Jan 16
Intel iMac Benchmarks
2006 at 02.48 am posted by Veerle
I don’t know about you but I have been wondering about benchmarks for the new Intel machines. During these keynotes I’m always skeptical about the benchmarks that Steve Jobs shows. My partner Geert has been thinking about upgrading his Dual 1Ghz G4 and going for one of these new Quad models (the top line one). So I’m especially interested in seeing those benchmarks. These benchmarks were run by someone from the MacAddict forums in the Apple Store. Some of the test were done with iLife ‘06.
Can’t hold out any longer here they are ;-)
Render 10 Second Ken Burn’s Effect
15 seconds, Mac Mini G4 - 1.25 GHz 512 MB RAM
14 seconds, PowerMac G4 - dual 867 MHz 1.5 GB RAM
14 seconds, iMac G5 - 1.8 GHz 256 MB RAM
9 seconds, PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 GHz 512 MB RAM
6 seconds, PowerMac G5 QUAD 2.5 GHz 2.5 GB RAM*
*(processor never above 25%)
13 seconds, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM*
*(5 second delay/stuttor on the “import” of the photo)
Render Six 2 Second Cross Dissolve Simultaneously
60 seconds, Mac Mini G4 - 1.25 GHz 512 MB RAM
57 seconds, PowerMac G4 - dual 867 MHz 1.5 GB RAM
31 seconds, iMac G5 - 1.8 GHz 256 MB RAM
20 seconds, PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 GHz 512 MB RAM
20 seconds, PowerMac G5 QUAD 2.5 GHz 2.5 GB RAM*
*(processor never above 25%)
24 seconds, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM
Export 1 Minute Video to QuickTime using for CD-ROM Setting (H264)
70 seconds, Mac Mini G4 - 1.25 GHz 512 MB RAM
53 seconds, PowerMac G4 - dual 867 MHz 1.5 GB RAM
35 seconds, iMac G5 - 1.8 GHz 256 MB RAM
22 seconds, PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 Ghz 512 MB RAM
20 seconds, PowerMac G5 QUAD 2.5 GHz 2.5 GB RAM*
*(processor never above 25%)
94 seconds, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM
Create Disc Image in iDVD using Travel Cards theme and 10 Min. Video
28 minutes, Mac Mini G4 - 1.25 GHz 512 MB RAM
25 minutes, PowerMac G4 - dual 867 MHz 1.5 GB RAM
12 minutes, iMac G5 - 1.8 GHz 256 MB RAM
9 minutes, PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 GHz 512 MB RAM
5.1 minutes, PowerMac G5 QUAD 2.5 GHz 2.5 GB RAM*
*(processor never above 35%)
10 minutes, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM
Some of the machines have very little RAM so I’m sure if you add more test would improve. Of course this is early days and those are just the first generation machines but the benchmarks are a nice way to get the curiosity out of the way.
Update: Some more Benchmarks and a review for the Quad PowerMac.
21served
1
wonder how my macbook pro will do; only 5 weeks left till I get it :-)
2
Well, it’s still too soon for the Intel to be properly evaluated. I haven’t heard anyone using an Intel Duo with plenty RAM, so I’m still curious.
It’s strange to see the difference between the Quad and the Dual Powermacs. It’s nearly the same (except the last one :) ) and the Dual has only 512 RAM, the Quad runs 2,5 gigs of RAM. I know it still uses only 25% of the inhouse power, and the Dual uses ‘a lot’ more power.
It makes me very happy to have my dual 2,7 with 4 gigs of RAM :) :)
And I’m waiting for a welltested MacBook Pro 20” ;)
3
First question, were these apps native, i.e. no Rosetta? Then it seems like I was correct about Steve using SPECrate :-)
4
@Michel: It is the same story here not all applications are optimized to use the brute force that the Quad has to offer, think programs that make heavy use of the G5 Velocity Engine. Like always it depends from what machine you are updating from, you use the same machine as I so it would be silly to already update such a great PowerMac ;-)
@Andy Georges: The iLife ‘06 suite is native only the Pro applications like Final Cut Pro, IDVD Pro etc aren’t. Jobs said they will be ready in March. SPEC is just an algorithm to test a CPUs speeds not a real world performance reflection. You also have to take in account that the PowerPC has been optimized for years and I think it’s safe to say that Apple didn’t do much optimizing on the Intel side yet. But like I said always take X factors with a grain of salt :-)
5
Just looking at those number, take into consideration of slight difference in cpu speed between the mini and latest pb, I think the new MacBook will absolutely KILL the current generation G4 pb in everything even at this early stage of sw development.
Render Six 2 Second Cross Dissolve Simultaneously
60 seconds, Mac Mini G4 - 1.25 GHz 512 MB RAM
24 seconds, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM
Create Disc Image in iDVD using Travel Cards theme and 10 Minutes of Video
28 minutes, Mac Mini G4 - 1.25 GHz 512 MB RAM
10 minutes, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM
6
I’m quite sure my dual 2.7Ghz G5 is going to serve me well for quite a while to come. It will take a LONG time before we’ll see real world speed with the Intel platform because everything is being emulated through the Rosetta thing right now which seriously eats up the extra speed the Intel CPU may have.
7
brx: not too surprising, considering the ghz has nearly doubled, AND it’s a dualcore processor.
What I want to know is, why is it so slow on the “Export 1 Minute Video to QuickTime using for CD-ROM Setting (H264)” test? Nearly 50% slower than a 1.25ghz Mac Mini with the same amount of RAM? That’s got to be a mistake. If not, brx you might want to reconsider…
8
I’m one of those guys who still likes the good old G5 processor so I won’t be selling my 2-year-old Powermac Dual 2.0/1.5Gb any time soon. It’s still faster than anything I’ve ever used on Wintel.
I remain to be apprehensive about the switch. Intel never seemed to inspire me, but maybe that was just because their chips were always mentioned together with Windows. Anyhow, let’s wait and see what the next few months bring…
9
I keep bouncing back and forth. I know that I won’t need a Powermac at home once the studio gets me one for work. I currently have a 1st gen. Powerbook 17-inch 1 GHz with a Gig of RAM, but I don’t see the need for any portability any more. I am almost 99.9% sure iMac is the way to go. However, do I buy a cheap G5 from the Apple Store when they mark them down or do I got bleeding edge and jump at the new Intel iMacs. Gah! I just don’t know.
10
The thing about the iMac, do you really want to commit yourself to that screen? Not to mention the rest of the setup.
But if you’ve stuck with a 1st gen PB for so long you’re probably not the upgrade (vs replace) type.
11
@ Veerle - Actually, the SPEC CPU benchmarks are very much real life apps. With real life input sets. See e.g. http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/CINT2000/
12
Take a look at this:
9 seconds, PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 GHz 512 MB RAM
6 seconds, PowerMac G5 QUAD 2.5 GHz 2.5 GB RAM*
So what do you think?
;)
And now take al look at this:
14 seconds, iMac G5 - 1.8 GHz 256 MB RAM
13 seconds, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM
;)
-
13
Its so damn stupid to believe that this kind of Speed -Testing has something to do with the Real-Life Performance of the Product.
We will see....
14
It’s a lot faster: http://homepage.mac.com/mugenpuppy1/iMovieTheater1.html
15
This benchmark includes a Photoshop-on-Rosetta test (rotating image). Perhaps a bit closer to our hearts ...
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/imac-coreduo.ars/6
16
@Andy Georges: I’m still skeptical towards the SPEC results because there are too many others factors to come into play like memory latency, hard disk performance, video card performance, and a host of other factors. Let’s say that I go for proof how well iTunes, PhotoShop, Final Cut etc performs instead of SPEC benchmarks so that why I call them no real world ;-)
@Anon: The iMac G5 in that movie is broken somehow because no way it take that long to boot. The old dual 1Ghz G4 in the office starts even faster then that machine. We have a previous generation iMac too and it boots to the desktop in around 35-40 seconds from a cold start. There is something funky with that machine in the clip I’m sure.
@Chris Peterson: Thanks for those that’s indeed closer to our hearts and a good indicator.
17
Since entering into the print design world late last year (from the starving web freelance world), I have been using my home computer less and less for Photoshop, Flash, etc.
Within a few months, my work computer will be out of lease and I will be receiving whatever the talk of the town is then for my professional work.
If I get this iMac, it would be more for media purposes (music, DVD watching in bed with Front Row, iPod central) with only a little bit of professional work done on it.
I also have to admit a small addiction to World of Warcraft by Blizzard which has already released a universal binary version of their 4 GB game with the newest point release. As much as I am sure most of you aren’t into video games, the amazing Mac support and reaction to the Intel switch is of note as I know of no other company of their size that has done such a fantastic job for us Mac users!
18
the intel duo performance vs. g5 is simply ridiculous. jobs is a li*r. my tip is: wait 6 months to get at least the native compiled apps.
19
I’m still a bit skeptical about the intel chips i’ll stick with the quad g5 for now.
20
I don’t really believe such benchmarks especially they are from the computer vendors them self.
You currently can’t compare the banchmarks couse of the natvie support for powerprocessor and emulated support for intel. wait a little bit till all apps were running native on intel too, then you can compare.
21
mac rocks!