and compare, not taking into account that the comparisons aren't gonna be of any real value. The reasons have been hashed all over these forums, yet people just can't seem to grasp that there's nothing wrong with the Core Duo (or the G5 systems).

Too much hype and not enough understanding...and that's not quite logical.

 

[SiliconAddict]

You really should give it a few months. Seriously the Intel Macs are future proofing you. The OS and the apps are only going to get better over the long run. Also I've read on arstechnica that Rosetta is a hungry sucker. You should really have 1GB of RAM in that thing. That's why I ordered 2GB for my MacBook Pro.

 

[rhashem]

After using my intel imac and subsequently taking a few days off from my powermac dual core 2ghz, I thought it couldn't get any better. The intel imac has isight, front row!! How cool!?!

Some of it might have been that I just had the 512MB RAM on it, but I could not do it anymore. I thought it was going to work out but the intel imac was just sluggish, especially while running apps in rosetta. To say, I CAN do most of the things on the intel imac as i can with the powermac (azereus won't run, Flip4mac is troublesome) i went back to the powermac g5 and it is lightyears ahead. It really isn't a close one here folks.

As smooth as I THOUGHT everything was just wasn't the same after going back to the dual core G5.

OS X Intel, especially Rosetta, seems to be very memory hungry. Try the iMac with 2GB of RAM and reconsider your impression. I consider 512MB on a PowerMac G5 to be painful. 512MB on an Intel Mac is just plain unuseable.

 

[rhashem]

We should know by now that an iMac Core Duo is not any faster than a G5 "Core Dual" ( ) running the universal apps like iLife '06.
But it IS faster than the "Core Single" G5 which is now present in an iMac G5.

There are a couple of points to remember.

1) The iApps have been very heavily optimized for the G5 over the last two years. If they are performing comparably in the first month of the Intel Mac era, then that's saying quite a lot about the Core Duo. The situation will get better (I expect it'll all be ironed out by the time Leopard comes out). To get an idea of the potential of the Core Duo system, look at the XCode benchmarks. Apple developers are reporting that XCode on the Core Duo 2.0 is just a bit slower than XCode on a G5 Quad. That's to potential that lies in the processor architecture, once applications are properly optimized for it.

2) The 970MP isn't a reasonable competitor to the Core Duo. Its a much larger (ie: more expensive to manufacture) chip, and it uses several times the power. The fact that the Core Duo competes with it in many benchmarks says quite a lot about it.

Lastly: using a Mac, especially an Intel Mac, with 512MB is stupid! It seems to me that a lot of the people who report being dissapointed with the new Intel Macs' performance are using the stock 512MB configuration. Rosetta is *very* memory hungry. See this article for numbers: http://hailstonesoftware.com/articles/2006/01/22/rosetta-memory-overhead
It's really not fair to spend almost $2000 for a brand new Intel Mac, then totally destroy its performance by being too cheap to spend another $200 for a decent amount of memory.

 

[unixfool]

OS X Intel, especially Rosetta, seems to be very memory hungry. Try the iMac with 2GB of RAM and reconsider your impression. I consider 512MB on a PowerMac G5 to be painful. 512MB on an Intel Mac is just plain unuseable.

He sold his iMac already.

 

[iSee]

G4 < G5 < Core Duo < Merom

In went from G4 to Core Duo, so I'm pretty happy. I wouldn't be able to afford a new PowerMac anyways.

No, a dual G5 is faster than a Core Duo at similar clock speeds (and G5's are currently available at higher clock speeds) running universal binaries. The intel iMac is faster than the G5 one (at running univeral apps) because of the extra core... G5 PowerMacs are still king... at least until Merom comes out...

 

[dwd3885]

It's really not fair to spend almost $2000 for a brand new Intel Mac, then totally destroy its performance by being too cheap to spend another $200 for a decent amount of memory.

Hey, I just bought a BRAND NEW COMPUTER!!!

What are you going to do? Play with it?!? Mess around with some iApps?!?

WHY NO! I HAVE to BUY some MORE RAM before I can use it!!