[MAC-ALEX]

I've seen tests from folks who already use new Intel Macs and basicly there is no boost in performance on the Dual core intel based iMacs, basicly they are equal on the performance, but Intel have got 2 cores and G5 just one. Funny Steve lie again about how wonderful Intel chips. Forgot to say that it boots faster because of EFI, such a nice future! You should really get it! LOL

[mduell]

Are those benchmarks using single-threaded code running in Rosetta?
If the program isn't written to use two cores, the second core doesn't do you any good. If the program has to run through emulation it's taking a big performance hit.

[MAC-ALEX]

Originally Posted by mduell

Are those benchmarks using single-threaded code running in Rosetta?
If the program isn't written to use two cores, the second core doesn't do you any good. If the program has to run through emulation it's taking a big performance hit.

The folks tested only native software like iTunes 6.0.2 (encoding mp3, aac and etc) and QuicktTime 7.0.4 (encoding h.264, h.263. and etc). I'm not talking about emulation, emulation code runs 2-3 times slower.
What I'm trying to say is that there was no reason for switch Apple to Intel if Apple was not making portable notebooks. This Intel Duo Core is great boost for notebooks, but not for desktops, that's for sure.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by MAC-ALEX

The folks tested only native software like iTunes 6.0.2 (encoding mp3, aac and etc) and QuicktTime 7.0.4 (encoding h.264, h.263. and etc).

Links?

Originally Posted by MAC-ALEX

What I'm trying to say is that there was no reason for switch Apple to Intel if Apple was not making portable notebooks. This Intel Duo Core is great boost for notebooks, but not for desktops, that's for sure.

Do realize that laptops make up the bulk of computer sales these days? They've been larger in revenue sales for a couple years, and as of late last year they're also the majority of unit sales.

[MAC-ALEX]

Originally Posted by mduell

Links?



Do realize that laptops make up the bulk of computer sales these days? They've been larger in revenue sales for a couple years, and as of late last year they're also the majority of unit sales.

No Problem with growing sales of notebooks. What I was saying that probably it was not good idea to put Dual Core Intel in iMac G5, the better CPU for desktop is G5 Dual core.
Take a look at this tests http://www.craigtheguru.com/reports/...e_Analysis.php

Couldn't find iMac tests the bookmark on the my work computer, I'll post later. I saw link on the Powerpage.org or maccentral.com

[hmurchison2001]

Originally Posted by MAC-ALEX

The folks tested only native software like iTunes 6.0.2 (encoding mp3, aac and etc) and QuicktTime 7.0.4 (encoding h.264, h.263. and etc). I'm not talking about emulation, emulation code runs 2-3 times slower.
What I'm trying to say is that there was no reason for switch Apple to Intel if Apple was not making portable notebooks. This Intel Duo Core is great boost for notebooks, but not for desktops, that's for sure.

http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/feat...est1/index.php

The iMac G5 won 2 out of 13 tests. How do you arrive at your conclusion? Because to me....13-2 in favor of the iMac Duo Core is kind of a resounding win. Expecially in light that performance should improve as Apple hones its Universal Binary coding skills.

Thes tests didn't take into account heavily threaded applications as Mduell said and they certainly didn't stress test the computers by multitasking which would have shown a larger delta between the two because of the second core.

[hmurchison2001]

Originally Posted by MAC-ALEX

No Problem with growing sales of notebooks. What I was saying that probably it was not good idea to put Dual Core Intel in iMac G5, the better CPU for desktop is G5 Dual core.
Take a look at this tests http://www.craigtheguru.com/reports/...e_Analysis.php

Hmmmmmmmmm

30 watt TDP, Dual Cores with 2MB cache. Excellent Integer performace adequate FPU performance. What exactly "isn't" there to like about the Intel Duo Core chip? I'm reading hypothesis but not seeing the proof from you.

[MAC-ALEX]

Originally Posted by hmurchison2001

http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/feat...est1/index.php

The iMac G5 won 2 out of 13 tests. How do you arrive at your conclusion? Because to me....13-2 in favor of the iMac Duo Core is kind of a resounding win. Expecially in light that performance should improve as Apple hones its Universal Binary coding skills.

Thes tests didn't take into account heavily threaded applications as Mduell said and they certainly didn't stress test the computers by multitasking which would have shown a larger delta between the two because of the second core.

I didn't see there 2 to 3 times win in performance that Steve told to everyone, maximum in boot 1.84 but it's all because of EFI. If you remember Jobs told to people on the MWSF 2006 that this iMac's 2-3 times faster, maybe they are faster if they use Intel compiles optimized for Duo Core and just gcc 4 for PowerPC not IBM XL C/C++ Advanced Edition V6.0.

[MAC-ALEX]

What kind proof you want? You have seen this tests and there is no 2 to 3 times boost in performance, right? So, Dual Core G5 would beat dual core intel ! That's all!

[laxthxdude]

I'm on my new 20'' 2.0 Duo iMac and I'll review it in one word:
Snappy (TM)

[esXXI]

Originally Posted by MAC-ALEX

I didn't see there 2 to 3 times win in performance that Steve told to everyone, maximum in boot 1.84 but it's all because of EFI. If you remember Jobs told to people on the MWSF 2006 that this iMac's 2-3 times faster, maybe they are faster if they use Intel compiles optimized for Duo Core and just gcc 4 for PowerPC not IBM XL C/C++ Advanced Edition V6.0.

How is EFI boosting heavily CPU-related benchmarks?

And to quote Steve: 'That's 2-3 times faster, using the latest and greatest compilers for both. Intel's for the Core Duo and IBM's for the G5.'

[hmurchison2001]

Originally Posted by MAC-ALEX

I've seen tests from folks who already use new Intel Macs and basicly there is no boost in performance on the Dual core intel based iMacs,!

Is this not your quote? I do believe you said there is "no" boost in performance on a Dual Core Intel based iMac which was immediately debunked by Macworlds first lab test. You mentioned nothing about 2-3x speeds.

Originally Posted by MAC-ALEX

What I was saying that probably it was not good idea to put Dual Core Intel in iMac G5, the better CPU for desktop is G5 Dual core.

Still unproven. Results show that it makes perfect sense why Apple went with Duo Core. The Integer performance of the IDC is superior to that of the G5. The G5's two FPU units would probably exceed the IDC in real world benches IMO but the Dual Core G5 wasn't going to hit the power requirements Apple needed for a tight chassis like the iMac or Powerbook.

The 2-3x speeds come from Spec scores which always generate a bit of controversy but they do show that speeds should improve as deveopers get more familiar with developing for the Duo Core chips. This is probably the worst performance you'll see and that doesn't bode well for the G5.

Remember Yonah is a bridge chip and eventually we'll replace everything with Merom which is going to be up to %30 faster per clock with twice the L2 cache. I'm glad the G5 is gone...I'm tired of PowerPC promises that remain unfulfilled.

[iREZ]

people who think the G5 is just as fast as the new Duo are sorely mistaken. go check out the photoshop benchmark in the powermac forums. 2 min on a 2.0 - 2.1 G5 iMac, less than a minute on an Intel Duo iMac under Rosetta. now imagine photoshop being a universal app....

[MAC-ALEX]

Originally Posted by esXXI

How is EFI boosting heavily CPU-related benchmarks?

And to quote Steve: 'That's 2-3 times faster, using the latest and greatest compilers for both. Intel's for the Core Duo and IBM's for the G5.'

If you didn't understand it's your problem, boot performance on the iMac Intel is better because it use EFI, is it clear to you? Jobs said that they used latest compilers for both CPU's but it's a lie.
As you could see from tests iTunes and QuickTime is native for both platforms now and there is not near 2 to 3 times boost in performance. Right?

[MAC-ALEX]

Originally Posted by iREZ

people who think the G5 is just as fast as the new Duo are sorely mistaken. go check out the photoshop benchmark in the powermac forums. 2 min on a 2.0 - 2.1 G5 iMac, less than a minute on an Intel Duo iMac under Rosetta. now imagine photoshop being a universal app....

iMac intel 2Ghz more than 2 times slower that G5 iMac 2.1Ghz in PhotoShop CS2 test, so on the native code they will be about the same speed.

[hmurchison2001]

Originally Posted by MAC-ALEX

If you didn't understand it's your problem, boot performance on the iMac Intel is better because it use EFI, is it clear to you? Jobs said that they used latest compilers for both CPU's but it's a lie.
As you could see from tests iTunes and QuickTime is native for both platforms now and there is not near 2 to 3 times boost in performance. Right?

There are numerous people who have received the new iMac reporting on their speed. The consensus is that the computer is much faster than the G5 and that makes sense because of the large Integer performance advantage and memory bandwidth. Boot speeds are low on the totem pole for most people. Encoding is inherently CPU bound test and doesn't test threading well. Even then the iMac DC still bests the G5 easily.

[hmurchison2001]

Originally Posted by MAC-ALEX

iMac intel 2Ghz more than 2 times slower that G5 iMac 2.1Ghz in PhotoShop CS2 test, so on the native code they will be about the same speed.

No they won't. CS2 and Photoshop is heavily Integer based until you apply the filters. In either case the Intel Duo Core chip is going to beat out the iMac G5 expecially where heavy threading comes into play.

[MAC-ALEX]

Originally Posted by hmurchison2001

No they won't. CS2 and Photoshop is heavily Integer based until you apply the filters. In either case the Intel Duo Core chip is going to beat out the iMac G5 expecially where heavy threading comes into play.

It's alright with me if Intel Duo Core will beat G5 maybe on the 20-30%, maximum 50% on the native code, but imagine Dual Core G5 in iMac and it's will be clear that G5 much better chip!

[hmurchison2001]

The G5 is a good chip indeed. I love the FPU performance. However it's pretty much over for PPC. Yonah is simply a stop gap for Intel's Ace and that's merom.

You gotta wonder why the G5's 4+1 issue core struggles to keep up with Inte's 3 issue parts. Now with Intel's Merom going to 4 issue cores and 4MB L2 things only get worse for PPC from here on.

I predict that by the end of this year the fastest Mac laptop will be beating a Powermac DC 2.5Ghz easily.

[michaelb]

This issue is a complicated one. Some points worth mentioning:

1. An extra core/processor alone is enough to make any computer feel very snappy, especially in an OS which has good SMP (symmetric multiprocessing). The reason is that the computer is not waiting for a single processor to finish a chunk before letting the UI respond.

Point: There is every reason for the new iMac Cord Duo to feel like a snappy machine, even if a benchmark like "ripping in iTunes" shows just a 12% speedup.

2. The G4/G5 architecture had great vector operations, known collectively as Altivec/Velocity Engine, which were very suitable to a wide range of media rich operations and could speed certain chunks of code by 2-30x. Apple's software engineers have spent years using and optimizing the OS and the apps for these vector instructions. Intel vector operations aren't as numerous, possibly less suited to the same applications, and Apple's software people have had much less time to optimize the apps for them in the hasty ports they've had to do to meet the deadline. It's possible many apps don't even use SSE3 operations yet.

Point: The G5 often performed extremely well at certain tasks optimized for it in software, and it's a tough ask for the Intel chip to match it without similar optimization.

3. "Steve lied...?" Not really. During the keynote he quite specifically said that the new iMac Core Duo benchmarked at 2-3x faster using SPECint and SPECfp. I'm quite sure it does (especially if the benchmark uses both cores).

Point: It's those who heard it is as "EVERYTHING WILL RUN 2-3X FASTER, WOW!" who are lying to themselves.

4. Steve / Apple are obviously pissed at IBM and the PowerPC AIM alliance. Proof: hyping Intel so much, committing to switching everything so soon (end 2006 is very soon in computer architecture switching terms), dropping "Power" from product names to avoid any association with PowerPC (even though PowerBooks were named PowerBooks in 1991 when they still had 680x0 chips, 3 years before "PowerPC" came along).

Point: Just because Steve has a new darling, doesn't mean the G5 stopped being a powerful chip. It still is.

[eightfive]

At the end of the day, all the benchmarketing in the world won't make any difference - It's how faster it FEELS to the individual that really matters. Theres not much use thinking "Word loads 1.67453x faster, yipee!" when you don't actually notice that fact.

[jamil5454]

I'm sorry MAC-ALEX, but it's sort of apparent you don't know what you're talking about. Might as well give up. Jumping on here and saying "Jobbs says the new imac is 2-3 time faster and its not1!" doesn't prove the G5 to be a faster chip. Even a DC G5. Sure, a DC G5 in an iMac would certainly give the Core Duo a run for its money. But down the road, we'd still be stuck at this wall we're currently at with the G5. Apple wanted to get the Intel machines out as early as possible so developers could transition and tune their code in time for the more powerful Intel machines coming later on. That's when you'll see the huge performace (and power consumption) improvement.

[MAC-ALEX]

Originally Posted by jamil5454

I'm sorry MAC-ALEX, but it's sort of apparent you don't know what you're talking about. Might as well give up. Jumping on here and saying "Jobbs says the new imac is 2-3 time faster and its not1!" doesn't prove the G5 to be a faster chip. Even a DC G5. Sure, a DC G5 in an iMac would certainly give the Core Duo a run for its money. But down the road, we'd still be stuck at this wall we're currently at with the G5. Apple wanted to get the Intel machines out as early as possible so developers could transition and tune their code in time for the more powerful Intel machines coming later on. That's when you'll see the huge performace (and power consumption) improvement.

I'm not going to switch to Intel based Macs, I'll get quad G5 and will stick on this machine for 2-3 years. I'm not able to spend tons of money again to buy new native intel code software, there is a lot of applications still that don't use native code on G5. All this transitions it is just another trick to make more money for software companies. There is not a real performance boost that is for sure and maybe after 2-3 years something will change in the CPU architecture but today multi core CPU's don't make a huge increase in performance.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by hmurchison2001

http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/feat...est1/index.php

The iMac G5 won 2 out of 13 tests. How do you arrive at your conclusion? Because to me....13-2 in favor of the iMac Duo Core is kind of a resounding win. Expecially in light that performance should improve as Apple hones its Universal Binary coding skills.

Thes tests didn't take into account heavily threaded applications as Mduell said and they certainly didn't stress test the computers by multitasking which would have shown a larger delta between the two because of the second core.

The only benchmark the iMac Core Duo lost on was iPhoto (export to files)... which sounds like it may be disk bound instead of CPU bound.

[MAC-ALEX]

Originally Posted by mduell

The only benchmark the iMac Core Duo lost on was iPhoto (export to files)... which sounds like it may be disk bound instead of CPU bound.

Whatever...

[eddiecatflap]

512 ?

that's dumb

they should test with min 1 gig in each system

the dual core runs at a disadvantage otherwise ( sharing the ram over two cpus )

[icruise]

Originally Posted by MAC-ALEX

Whatever...

That's your response? How do you explain the Intel iMacs beating out the G5 in essentially every test? I agree that saying that the new ones are 2x faster may not be entirely realistic (but then again, this is marketing-speak we are talking about). You're coming off as either a zealot or a troll.

[Targon]

Originally Posted by Icruise

That's your response? How do you explain the Intel iMacs beating out the G5 in essentially every test? I agree that saying that the new ones are 2x faster may not be entirely realistic (but then again, this is marketing-speak we are talking about). You're coming off as either a zealot or a troll.

Maybe he just can't be bothered explaining something u simply cant work out yourself.

I agree with most of what Mac-Alex says. Drop another core on the G5 and that thing will smoke that intel core duo in practically every test!! Lets test a 2ghz dual processor G5 against the core duo iMac 2ghz an see how the results look....this would be a fairer comparison. The way i see it the core duo is a G4 replacement, and even with a second core on the G4 and higher clock the core duo would still make the G4 look stupid slow. But against a G5, i very much doubt Intel has anything that will blow a dual core G5 away at all , but by 2-3 time would be some wild fantasy. I dare say there will be many mixed feelings about an Intel desktop Mac's performance compared to the current PowerMac's especially in Pro Apps. personally Im prepared for a huge disappointment.

[Targon]

And while Apple is wasting everyones time with all these transitions, many of us are getting very annoyed at how these transitions slow down software development. Instead of our softwares getting our feature lists in order we so badly need our developers are wasting valuable time recoding and transitioning. For some of us in Audio we still have not reached a comfortable maturity level in our wares after the 9x-X transition. So now we get messed about again for what, another 2-5 years?

[Spliffdaddy]

yeah. just drop another core on the ol' G5.

lol.

keep the faith.

[dwd3885]

apparently some people don't understand that the G5 not going to get any better and it was all at the end of the road for the PowerPC.

Intel has a great line of chips coming. Chance was inevitable and good for the company. You can't switch just the laptops to Intel and keep your desktops with a G5.

And good luck sticking a dual core G5 in the iMac. Even if you could, I doubt it would demolish the Core Duo. It would be about 50:50

[mrplow]

Originally Posted by MAC-ALEX

I've seen tests from folks who already use new Intel Macs and basicly there is no boost in performance on the Dual core intel based iMacs, basicly they are equal on the performance, but Intel have got 2 cores and G5 just one. Funny Steve lie again about how wonderful Intel chips. Forgot to say that it boots faster because of EFI, such a nice future! You should really get it! LOL

Before I even read the rest of this forum, you're nuts. I've used one- and it's a dramatic jump in speed.


...additionally, a dual-g5 imac? I believe the dual yonah uses a significantly less amt of electricity than a SINGLE g5... environmentally speaking, that's a horrible plan-- and if anyone is concerned about heat/fan noise.. that's simply the dumbest idea imaginable.

and mac-alex......... how old are you?

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Targon

I agree with most of what Mac-Alex says. Drop another core on the G5 and that thing will smoke that intel core duo in practically every test!!

While this may or may not be true, I know for a fact that if you drop another core on the G5 inside the iMac it will smoke up the iMac G5 and leave a pile of molten white plastic on your desk. (ok...I don't know it for a fact but I'm pretty sure there would be some major heat problems.)

The Core Duo and the dual-core G5 may be equal in speed...but there's no way Apple could have put a dual-core G5 inside the iMac.

It was Steve's numero uno reason to go with Intel...performance per watt.

So what do you and ALEX want? A single-core G5 or a dual-core Yonah inside your iMac? It's either one or the other.

btw, dual-core G5s would run into the same problem as the Core Duo in terms of benchmarks...single-threaded apps won't make use of the second core.

If an app is single threaded and runs 30% faster on the Core Duo compared to the single-core G5...it's an indication that even a single-core Yonah would beat a single-core G5. On single-threaded apps, a 30% performance increase doesn't reflect 2-core performance...it represents 1-core performance.

[hmurchison2001]

I think the iMac Duo Core show that the G5 was a capable performer in some areas (FPU) but really lagged behind Intel's offerings in Integer and that affects the perception of speed. The SPEC scores don't always tell the whole story but large differences in SPEC cannot be ignored.

The G5 was simply not going to keep up. I hear that Intel is still working on improving their Compilers for Xcode...I imagine that todays UB apps aren't taking as much advantage of SSE3 as possible. I can only imagine how much better our UB apps will perform in a couple of years because of coding efficiency improvements. By then we'll be using up to 4 core CPU with huge L2 cache.

Thank you G5...you helped us greatly and I'll hold you up high in my heart but Intel's new stuff is the truth.

[Horsepoo!!!]

If someone runs a multi-threaded app such as Handbrake on a Core Duo...they'll definitely see 2x gains.

http://download.m0k.org/handbrake/im...2006011800.jpg

The Core Duo apparently encodes H.264 in realtime...try that on the iMac G5.

Anyone got benchmarks for the 2x2GHz G5s? Can they encore H.264 in realtime?

[badnewsblair]

Geez.

I suppose I will jump in with what I know and my opinions.

First, don't waste people's time by responding in a discussion with "Whatever". Save the fraction of bandwidth for AIM.

As for the switch, there is enough criticism of Apple and Mac OS X coming from "the other 95%" of the computer world. We don't need to be picking each other apart with this discussion. That whole "Why can't we all just get along?" thing.

Yeah, software developers must be somewhat pissed. I certainly understand that. It's hard to move forward when your platform keeps changing and you have to keep up. I am certainly sympathetic. Now, I wasn't an Apple user back in 1994 (?) when they went from Motorola to PowerPC architecture, but from what I hear it was the same debate and same feeling of abandonment.

Apple went with the Intel transition for a reason and it wasn't marketing hype. First the reason they are using the Yonah portable chip set in the iMac was because the iMac is basically a laptop on a stick (trademark pending on that term). There isn't much space for the cooling units for a dual core G5 processor. People want more performance with less and less noise and energy consumption, and that is what the Yonah is best known for.

Everyone picking apart the benchmarks are speaking a little too early and I think this was hit on earlier. Apple had how many years to optimize OS X to work with the PowerPC? What percentage of the current software is available in Universal Binary? These are the first Intel Macs that are released. The optimization isn't there. The software isn't there. Give it some time to make an informed judgement.

Apple is going Intel. That is done. Its time to move forward and stop griping about the poor PowerPC. It had its time. It did great, but there's no use crying over spilled milk.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Targon

I agree with most of what Mac-Alex says. Drop another core on the G5 and that thing will smoke that intel core duo in practically every test!!

The problem is that it will activate your... smoke alarm too. This is not a Power Mac.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Targon

Maybe he just can't be bothered explaining something u simply cant work out yourself.

Ah, of course. I'm too dumb to figure out why he makes patently false statements and defends them with "whatever." Thanks for the help!

Oh, and I always thought "u" was spelled "y-o-u" and "cant" had an apostrophe, but I guess that's just another thing that I can't work out for myself.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by MAC-ALEX

As you could see from tests iTunes and QuickTime is native for both platforms now and there is not near 2 to 3 times boost in performance. Right?

Wrong. Or at least, this is what Ars Technica says. In their CD ripping test, the new iMac at 1.83 GHz is roughly the equivalent of the dual G5 Power Mac at 2.5 GHz. There are people saying that there is still room for improvements from optimisations for the new platform. I find personally quite impressive that a laptop chip, literally, can match the performance of the higher clocked desktop and server G5 chip.

[MAC-ALEX]

I don't know what elase to explain, I think everything is clear at the moment. S. Jobs went nuts because MS made a deal with IBM and use now their G5 3.2Ghz in their Xbox. Apple never had in their history a normal partnership with CPU vendor EVER, and everyone want a normal relationship, but looks like it's not about IBM, it's about Steve ambitions. As you all heard Apple made this Intel ad already without permissions from Intel, just to make you feel folks better about this transition. Noone really saw desktop chip from Intel that could perform faster that Dual Core G5, so you can't tell what's will be in the future, you can only guess. I don't know maybe it was smart to decide to switch to Intel, but anyway it's a win-win situation for Apple, but not for their customers.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by MAC-ALEX

I don't know what elase to explain, I think everything is clear at the moment. S. Jobs went nuts because MS made a deal with IBM and use now their G5 3.2Ghz in their Xbox. Apple never had in their history a normal partnership with CPU vendor EVER, and everyone want a normal relationship, but looks like it's not about IBM, it's about Steve ambitions. As you all heard Apple made this Intel ad already without permissions from Intel, just to make you feel folks better about this transition. Noone really saw desktop chip from Intel that could perform faster that Dual Core G5, so you can't tell what's will be in the future, you can only guess. I don't know maybe it was smart to decide to switch to Intel, but anyway it's a win-win situation for Apple, but not for their customers.

MS isn't using a 3.2 GHz G5 in their Xbox. They're using a Xenon processor.

The current Core Duo runs faster that a dual-core G5 at equal speed. How else do you explain the 30% performance increase for single-threaded apps when compared to the iMac G5 2GHz?

Dual-core G5s, Xenon and Cell processors won't fit in laptops and iMacs...they produce too much heat....end of story.

[MAC-ALEX]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

MS isn't using a 3.2 GHz G5 in their Xbox. They're using a Xenon processor.

The current Core Duo runs faster that a dual-core G5 at equal speed. How else do you explain the 30% performance increase for single-threaded apps when compared to the iMac G5 2GHz?

Dual-core G5s, Xenon and Cell processors won't fit in laptops and iMacs...they produce too much heat....end of story.

Who said that this chip should be in Apple notebook? Motorola released a dual core CPU for notebook a year ago. What ever IBM is calling Xenon, we all know that it is based on the PowerPC architecture.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by MAC-ALEX

Motorola released a dual core CPU for notebook a year ago.

Yes, in paper. There is not shipping product yet.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by MAC-ALEX

Who said that this chip should be in Apple notebook?

You are. If you hate your iMac Core Duo so much...I'll take it off your hands for $1000.

Now excuse me while I report you for incessant trolling and misinformation spewing.

[Lateralus]

There's nothing here worth reporting. If you no longer wish to be a part of the discussion, then feel free to step out of it.

[hmurchison2001]

I think he said that in jest

[Lateralus]

No, he actually reported him.

[hmurchison2001]

Oh

[Todd Madson]

The new Xbox uses a three core 3.2 ghz PowerPC chip, not a Xeon.
And not a G5, but a PowerPC chip nonetheless.

As far as the Ars Technica test, there was some spots where the
dual G5 2.5 handed the CoreDuo its butt on a plate, I'm thinking
specifically a video encoding chore that it could have done twice
in the space where the core duo only did it once.

Nevertheless, try one of the coreduo machines out to see how it
works for you. They're not bad - but they're also not meant to
replace the pro machines which have higher speed buses, better
storage and ram capacity and such.

The iMac is a machine for consumers although the form factor is
undeniably attractive to some pros.

[dwd3885]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

If someone runs a multi-threaded app such as Handbrake on a Core Duo...they'll definitely see 2x gains.

http://download.m0k.org/handbrake/im...2006011800.jpg

The Core Duo apparently encodes H.264 in realtime...try that on the iMac G5.

Anyone got benchmarks for the 2x2GHz G5s? Can they encore H.264 in realtime?

I have a Dual Core 2ghz G5 PowerMac and I actually have only encoded one thing in H.264, it was an episode of "The Office", which was approx 30 minutes. I did not use Handbrake but I did use Podner and it took a little over 45 minutes to encode H.264 for the iPod format.

Take that for what it's worth. I'm going to have my intel iMac tomorrow and can test out things you might want to have worthwhile