Intel Mac comes very poor second to PPC

[Lando]

I noticed a very interesting article on SpyMac regarding the new Intel iMac versus the G4 and G5 Macs.  Seems the Intel Core Duo isn't all it's cracked up to be.  The thread can be found here.

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.

[Lemmink]

The question ist was the renderer on the intelmac x86 native, or was it the PPC-version running in emulation. If it was the later it is quite impressive that the machine came up with that good result

I guess we are facing the same problems like back in the old 68k/PPC switch days, when an 040 quadra was actually faster then the brand new PowerMac when running old software (emulation on the first 601 machines generated about 030@25MHz Power)

[maffoo]

Lemmink wrote:
The question ist was the renderer on the intelmac x86 native, or was it the PPC-version running in emulation. If it was the later it is quite impressive that the machine came up with that good result

The benxhmarks used iLife 06, which I believe uses Universal Binaries, so they should have been running natively.

[bloodline]

Lando wrote:
I noticed a very interesting article on SpyMac regarding the new Intel iMac versus the G4 and G5 Macs.  Seems the Intel Core Duo isn't all it's cracked up to be.  The thread can be found here.

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 personal Reviews on ars technica and macnn.com have actually been rather favourable... the system feels faster, the native apps (iLife) are much faster, and the Rosetta seems to give 1Ghz G4 speeds... not bad all in all.

I'll give my own feelings when I get my hands on one.

-Edit- New builds of Handbreak H.264 encoder appeared last night, which were getting 30fps on the new intel iMac, where it only gets 10fps for the G5.

Also note that the new iMacs are being reported as much quieter and a bit cooler than the G5.

[bloodline]

More and more reviews are poping up now... looks like the new macs are delivering as promised... same price, less heat, less power used, better performance than the G5... The new MacBook is getting very exciting for those who are going from G4!

http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/features/imaclabtest1/index.php etc...

[bloodline]

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=282752

Some Photoshop tests showing that the new Core Duo is able to out perform a 1.6Ghz G4, when running Photoshop in rosetta PPC emulation.

[coldfish]

Old PPC vs x86 arguement...

...nail in coffin?

[koaftder]

I could care less what chip is in the machine, as long as the performance is good. The intel deal basically saved their portable line of products. I'd like to see a new 12" notebook with the intel stuff in it. This 12" pb 867MHz system i got is the perfect size and weight for me, but i havnt bought the new 1.4Ghz or what ever g4 12" because it's not worth the money when i compare what ive got to whats new. When they stick a 2.0Ghz p whatever in a 12" mac notebook for 2k i'll write a check.

[Tripitaka]

I don't take a great deal of interest in the Mac most of the time and avoid Intel for AMD if at all pos. However, I would be interested to know if the MacOS ever makes it on an AMD, I might....only maybe ...give it a go. I hated any MacOS prior to OSX but as I have not given the Tiger a walk yet I'd give it a look. On Intel, not a hope! I'm just not going to buy an Intel box for that.

[chiark]

Good grief, that is seriously impressive (photoshop on rosetta benchmarking).  An emulated binary being that much faster than the native?

One word: wow.

[bloodline]

Ok, I've had a play with a 1.8Ghz and 2.0Ghz Core Duo iMac.

(My attention was focused on the 1.8Ghz iMac as I plan to get a MacBook Pro)

First off, the 1.8Ghz generally runs PPC aps about as fast as my 1.5Ghz G4. I tested all the PPC software I regularly use. This was a huge surprise for me, as I had previously tried rosetta (an old developer release of MacOS 10.4.1) on my Athlon64 3200 and found it slow and not compatible with my G4 apps. So that was a big plus.

The native apps on the 1.8Ghz really fly! As a user I could see no difference between this machine an the dual core 2Ghz G5 PowerMac sitting next to it.

The 2Ghz Core Duo was just faster, I didn't really spend much time testing it. But, the CPU usage graphs were smaller under load. I also never once managed to max out the dual cores, usage rarely went above 60% on either machines.

As a user I couldn't tell that the machine didn't have a G5 in it... all apps ran without problems (Though I wasn't able to test VirtualPC :-( ) regardless of what CPU they were compiled for. Frankly, Apple could have released these machines and not told anyone that they had changed the CPU...

The iMac Core Duos are noticably cooler and quieter than their G5 siblings, but the iSight does make me look rather fat :getmad: .

P.S. Darwine works really well, and I was able to run several Windows apps using it :-D

bloodline wrote:
Ok, I've had a play with a 1.8Ghz and 2.0Ghz Core Duo iMac.

(My attention was focused on the 1.8Ghz iMac as I plan to get a MacBook Pro)

First off, the 1.8Ghz generally runs PPC aps about as fast as my 1.5Ghz G4. I tested all the PPC software I regularly use. This was a huge surprise for me, as I had previously tried rosetta (and old developer MacOS 10.4.1) on my Athlon64 3200 and found it slow and not compatible with my G4 apps. So that was a big plus.

The native apps on the 1.8Ghz really fly! As a user I could see no difference between this machine an the dual core 2Ghz G5 PowerMac sitting next to it.

The 2Ghz Core Duo was just faster, I didn't really spend much time testing it. But, the CPU usage graphs were smaller under load. I also never once managed to max out the dual cores, usage rarely went above 60% on either machines.

As a user I couldn't tell that the machine didn't have a G5 in it... all apps ran without problems (Though I wasn't able to test VirtualPC :-( ) regardless of what CPU they were compiled for. Frankly, Apple could have released these machines and not told anyone that they had changed the CPU...

The iMac Core Duos are noticably cooler and quieter than their G5 siblings, but the iSight does make me look rather fat :getmad: .

P.S. Darwine works really well, and I was able to run several Windows apps using it :-D

Excellent news.  My parents wanted a new computer because their PC keeps breaking down.  I'm sick of always having to fix it for them so told them they had to buy a Mac or I wouldn't ever help them out again. :-)

They orded this on saturday from apple.com

IMAC 17/1.83/SD CTO
ATI Radeon X1600-128MB SDRAM
1GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM-1x1GB
250GB Serial ATA drive
SuperDrive 8x
Kybd, Mighty Mse & Mac OS X-B
Country Kit-B

I'm glad to know it's a decent machine.  We had a play with the 20" G5 iMac in pcworld, and it was very responsive.

Can't wait for this to arrive. :-)

Tripitaka wrote:
I don't take a great deal of interest in the Mac most of the time and avoid Intel for AMD if at all pos. However, I would be interested to know if the MacOS ever makes it on an AMD, I might....only maybe ...give it a go. I hated any MacOS prior to OSX but as I have not given the Tiger a walk yet I'd give
it a look. On Intel, not a hope! I'm just not going to buy an Intel box for that.

I've only bought AMD CPU's for years, but would never not buy a product just because it has an Intel CPU inside it.

That's the same mentality that the BAF's have. :-/

[Oliver]

Turns out it is possible to install Tiger on most modern PC's with a little jiggery pokery.  Must have sse2 to run, and sse3 for rosetta.  Not sure of the legality though.  I think it's worth checking out.  I want to try more OS's.

[bloodline]

Oliver wrote:
Turns out it is possible to install Tiger on most modern PC's with a little jiggery pokery.  Must have sse2 to run, and sse3 for rosetta.  Not sure of the legality though.  I think it's worth checking out.  I want to try more OS's.

With the Maxxus patch rosetta works fine on an SSE2 CPU. I have done this myself, but then I own a Mac (PowerBook G4 1.5Ghz) and plan to get MacBook Pro... I was just trying to find out how compatible my software would be with the new Macs... :-D