[Eug Wanker]

I am extremely happy with my new iMac C2D 2.33 with 7600 GT in Aperture. The edits are quite responsive: eg. Near instantaneous edits usually, whereas on my iMac G5 with Radeon 9600 128 MB I'd be waiting many seconds before anything gets done.

I exported a project to JPEG, and it was 2.8X as fast on the iMac C2D as compared to my iMac G5. It was also 1.6X as fast on the iMac C2D as compared to my MacBook.

And of course, the 24" screen is very nice.

For those of you without money to burn on a Mac Pro but want to use Aperture, I'd definitely recommend the 24" iMac with GeForce 7600 GT. Actually, the Mac Pro is within my budget, but I really don't like the form factor, and it just doesn't seem like a good bang for the buck for my needs. YMMV.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I am extremely happy with my new iMac C2D 2.33 with 7600 GT in Aperture. The edits are quite responsive: eg. Near instantaneous edits usually, whereas on my iMac G5 with Radeon 9600 128 MB I'd be waiting many seconds before anything gets done.

I exported a project to JPEG, and it was 2.8X as fast on the iMac C2D as compared to my iMac G5. It was also 1.6X as fast on the iMac C2D as compared to my MacBook.

And of course, the 24" screen is very nice.

For those of you without money to burn on a Mac Pro but want to use Aperture, I'd definitely recommend the 24" iMac with GeForce 7600 GT. Actually, the Mac Pro is within my budget, but I really don't like the form factor, and it just doesn't seem like a good bang for the buck for my needs. YMMV.

Thanks for the report Eug. Could you try some older games under Rosetta in your iMac and report back the details (resolution, fps, etc.). For example RtCW.

[Eug Wanker]

I don't have any Mac games unfortunately. The few games I have are all PC or Xbox 360.

Hmmm... I might Unreal Tournament and Quake III for the Mac somewhere, but those are really old.

[Eug Wanker]

Here is a link to a video of Aperture in action on my new machine.

(Also, if you're interested, I've posted a bazillion benchmarks. Check my sig. Warning: blog. )

[stefanicotine]

It runs that well on a 20" too. I think almost any Mac out there should be able to run Aperture at least decently. But I envy your real estate. 1680x1050 only seems big for so long

BTW have you tried Lightroom? Just for comparison's sake

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

(Also, if you're interested, I've posted a bazillion benchmarks. Check my sig. Warning: blog. )

Thanks Eug for the report. Your input is much appreciated.

By the way, it is possible that the minimal difference between CD and C2D in the Handbrake test means that Handbrake needs an update to completely take advantage of the new C2D architecture.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

By the way, it is possible that the minimal difference between CD and C2D in the Handbrake test means that Handbrake needs an update to completely take advantage of the new C2D architecture.

Possible.

OTOH if HandBrake is bottlenecked by the 667 MHz FSB, C2D won't help until we get the Santa Rosa chipset next year.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Simon

OTOH if HandBrake is bottlenecked by the 667 MHz FSB, C2D won't help until we get the Santa Rosa chipset next year.

Sure, that's the other possibility. We have just to wait and see.

But for the time being, the new iMacs deliver performance that only Power Macs would touch last year (and even this year). And this is with a mobile processor.

[kamina]

I've enjoyed the performance on my C2D iMac, seems clearly faster then my MacBook Pro... Though that might have something to do with the hardisk too...

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by stefanicotine

It runs that well on a 20" too. I think almost any Mac out there should be able to run Aperture at least decently.

My MacBook with GMA 950 definitely doesn't. And my iMac G5 2.0 with Radeon 9600 is laaaaag city in Aperture.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

But for the time being, the new iMacs deliver performance that only Power Macs would touch last year (and even this year). And this is with a mobile processor.

Definitely. The Core architecture is amazing. And as you indicated, PPC goodness is fine, but only thanks to Core we also get such performance on the go. Every time I compile code and notice my MBP does it faster than one of our G5 Xserves I realize just how fantastic Core is.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by stefanicotine

It runs that well on a 20" too. I think almost any Mac out there should be able to run Aperture at least decently. But I envy your real estate. 1680x1050 only seems big for so long

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

My MacBook with GMA 950 definitely doesn't. And my iMac G5 2.0 with Radeon 9600 is laaaaag city in Aperture.

Just to clarify. On my MacBook 2.0 with 2 GB RAM, it's OK, but it's definitely more laggy at times. On the iMac C2D are near instantaneous. With my iMac G5 with 1.5 GB RAM, it lags all the time, and often for 8 seconds at a time or whatever.

It's seems the iMac C2D has reached that threshold of acceptable responsiveness for a primary machine, at least IMHO.

OTOH, I don't have enough RAM. 2 GB is insufficient because I'm still paging out to disk at times. I will have to get that extra 2 GB SO-DIMM, when the prices come down. It's currently around US$700. Actually, Buy.com has it for roughly half that price. However they are the only store I've come across with anything close to those prices. Hmmm...

EDIT:

Lame. Their so-called 2 GB RAM is 2x1 GB. They even advertise it in the 2 GB SO-DIMM section on DealRAM, when everyone else is advertising 1x2 GB.

BTW have you tried Lightroom? Just for comparison's sake

Well it's still in beta. I did try it months ago, and didn't really like the interface. I've heard it's much improved since then though so I'll have to check it out.

[Eug]

Hmmm... This seems to be an Aperture thing.

Guys on the photo forums say that Aperture still pages out quite a lot with 6.5 GB RAM. WTF? I'm sure they're running other programs too, but still... They say that 3 or 4 GB is better than 2 GB, but 6 GB isn't noticeably better than 4 GB.

I wonder if Aperture needs some Preferences options for RAM management in Aperture.

[Eug]

OK, so that I show the benchmark graphs here instead of just in the blog article, I've rehosted them:

[stefanicotine]

Yeah, Lightroom has gotten alot better with Beta 3. And by the way, if you're planning on buying RAM then buy it soon. I'm not sure what the competition is doing, but our supplier is tripling the cost of RAM due to demand lately. Monitors as well.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by stefanicotine

Yeah, Lightroom has gotten alot better with Beta 3. And by the way, if you're planning on buying RAM then buy it soon. I'm not sure what the competition is doing, but our supplier is tripling the cost of RAM due to demand lately. Monitors as well.

Thx, but if I buy RAM it won't be soon. 2 GB sticks are around US$700 and up. It's not a huge deal at the moment though. I'm not what you'd call a super heavy user of Aperture, and it's WAY better now than it ever was with my iMac G5. I'm not going to get more RAM until it drops significantly below half of what it costs now.

P.S. I'm definitely not liking this keyboard. I mean it's OK, but it's a step down from the previous one. It looks exactly the same, but the feel is very different. Why did they have to make it more mushy? I still long for the days of that IBM clickity clackity keyboard...

And the slowdown with Photoshop really is noticeable. It's MUCH better than on my MacBook, but it's still slow compared to the G5 iMac. It's all the more noticeable now that everything else on the machine is so damn fast.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Eug

Hmmm... This seems to be an Aperture thing.

Guys on the photo forums say that Aperture still pages out quite a lot with 6.5 GB RAM. WTF? I'm sure they're running other programs too, but still... They say that 3 or 4 GB is better than 2 GB, but 6 GB isn't noticeably better than 4 GB.

This sounds like a memory leak.

PS: I am confused. Are Eug and Eug Wanker the same person?

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

And the slowdown with Photoshop really is noticeable. It's MUCH better than on my MacBook, but it's still slow compared to the G5 iMac. It's all the more noticeable now that everything else on the machine is so damn fast.

This is obvious. I am curious to see it in person after your review, since I had still not the chance to play with a CD machine (let alone C2D).

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Eug

The CPU score for my 7600 GT 2.33 C2D is: 727
The hardware OpenGL shader score for it is: 4399

From macintouch:

Processor : 24" iMac Core 2 Duo
MHz : 2.16 GHz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Mac OS X 10.4.7
Graphics Card : NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT
Resolution : 1920 x 1200
Color Depth : 32-bit Color
Rendering (Single CPU): 359 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 659 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.83
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 441 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1759 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 4134 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 9.39

Processor : iMac Core 2 Duo
MHz : 2160 (2.16 GHz)
Number of CPUs (cores) : 2
Operating System : 10.4.7
Graphics Card : X1600, 128mb
Resolution :
Color Depth :
Rendering (Single CPU): 359 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 675 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.88
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 438 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1658 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 3493 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 7.97

Processor : Intel Core Duo
MHz : 2.16
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.5
Graphics Card : ATI Radeon X1600
Resolution : 1440 x 900
Color Depth : 32 bit
Rendering (Single CPU): 331 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 610 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.84
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 374 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 831 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1426 CB-GFX <-- Ouch. Might be an OS issue.
OpenGL Speedup: 3.81

That last score might be an anomaly, related to the OS, because he's running 10.4.5. Was there an update to OpenGL during that time? See this other score, this time with 10.4.7:

Processor : iMac Core Duo (early)
MHz : 2.0 GHz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.7
Graphics Card : X1600 128MB
Resolution : 1680 x 1050
Color Depth : Millions
Rendering (Single CPU): 308 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 582 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.89
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 363 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1439 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2910 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 8.02

[Simon]

Nice number collection there.

The 10.4.5 iMac is definitely out of line. -10% CPU score on an identical board (minus the VRAM of course) makes no sense. Probably a 10.4.5 issue.

The CPU increase for 2.17->2.33 GHz is very nice (+10% for +7% clock). On the other hand, the hardware OpenGL score for the 7300->7600 upgrade is underwhelming (a mere +6%). Of course the 7600 surcharge is small, but I would have expected substantially superior performance rather than an increase which is only in line with the CPU clock increase. Especially when an error on the order of 2% has to be assumed (see CPU results of the two 2.17 GHz 10.4.7 iMacs), +6% is just not enough.

No matter which C2D iMac you get, it seems to be a really great deal though.

[Eug]

PC Magazine review of 24" iMac

If you've been waiting to upgrade a G4- or G5-powered iMac, or even if you're looking to replace a G4 or single-processor G5 Power Mac, the new 24-inch Apple iMac ($2,794 direct) should be at the top of your list. Powered by Intel's zippy Core 2 Duo processor, it's a system that photo, video, and music enthusiasts—even graphics professionals—could love.

The screen is about as bright as that of the standalone 23-inch and 30-inch Apple Cinema displays, so the iMac could easily work for a layout editor or other midlevel graphics pro. And since it's so powerful, it could also be a good system for the Adobe Photoshop interns in your art studio.

[nagromme]

PC Magazine's iMac with the 7600 GPU upgrade only got 24 fps in Doom, at MEDIUM settings, on a "tiny" 1024x768 view?

Bare Feats got higher than that on a mere X1600 iMac, HIGH quality, with a full 1680x1050 view. Quake 4 tests were similarly FAR beyond 24 fps.

Who's right?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by nagromme

PC Magazine's iMac with the 7600 GPU upgrade only got 24 fps in Doom, at MEDIUM settings, on a "tiny" 1024x768 view?

Bare Feats got higher than that on a mere X1600 iMac, HIGH quality, with a full 1680x1050 view. Quake 4 tests were similarly FAR beyond 24 fps.

Who's right?

Dunno, but I think Macworld must have screwed this one up.

P.S. Parallels will not work on my 24" iMac. As soon I start a virtual machine, I get a kernel panic. Works fine on my MacBook.

[nagromme]

You mean PC Mag? That's my guess too, just because all the different tests at Bare Feats tend to be in line with each other, making them less likely to be in error.

BF is still waiting for more 7600 tests though.

[chefpastry]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Dunno, but I think Macworld must have screwed this one up.

P.S. Parallels will not work on my 24" iMac. As soon I start a virtual machine, I get a kernel panic. Works fine on my MacBook.

Search their Parallel's forums. They have a new version, 1908, that has been working for me on my Mac Pro with 5GB. Previous versions would crash or KP right away.

[Eug Wanker]

Yeah, I just installed the 1898 release candidate, which works fine. It apparently supports all 64-bit Intel Macs, including your Mac Pro and my iMac.

1898 has a 2 GB limitation, but I only have 2 GB anyway, so that's not a problem for me. I have since found the 1908 build. I'm not going to install it because I don't need it, but is it stable for you?

[brokenjago]

To reiterate an earlier question, are Eug and Eug Wanker the same person?

[Eug Wanker]

So it turns out the limitation is to slightly less than 2 GB.

Originally Posted by brokenjago

To reiterate an earlier question, are Eug and Eug Wanker the same person?

Yeah, both me, albeit on different computers.

[chefpastry]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yeah, I just installed the 1898 release candidate, which works fine. It apparently supports all 64-bit Intel Macs, including your Mac Pro and my iMac.

1898 has a 2 GB limitation, but I only have 2 GB anyway, so that's not a problem for me. I have since found the 1908 build. I'm not going to install it because I don't need it, but is it stable for you?

It took a bit of tinkering and a little more luck, but, once I got it working, it's been very stable. Right now, I have 1.5GB assigned to it. I've tested playing a DVD and it was quite impressive. When I have some time, I'm going to reinstall Windows on a plain hard drive image rather than an expanding one to try and squeeze a little more speed out of it.

[urzsite]

Is it safe to say that the new C2D, are faster in Rosetta operations then CD ? Looking at the benchmarks comparing an old iMac CD and the new slightly higher clockspeed iMac 24" C2D does about 1 min faster operation in the Photoshop test.

Im a bit worried, since I need to use photoshop, golive A LOT on my newly purchased (unopened) Macbook 2Gz, 2GB ram, Fire400 Scratch disk. And if a new C2D mac is out before november, and with these numbers... im not sure if I should hand it back to the shop and wait until they upgrade. Iihhh. Problem is I need it now, and perhaps I need to start useing photoshop in Windows mode instead ?

Just to inform, I only need to do small gfx in photoshop, nothing like 10mb+ single RAW files.

Help me

[nagromme]

Don't worry about Photoshop--you're fine. A LOT of professionals keep their hardware a while, and use Photoshop on a single G4. I am one of them! It's no problem at all unless you do really big images or large automated batches. And dual-core Rosetta with 2GB RAM on an Intel Mac is FASTER, from what I can tell, than a single G4.

Now, it will be noticeably slower than a G5... sometimes... but noticeable does not mean a problem. And if you aren't used to a G5 anyway you won't notice Most things I do in Photoshop on a single G4 are instantaneous.

There's no need to face rebooting to Windows for the tasks you describe Enjoy Photoshop on OS X, and enjoy it even more when they make it Universal.

I cannot answer about GoLive.

[Mongoos150]

Can't decide whether I should do the 7600GT upgrade. I know it's inexpensive, but it's a big purchase for a college student, plus if I go with the lower video card I can buy the iMac in the store as opposed to waiting two weeks. I'll upgrade ram later when I have the money. Going from a 20" Core Duo with the 256mb X1600, will the 7300GT 128mb have similar performance?

[nagromme]

Some games would make use of the extra VRAM, and you'll lose that, but otherwise it seems from what I have seen that the X1600 and 7300 have pretty similar performance.

Do you already have a 20" Core Duo? If so, I'd suggest waiting a while, until you have more money or the 24" gets cheaper. Then you can have the machine you REALLY want, and not have to take any "steps back." The 24" is bound to either get better, or cheaper, or both--like all computers do--in the next half year.

[Eug Wanker]

If you're going to do anything more than lightly 3D, the 7600GT upgrade is MANDATORY.

Remember, you're getting a student discount, so it just doesn't make sense to skip the 7600GT, unless you KNOW you'll never need it.

P.S. Here is a GPU benchmark thread.

[Mongoos150]

I know I should hold off 6 months, but I have someone willing to buy my CD iMac for $1600 (upgraded 256mb X1600 video and 1.5GB ram) - I don't think I can pass up that offer. I'll just spend the extra cash, but except for price drops, what else will Apple add to the iMac? If only marginal speed bumps, I'll pass

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Mongoos150 

I know I should hold off 6 months, but I have someone willing to buy my CD iMac for $1600 (upgraded 256mb X1600 video and 1.5GB ram) - I don't think I can pass up that offer. I'll just spend the extra cash, but except for price drops, what else will Apple add to the iMac? If only marginal speed bumps, I'll pass

The next iMac may get Santa Rosa, which gives it an 800 MHz bus. It may also get HDCP support.

Then again it may not.