 |
 |
Review of the Core Duo iMac
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
I saw that Ars Technica reviewed the new iMac. I was surprised at the score given how they hated on Aperture.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
They don't always have the same reviewer; different reviewers have different expectations. The Aperture reviewer, for example, is a photographer and graphic designer who's very representative of what a lot of pros would expect from Aperture. Bangeman is not only looking at hardware instead of software, but he's also looking at something which is more general-use.
I'd also suggest that he knows where the future of the iMac Core Duo will be. It may not run PPC apps as well as native chips, but it'll ultimately be much faster overall. Look at Jade's write-up on World of Warcraft for Intel Macs, based on what he saw at Blizzard's booth at MacWorld: the game runs much faster than the PPC version. Apple's preliminary benchmarks for the Intel-based Doom 3 port show a similar gain as well (2.3X!). While I wouldn't get an Intel-based Mac for serious work until the needed apps are native, for a home user this system looks to be stellar.
|
|
24-inch iMac Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
Personally . . . . i'm waiting on the intel G5 a bit so they can work out all the kinks
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
It was an interesting choice to make a comparison benchmark across systems where one had 9 times as much RAM as another.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah, that's not really fair to leave the Intel iMac with only 512MB of ram when the others computers had 1GB and 4.5GB. That's kinda ridiculous.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
and the fact that the comparision was the 1.83 intel to the 2.5 dual. what about the 2ghz intel and 2ghz dual g5? Seems obviously better comparision
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York
Status:
Offline
|
|
I was very surprised this supposedly so technical online publication overlooked the RAM issue. Other than that I thought it was a good review though. However I disagree with him on the remote control, I think it IS right for the iMac.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: http://www.rotharmy.com
Status:
Offline
|
|
256 per core ?
it could barely run the os on that..
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by JustinHoMi
Yeah, that's not really fair to leave the Intel iMac with only 512MB of ram when the others computers had 1GB and 4.5GB. That's kinda ridiculous.
I don't know if it's been changed, but it looks like the two iMacs both had 512Mb RAM based on their "5 - Benchmarking" page.
WD
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I emailed him about the RAM a few days ago. He said quite a few people had asked him about that... so I guess he redid some of the benchmarks.
From his article: "Note: the iTunes, Xbench, and QuickTime benchmarks have been rerun since the original review with both iMacs having 512MB of RAM installed."
I guess he didn't rerun the other benchmarks, but maybe he figures they aren't as ram intensive.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
