|
|
Got a new iMac for free ...
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Seriously, a 20-inch model. ... Ok, I have to give it back to Apple on Monday as I'm just using it for review purposes, but still stoked. It came a few minutes before I headed to the office. Just waiting to get home and play with and see how it compares with my PB17.
I figure I'll do the basic comparisons, xBench, burning, downloading, rendering and video game performance. Anyone have any suggestions/tests I should try when comparing the two?
|
This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ok, played around with it a little. It only has 256 of ram, which is limiting.
Still,
First impressions: Impressive screen, puts the PB17 I have to shame. Even when I put the PB in front of the iMac on an iCurve and brightness on full, I could read the iMac screen easier.
It didn't come with bluetooth and I only have an external keyboard, but with the wires, you really need to have it close up to you to work. So, bluetooth and keyboard would be a must. Otherwise, I prefer the PB flexibility still, even with an external keyboard mouse combo.
It played QT movies nicely, even in full-screen. And even with 256, it seems all right. No beach balls with basic playing around.
Sound is good, but a bit echo-y bouncing from the table. Perfect with Soundsticks though.
I ran xbench on both and here were the scores:
My rev c PB17, 1.5Ghz, 1.5GB of ram:
Results: 126.94
CPU test: 175.79
Thread test: 135.29
Memory test: 153.52
Quartz graphic test: 184.15
OpenGL graphics test: 115.32
User interface test: 179.09
Disk test: 63.03
iMac's score was
Results: 114.07
CPU test: 91.41
Thread test: 69.87
Memory test: 145.10
Quartz graphic test: 167.91
OpenGL graphics test: 169.19
User interface test: 202.40
Disk test: 80.33
Tomorrow, I'll compare Office, photoshop, downloading and burning between the two. Oh, and UT 2004 on both as well.
|
This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Richmond,Va
Status:
Offline
|
|
Did you change the processor from automatic to highest under the Energy Saver preference pane? The iMac's score is really low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
I just ran xbench on my iMac G5...I put the processor stetting on highest and i have 768mb or ram. I got a 152.xx thats pretty good compared to what you got.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Richmond,Va
Status:
Offline
|
|
I got a 154.41 with 256MB on my 17" 1.8GHz. Seems to be the average.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ok, I apologize. I re-ran the tests on both @ highest performance.
iMac:
Results: 155.98
CPU test: 169.47
Thread test: 103.86
Memory test: 219.11
Quartz graphic test: 208.08
OpenGL graphics test: 198.88
User interface test: 249.32
Disk test: 91.41
Wow, talk about an improvement.
And on the PB:
Results: 125.11
CPU test: 177.59
Thread test: 133.76
Memory test: 134.42
Quartz graphic test: 192.15
OpenGL graphics test: 115.25
User interface test: 173.45
Disk test: 63.47
|
This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edmonds, WA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
If you run more game benchmarks, run them at multiple resolutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
I got the following scores with a 1.8 20" w/ 2gig of ram:
Total: 165.09
CPU: 170.32
Thread: 102.21
Memory :260.38
Quartz: 203.98
OpenGL: 200.33
UI: 252.25
Disk: 110.53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm pretty impressed with it. I didn't mess around with various resolutions, but it played video and games quite well.
Well sort of. It handled Unreal Tournament 2004 (actual game not demo) quite well, even with the 256 of ram.
For all of the talk on video cards, it handles everything I threw at it (it also went smooth with no dropped frames with Safari, Office 2004, Photoshop, iPhoto and GarageBand on at the same time.
It did have one dead pixel, which is the first time I've ever had one in any Mac in my home (knock on wood).
Its built-in burner burnt a dvd in less than 30 minutes. And once you get to working, you almost don't notice the Jay Leno chin because of the screen brightness.
Final impressions? I'd love to see one with some serious ram added to it. Bluetooth is a must have, The sound was good but I didn't care for the echo-like sound when watching videos.
All in all, quite impressed. While I love my PB17, if I had to do it again, I'd seriously consider an iMac and a G4 12 iBook or PB.
Come the next revision or two, I'll likely get one (especially with slightly better video card for Tiger, bluetooth as a standard and 2.0Ghz).
|
This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by poochg3:
I got the following scores with a 1.8 20" w/ 2gig of ram:
Total: 165.09
CPU: 170.32
Thread: 102.21
Memory :260.38
Quartz: 203.98
OpenGL: 200.33
UI: 252.25
Disk: 110.53
Dual-channel DDR seems to help the memory score a fair bit as expected. (I don't think the amount of RAM per se makes much difference in Xbench.)
(
Last edited by Eug Wanker; Oct 22, 2004 at 02:08 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Why is the 1.5 GHz G4 beating the 1.8 GHz G5 in the iMac on the CPU test?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by CharlesS:
Why is the 1.5 GHz G4 beating the 1.8 GHz G5 in the iMac on the CPU test?
Good question indeed.
I really get a good chuckle from these threads. In the days of the G4 everybody was talking about how Apple was losing the performance battle against x86 and how badly the G4 was performing. Saying that it wasn't a bad CPU automatically put you into the 'stupid-Apple-appologist' box. You got the impression that we were doomed w/o the G5 or the switch to x86.
Now the G5 is here and people are stunned that it doesn't make everything at least twice as fast as the G4 counterpart and that not all its benchmark numbers are at least half an order of magnitude better than the G4's. And then the Centrinos. And we are shocked again. And Apple is dying again. And we worry again...
It's ridiculous. Most of the 'technical' discussions here are influenced more by (Intel's) marketing than by electrical engineering. Sad enough. But funny.
The G5 is a great chip, but it is no revolution. It will not always knock your socks off.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Riverside, CA metro area.
Status:
Offline
|
|
I can't help but wonder if XBench itself is the culprit? Memory scores should be MUCH higher on the G5. Perhaps it's because XBench is not 64-bit optimised to test the G5's memory in 64 bit chunks?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Xapplimatic@Ade:
I can't help but wonder if XBench itself is the culprit? Memory scores should be MUCH higher on the G5. Perhaps it's because XBench is not 64-bit optimised to test the G5's memory in 64 bit chunks?
Xbench is pretty useless, especially for measuring G5 performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Busemann:
Xbench is pretty useless, especially for measuring G5 performance.
Since it hasn't been updated for a year now, yes it's pretty useless.
Maybe he should drop the "out" from his slogan "Software without the bitter aftertaste"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
I am thinking about getting a 20" iMac G5 and I play a lot of UT 2004 and would love to see some SantaDuck benchmarks (or you can push ~ in UT and then type "stat fps" to see avg. and running fps scores).
I'm wondering how well the GeForce 5200 can handle the game at native resolution (1680x1050). You will probably need to edit your ut2004.ini file (this config file is located in your ~/Library/Application Support/ directory) to get UT2004 to handle that resolution, as the game ships recogonizing only a few resolutions. You have to change the two lines too:
FullscreenViewportX=1680
FullscreenViewportY=1050
I'm also curious to see what kind of fps scores it gets on more expansive levels, such as at the start of AS-Glacier, ONS-RedPlanet, ONS-Tricky from the ECE bonus pack, or CTF-Citadel in the SantaDuck benchmark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
The most disappointing part of the imac is the graphics card. The cost of The Nvidia 5200 at the market is 20-30 dollars, how much does it cost to Apple? They used Nvidia because its the only low or mid range graphics card that nvidia makes for the mac.
Are (Jobs) they trying to keep (Gates) Microsoft happy? And make a worse computer?
If that machine had a better graphics card. I would definitely go for the 20" but paying so much money to get that , i prefer to go for the G5 single processor with a better card and a 19" screen from another company .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Good for you then ::insert random smiley here::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
I have had two reports of PC gamers walking out af an Apple store with an iMac because it was the joint. I too was dismayed at Apple's video card choice but after 20 years of putting Macs in graphics and video production environments I have found that video cards are not the performance panacea people think. Apparently this box with "adequate" RAM, (c'mon Apple you need a beating on that stupid choice, 256?) performs video functions quite nicely. Try it before you bash it! Maybe the channel will bundle RAM and Bluetooth and eat some of the Apple Store's lunch and they will smell the coffee, although not much chance, Jobs probably drinks Chickory tea. Did I see someone who is using a Powerbook 17" with 256 Megs of RAM? Dude, get a chip, OS X lives in a sleep state with less than 512. God why does Apple let people do this to themselves?!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Michigan
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by alextr:
The most disappointing part of the imac is the graphics card. The cost of The Nvidia 5200 at the market is 20-30 dollars, how much does it cost to Apple?
By "at the market" I assume that you mean "street price" and if so 20-30 isn't quite right, newegg.com (which usually has pretty good prices) has their cheapest at $51.00. Second, there are 2 different versions of the 5200 in the PC Market. The one I mentioned is the 64-bit version, the cheapest 128-bit card is $69.00. Thats about $20 more. Both of those cards do have 128MB on them but newegg didn't actually have any 64MB cards and the 64MB cards on pricewatch are MORE than the 128MB cards. Also those cards aren't listed as Ultra's so I'm not sure if they are clocked slower than the one in the new iMac.
I'm not certain, but I would guess that Apple is using the faster 128-bit version of the card. Yeah, they are cutting corners on the ram and it sucks but it could be worse, they could pull a Dell and just share the system ram with the onboard graphics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bondi Beach
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't know anything about these tests so excuse me if this sounds dumb.
Disk Test - I've assumed the higher the score means poorer performance
Is this correct?
|
this sig intentionally left blank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Richmond,Va
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by simonjames:
I don't know anything about these tests so excuse me if this sounds dumb.
Disk Test - I've assumed the higher the score means poorer performance
Is this correct?
In this case higher is better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|