PDA

View Full Version : No Surprise: Mactel only 20% faster than g5


opus13
01-21-2006, 09:58 PM
http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/features/imaclabtest1/index.php

Definately part of the 'No Surprise' category: Apples claims of performance increases are far from realistic, and non native applications only run half as fast.

JDex
01-21-2006, 10:18 PM
This is basically what I expected as well... but I must admit, I am looking forward to see what a dual-core, quad mac desktop will do (especially if dual-boot becomes feasible).

kraal
01-21-2006, 10:24 PM
recheck your info before posting.... thats all i will say software like logic and graphic programs are where the difference is ( i mentioned logic cause i know first hand it can handle stuff that it never could before )native task for the most part have already be optimized for speed

Lone Deranger
01-21-2006, 10:31 PM
Queue Beamtracer...

Nichod
01-21-2006, 10:32 PM
Um. Keypoint.



"And we also found that applications that aren’t yet Intel-native—which must run using Apple’s Rosetta code-translation technology (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary_exec_a/chapter_7_section_1.html)—tend to run half as fast (http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/features/imaclabtest1/index1.php) as the same applications running natively on the iMac G5"



They are running essentially through an emulator. The fact that they are faster at ALL is great.


Instead, our tests found the new 2.0GHz Core Duo iMac takes roughly 10 to 25 percent less time than the G5 iMac to perform the same native application tasks, albeit with some noteable exceptions. (If you'd prefer, that makes the Core Duo iMac 1.1 to 1.3 times as fast.)


1.1-1.3 times faster is still a nice speed boost. And I'm sure the 2nd generation models will be even faster. Apple stated that it is 2x faster than the G5. Did they say everything would be 2x as fast? No. I'm not a big apple fan, but I will likely be switching to a Apple when the 2nd gens come out. I'm sure that there will be speed improvements as the software is better configured to take full advantage of the intel chipset.

Beamtracer
01-21-2006, 10:32 PM
It's a bit disappointing.

I really believe that the G5 processors that they're phasing out are the fastest desktop processors out there.

Look at these test results. They put last year's iMac (single G5 processor) against the new iMac (dual Intel "Yonah" cores) and they only get a 20% speed increase.

opus13
01-21-2006, 10:41 PM
They are running essentially through an emulator. The fact that they are faster at ALL is great.

but... they arent running faster. they are running 50% slower.

tuna
01-21-2006, 10:42 PM
Would be nice if they mentioned weather the processes took advantage of both cores or not. I guess that'd be asking too much right :thumbsup:

JDex
01-21-2006, 10:44 PM
Folks... the universal binary versions are the ones you should be focussing on... they are not being emulated. I think it will be more valid when the comparisons are done on non-Apple products though.

Roger Eberhart
01-21-2006, 10:45 PM
From Brad Peebler at Luxology's forum:

"Apple's numbers on modo were right and wrong. WIth the test data we sent their numbers were SPOT ON. I can confirm a 2.6x speed improvement with the intel iMac over the G5 iMac. Here's where it gets interesting. When I increased the number of antialiasing samples to get a longer render the delta got even larger! My final test showed the intel mac besting the G5 iMac by over 3.2x."

Here is the link: http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=4782

tuna
01-21-2006, 10:46 PM
but... they arent running faster. they are running 50% slower.

Isn't Rosetta meant to be used for the transitional phase while they spend a huge ammount of time porting a lot of stuff, and waiting for new hardware to be rolled out in all areas? It's not like this is indicative of the future of the new platform. This isnt news, this is just picking up on really obvious things and saying "its not worth it yet" when everyone knows it isnt, since it's only been out for a few weeks.

[edit] I understand you're commenting on his faster comment, I think it was just badly worded. I'm bitching about the article mostly.

greyface
01-22-2006, 01:04 AM
woohoo, great! Let's base our speed comparisons on word processing benchmarks!

knellotron
01-22-2006, 02:03 AM
Actually, the way I see it, the Macbook Pro is infinitely faster than the G5 powerbook.

maX_Andrews
01-22-2006, 08:56 AM
Regardless of buggy non-native apps which are a passing affair, I'm ver happy with the speed boost in core image, OSX's hardware-accelerated image processing technology. Why photoshop still doesn't use core image is beyond me, but look at these intel imac tests: http://www.barefeats.com/imcd.html

Twice as fast as the imac G5 in core image, which means with a decent GPU in a powermac with quad xeons or some such nonesense we'll see more headroom for real-time effects in high-def video editing, and if adobe ever actually releases a significant update to photoshop we may see a lot of speedup there.

Also remember that the benefits of dual-coreism extend to intangibles such as multi-tasking, where I don't know if it's possible to measure any sort of speedup but general workflow will be much faster and more stable.

In any case, i too am not surprised about the recent results.

Beamtracer
01-22-2006, 09:26 AM
Actually, the way I see it, the Macbook Pro is infinitely faster than the G5 powerbook.
Ah yes, the G5 Powerbook. They forgot to show that one at MacWorld...
http://www.newestindustry.org/media/g5_powerbook.jpg

Zarf
01-22-2006, 03:49 PM
but... they arent running faster. they are running 50% slower.


Which really isn't suprising one bit since it's emulation.

Native binaries will of course be very very fast and will likley outperform the G5's in many areas.

Cheers
Zarf

toonpang
01-22-2006, 07:09 PM
So Apple did a major architecture change and its faster on rev.1? Sounds to me like a pretty damn good job. Most products that get rushed to market aren't even close to this quality (xbox 360 anyone?).

The emulated apps that were %50 slower, Apple said they were slower at macworld. The said that Photoshop ran fine, but were not fast enough for a pro, thats why the G5 series was still available for purchasing and will be for a while to come.

-Kevin

beaker
01-22-2006, 07:27 PM
Instead, our tests found the new 2.0GHz Core Duo iMac takes rougly 10 to 25 percent less time than the G5 iMac to perform the same native application tasks, albeit with some notable exceptions. (If you'd prefer, that makes the Core Duo iMac 1.1 to 1.3 times as fast.) And we also found that applications that aren’t yet Intel-native—which must run using Apple’s Rosetta code-translation technology (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary_exec_a/chapter_7_section_1.html)—tend to run half as fast (http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/features/imaclabtest1/index1.php) as the same applications running natively on the iMac G5.1.1-1.3x as fast just doesn't sounds as cool as 2x when it comes to marketing. :)

Beamtracer
01-23-2006, 12:54 AM
1.1-1.3x as fast just doesn't sounds as cool as 2x when it comes to marketing. :)
I think the "2x" speed claim was specifically referring to Luxology rendering software, which is a modern code base and really did achieve that figure. Some of Lux's benchmarks went beyond that (to almost 3x).

That being said, the Quad G5 PowerMacs are still faster than the newer Intel iMacs.

CGTalk Moderation
01-23-2006, 12:54 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.