[flabasha]

http://www.creativemac.com/articles/...e.jsp?id=38816

My jaw dropped when I saw this. I bought a dual 2.0 G5 less than a year ago, largely because the speculation was that the Intel machines wouldn't initially perform as well at Altivec tasks like rendering video. Oops. Now I find that my buddy's new laptop beats my giant metal beast at just the stuff I bought it for.

Guess I better sell my dual G5 before the Intel towers come out, or it'll be worth about one cinder block.

But hey, I'm still faster on Photoshop, right? For now...

[mduell]

Looks like they're even clock-for-clock in FCP, Core Duo pulls ahead in Motion, but falls behind a bit in Compressor (which is probably the one most able to take advantage of Altivec).
I'm surprised the desktop doesn't come out better in FCP with it's faster/larger disk.

[SEkker]

This is exactly the impression I have using my two mactels -- a 2 GHz iMac and MBP. With the exception of HD-intensive processes, the MBP is certainly very close to the iMac in performance. And both seem very similar to my dual G5 desktop at work.

Do keep in mind the enhanced expandability of your dual G5 desktop over either the iMac or MBP.

I think a dual core intel desktop is going to best the quad G5s Apple is selling now. And Intel is showing quad core CPUs. The only commercial OS with the flexibility to take advantage of all that power for Intel is Mac OSX.

I am convinced Intel needed Apple just as much as Apple needed their processors. M$ is simply unable to show off the Intel hardware.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by flabasha

http://www.creativemac.com/articles/...e.jsp?id=38816

My jaw dropped when I saw this. I bought a dual 2.0 G5 less than a year ago, largely because the speculation was that the Intel machines wouldn't initially perform as well at Altivec tasks like rendering video. Oops. Now I find that my buddy's new laptop beats my giant metal beast at just the stuff I bought it for.

Guess I better sell my dual G5 before the Intel towers come out, or it'll be worth about one cinder block.

But hey, I'm still faster on Photoshop, right? For now...

That was basically all because of Motion. Radeon X1600 256 MB >> Radeon 9600. Their statement that "the graphics cards in the MacBook and the G5 used for these tests are virtually identical." is just plain wrong.

IIRC, the Radeon 9600 series of that era had 128 MB too, which means the MacBook Pro had twice the video RAM, which alone would make a humungous difference to Motion performance.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by SEkker

This is exactly the impression I have using my two mactels -- a 2 GHz iMac and MBP. With the exception of HD-intensive processes, the MBP is certainly very close to the iMac in performance. And both seem very similar to my dual G5 desktop at work.

Do keep in mind the enhanced expandability of your dual G5 desktop over either the iMac or MBP.

I think a dual core intel desktop is going to best the quad G5s Apple is selling now. And Intel is showing quad core CPUs. The only commercial OS with the flexibility to take advantage of all that power for Intel is Mac OSX.

I am convinced Intel needed Apple just as much as Apple needed their processors. M$ is simply unable to show off the Intel hardware.

I think it is important to remember that the Core Duo was designed to be a portable CPU.

I can't wait to see what happens when the PowerMac or MacTower Pro comes out. Considering the range of CPUs Intel has... we could see some very interesting things. I would love to see the PowerMac get back to living up to the Power part of the name.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I would love to see the PowerMac get back to living up to the Power part of the name.

Well, now that the portables have power, they took power off the names...

[flabasha]

Good lord! Now this German site shows (on one render test) the MacBook being THREE TIMES FASTER than a dual 2.0 G5!

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...ml%3Fnavid%3D1

Unbelievable. I wonder if this will hold up with other tests...