We are pleased to report that our testing results show that the new Dual Core Intel iMac, which clocks in at 2X 2.0GHz is almost as fast as the current high-end Power Mac that has two Dual Core G5 processors running at 2.5GHz.
They must have done that benchmark wrong because I've tested an iMac against a quad G5 and it came in at half the speed but again we're talking CPU performance not throughput. Whenever I get a high resolution uncompressed movie on the iMac it chokes but the G5 is fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
This test is a dual intel vs a quad G5. This test was done a year and a half ago before many pro apps were universal. The current iMac has a faster processor, faster bus, and denser HDD.
The G5 had a 1GHz system bus and the Mac Pro 1.33GHz. The iMac is 667MHz. The processors are slower not counting the 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme. Denser HDD is available to the older machines now too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
You know intel core 2 is not two year old technology that is a argumentative statement. My point is that it is faster than the workstation Mac from two years ago. You use "slow laptop parts" as a red herring.
Ok look I know the processors are fast and the software optimization on Intel is better, the point I'm making is that desktop class Intel CPUs are faster still at half the price. It's actually a factor of 2 across the board; all the equivalent CPUs in the desktop range cost half of those in the laptop range or you can get a faster quad for the same price as a dual core. It's a price/performance argument.
Which is what I think is the case. In the context of the computer market as a whole, that is fine. Someone has to sell to the niche customers and Apple makes a lot of money having an almost total monopoly on that segment. However, Apple isn't just a computer maker, they are the entire Mac platform. That means that you have not only those who are interested in the niche designs, but those who are interested in an operating system much better than windows. When you lock that operating system to niche hardware you not only waste Apple's best trump card in OSX, but you cause discontent among those who are looking for something a little more familiar and practical. Apple has a chance to revolutionize the computer industry the way Microsoft never could. The problem is that they want to control everything right down to what computer you should buy.
Bingo! In a way, Apple has way more of a monopoly than Microsoft. It's just that when your market share is so much smaller, no one pays attention. Having never used a Mac and really wanting to, I'm really disappointed in what boils down to some kind of lame marketing game.
Bingo! In a way, Apple has way more of a monopoly than Microsoft. It's just that when your market share is so much smaller, no one pays attention. Having never used a Mac and really wanting to, I'm really disappointed in what boils down to some kind of lame marketing game.
Very true. If Apple gains more Mac market share, then I'm sure the federal government will take notice and file suit on the system and hardware monopoly of Apple. That being said, I still prefer OS X to Windows by a very wide margin.
Very true. If Apple gains more Mac market share, then I'm sure the federal government will take notice and file suit on the system and hardware monopoly of Apple. That being said, I still prefer OS X to Windows by a very wide margin.
I doubt it. Apple has the right to bundle their products with their computers. It's an issue of Compatibility, and user experience. Look at how much shit you have to go through to build, and maintain a M$ box. It's a nightmare experience. What M$ did was have a strangle hold on the wintel manufacturers, and used it to threaten them with penalties. There is a huge difference.
They must have done that benchmark wrong because I've tested an iMac against a quad G5 and it came in at half the speed but again we're talking CPU performance not throughput.
They actually conducted two tests. The first they encoded one quicktime movie. This test did not overly tax either the iMac or the G5. In this test the G5 did not really perform much better than the intel iMac.
The second test was encoding two quicktime movies. This test 100% of the iMac CPU was used and most of the 4 G5 cores were used. In this test the iMac was beat by a wider margin because the G5 has more cores. But the iMac was only beat by 79 seconds.
Quote:
Ok look I know the processors are fast and the software optimization on Intel is better, the point I'm making is that desktop class Intel CPUs are faster still at half the price. It's actually a factor of 2 across the board; all the equivalent CPUs in the desktop range cost half of those in the laptop range or you can get a faster quad for the same price as a dual core. It's a price/performance argument.
The funny thing is at the beginning of this thread I was one of the people who more championed Apple making an xMac. I do see the advantages of having a mid-range Mac with no monitor and a couple of expansion slots. The MacPro is way more than I need.
But the pro xMac side began to have unrealistic and unreasonable reasons why Apple should do this. That's when I began too look more against the xMac. But really I see where the market is headed and understand why Apple probably will never do a mid-range Mac, even if I do see the usefulness of one.
Within that the current iMac line is plenty fast and you guys try to take something that is complex and simplify it down to only CPU spec sheets. Apple does not run its business solely by CPU speed charts.
Quote:
If Apple gains more Mac market share, then I'm sure the federal government will take notice and file suit on the system and hardware monopoly of Apple.
The government cannot punish Apple for having a monopoly of its own product. That is not against the law. You misunderstand what MS was doing. They forced OEM's to bundle their own products and threatened them if they bundled competitive products. Forcing OEM's to not bundle Netscape by awarding price breaks is against the law.
They actually conducted two tests. The first they encoded one quicktime movie. This test did not overly tax either the iMac or the G5. In this test the G5 did not really perform much better than the intel iMac.
The second test was encoding two quicktime movies. This test 100% of the iMac CPU was used and most of the 4 G5 cores were used. In this test the iMac was beat by a wider margin because the G5 has more cores. But the iMac was only beat by 79 seconds.
I'm sure Quicktime only uses one processor-worth per encoding task but it seems to be able to distribute each process over separate cores. I can only get Quicktime to use all of the G5 (350%+ in the activity monitor) with 3-4 encodings at once.
The tests I did were with Shake and the iMac is almost exactly half the speed of the quad G5, which you'd expect:
dual 1.66 Mini = 1 hour 20 min
dual 2GHz Core 2 Duo iMac = 52 mins
quad 2.5GHz G5 = 25 mins
for the same motion graphics render, which did not exceed the Ram in each. Since a desktop Intel quad costs the same as the dual core imac CPU then you are paying the same for half the speed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
But the pro xMac side began to have unrealistic and unreasonable reasons why Apple should do this. That's when I began too look more against the xMac. But really I see where the market is headed and understand why Apple probably will never do a mid-range Mac, even if I do see the usefulness of one.
Sure but when is the market headed there? I'm sure the automobile market is heading towards flying cars but that doesn't mean we should take all our wheels off now. At the moment. desktop parts still have a price/performance ratio that is twice as good as the equivalent laptop parts.
I'm sure that in 5-10 years we will have laptops with 10-20 core CPUs and GPUs in the low end that are today's high end and flash drives where you can fit two or more in an iMac and displays that don't get dead pixels and at that point, I would agree that making a mid-range desktop is probably not as big of an issue. But we're not at that stage right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Within that the current iMac line is plenty fast and you guys try to take something that is complex and simplify it down to only CPU spec sheets. Apple does not run its business solely by CPU speed charts.
We didn't reduce it to *only* anything, as I said this is what the opponents to this are doing to make the idea look absurd. As I said before there are many reasons. The display is a big problem - this includes not being able to use it with a games console, with a KVM switch, not being able to repair it easily or upgrade it. Not having two internal drives etc. I'm not going to go through them all again so that you can try and reduce it to one again. There are *many* valid reasons for wanting this product and a huge market just waiting for it.
The tests I did were with Shake and the iMac is almost exactly half the speed of the quad G5, which you'd expect:
dual 1.66 Mini = 1 hour 20 min
dual 2GHz Core 2 Duo iMac = 52 mins
quad 2.5GHz G5 = 25 mins
There are many more options for improving the performance of the Power Mac than an iMac. I'm not sure about your set up but if you are using Shake then its likely you have optimized the performance.
The guys at MacSpeedZone made some effort to not add performance gain to the Power Mac in attempt to isolate as much of the work as possible onto the processor and less in the through put.
Their quicktime render just took minutes which means it was a small video file. As the video gets larger PM faster bus and performance gains work to its benefit.
My over all point is processor for processor todays iMac would be faster than the Power Mac.
Quote:
Sure but when is the market headed there? I'm sure the automobile market is heading towards flying cars but that doesn't mean we should take all our wheels off now.
Flying cars don't exist. But a real comparison in the automobile industry between traditional petroleum cars and hybrid cars. In America people are growing more interested in efficient fuel vehicles. Many companies are exploring alternative power vehicles. Most are just making even more petroleum efficient cars.
Toytota more than any other car manufacturer has embraced hybrid vehicles. Because of their efforts is now the worlds largest car manufacturer. Toyota's top selling vehicles all have hybrid versions. Alternative fueled vehicles are the future and Toyota has the vision to seeing where its all going.
There are many more options for improving the performance of the Power Mac than an iMac.
And with an xMac. I'm glad you agree the iMac is crippled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I'm not sure about your set up but if you are using Shake then its likely you have optimized the performance.
The tests were done with each machine having the setup it came with from Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The guys at MacSpeedZone made some effort to not add performance gain to the Power Mac in attempt to isolate as much of the work as possible onto the processor and less in the through put.
Mine was solely a CPU test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Their quicktime render just took minutes which means it was a small video file. As the video gets larger PM faster bus and performance gains work to its benefit.
Everybody knows that benchmarks that run using small files are flawed. Also, they didn't use enough simultaneous encodings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
My over all point is processor for processor todays iMac would be faster than the Power Mac.
Yeah but I'm saying that you can buy a quad for the same price as an iMac CPU and the quad is twice as fast. The difference between the Intel and PPC isn't all that much - there were benchmarks done for a quad Mac Pro vs a quad G5 when it came out and they turned out almost even.
The benefit of Intel is the lower price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Flying cars don't exist. But a real comparison in the automobile industry between traditional petroleum cars and hybrid cars. In America people are growing more interested in efficient fuel vehicles. Many companies are exploring alternative power vehicles. Most are just making even more petroleum efficient cars.
Toytota more than any other car manufacturer has embraced hybrid vehicles. Because of their efforts is now the worlds largest car manufacturer. Toyota's top selling vehicles all have hybrid versions. Alternative fueled vehicles are the future and Toyota has the vision to seeing where its all going.
Fair point, now tell me have those manufacturers stopped producing standard fuel cars in favour of hybrids or do they offer you a choice? There's a difference between phasing out and just dropping an entire market. I wouldn't mind if they phased out the mid-tower in 5-10 years but it has gone too soon.
And with an xMac. I'm glad you agree the iMac is crippled.
I said in the previous post I see the usefulness of a mid-range Mac. No I don't think the iMac is crippled its not designed to be expandable.
Quote:
Mine was solely a CPU test.
Fair enough. But bear in mind we have no evidence of your findings, you could be flat out lying. At least Mac Speed Zone has a website where they publish their findings. They can be easily critiqued and criticized.
Quote:
Everybody knows that benchmarks that run using small files are flawed.
I've never heard that. I've seen plenty of benchmark tests where they use small video files.
Quote:
Yeah but I'm saying that you can buy a quad for the same price as an iMac CPU and the quad is twice as fast.
That is not blanketly true, it depends on so many factors. Most software isn't even designed to take advantage of four processors. So all four will not be used their most efficient, which would not double the performance.
Quote:
The difference between the Intel and PPC isn't all that much - there were benchmarks done for a quad Mac Pro vs a quad G5 when it came out and they turned out almost even.
Show me what benchmarks you were looking at. The only ones I've ever seen that were close is because the apps were PPC and the Intel had to use Rosetta. Even with that the many times the intel still beat the G5. But with intel native apps G5 was easily beat. Most of these types of tests are a year and a half old, when intel on the Mac was still very new. Now that their has been more time for code optimization, I'm sure the gap has widened.
PC Magazine agrees Apple has been ahead of the curve.
Penryn will be a 45-nm shrink of the latest Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors. Like the naming structure, we expect the line between "mobile" processors and "desktop" processors to become blurred in 2008, with more desktop PCs using the same CPUs as larger, faster notebooks. We've seen this trend in all-in-one desktops such as the Apple iMac and Sony VAIOs
Yeah but I'm saying that you can buy a quad for the same price as an iMac CPU and the quad is twice as fast.
That is not blanketly true, it depends on so many factors. Most software isn't even designed to take advantage of four processors. So all four will not be used their most efficient, which would not double the performance.
Marvin was comparing apples to apples: a $266 2.40GHz quad-core desktop cpu with a $241-$291 2.00GHz dual-core mobile chip (price depending of which version you choose). He repeated this three times on two occasions. For the sake of it, I'll repeat it myself here, so you'll base your remarks on what has been said not what you imagine was been said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin:
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
Given what we know about dual and quads and associated chipsets, it is fair to say that a desktop 2.40GHz quad-core chip is roughly twice as fast as a mobile 2.00GHz dual-core chip.
And this will still be the case for penryn:
- quad-core desktop penryns (Q1 2008) will start at 2.5GHz and $250 (roughly)
- quad-core mobile penryns (Q3 2008) will cost $850 (roughly)
So even a year from now we may still be discussing the same arguments.
I said in the previous post I see the usefulness of a mid-range Mac. No I don't think the iMac is crippled its not designed to be expandable.
Just like a kid who isn't designed to walk isn't crippled? That's a matter of semantics. It's not just about expandability either, it's mainly options. If Apple provided enough options then people wouldn't need upgradability. One of those options would be a matte display.
Hey if I can get a 17" iMac* with a matte screen + matching display, no chin, two hard drives, quad CPU and an nVidia GPU for £900 then I'll go and get it right now. Where is it? That's likely what my setup would be if I could get a mid-tower so if the iMac is good enough then I should be able to get an iMac like that somewhere.
*normally I'd get a 20"+ but I don't like repair costs for the iMac so I'd go for the 17" to keep the initial purchase price down.
I actually don't need a big display but I need raw power. Apple seem to think the more power you need, the bigger display you need too. This is evident with them only offering a 15" screen with the MBP and only a 13" with the MB. It's a stupid way of thinking because the two things don't correlate at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Fair enough. But bear in mind we have no evidence of your findings, you could be flat out lying. At least Mac Speed Zone has a website where they publish their findings. They can be easily critiqued and criticized.
You don't really have any evidence online, which is why you should never play online poker. But even thinking logically, a quad G5 is close to a Mac Pro so if you're saying an iMac is as fast or faster than a quad G5 then you are saying it's almost on par with a Mac Pro, which doesn't make sense because it's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I've never heard that. I've seen plenty of benchmark tests where they use small video files.
It's the same with any test, you need to do the test over a sustained period of time and a certain number of times otherwise you could have issues like memory allocation or disk access coming into play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
That is not blanketly true, it depends on so many factors. Most software isn't even designed to take advantage of four processors. So all four will not be used their most efficient, which would not double the performance.
No but then you do something else. If you encode 3 movies on a quad, you can still use the computer as normal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Now that their has been more time for code optimization, I'm sure the gap has widened.
Sure but that's a different issue. But if there's more optimization then it's likely a quad core is better and it costs the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
(2.66X4)/(2.5x4) = 1.064 * 1194 = 1270 -> 1384
(3x4)/(2.5x4) = 1.2 * 1194 = 1432 -> 1589
The difference has a little to do with the clock speed difference but software optimization plays a part in it. Still, ignoring clock speed, I'd readily admit the Intels are 10% faster for the same clock speed compared to the G5.
On that front, a 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme should be just 40% slower than a quad 2.5GHz G5. A quad 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 CPU should be 5% faster. Let's compare prices then. A 2.8 GHz Core 2 Extreme is $851 and a 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad is $266. So you are paying over 3 times more for the CPU and actually losing a lot of performance.
The form factor is all it has going for it but as I say, If I want a small form factor, I'd be as well to get a laptop and get the benefits it offers. The imac design has no real benefit except to save space, which is not that high a priority for most people as a headless computer can easily go under the desk. If someone is untidy then the space saved will get filled by more useless junk anyway.
2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
120GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Nvidia 8600M GT 128MB
MacBook Pro 15-inch Widescreen Display
$1999
2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
320GB Serial ATA Drive
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB memory
20-inch glossy widescreen LCD
$1649
For $250, I'd get the laptop any day. It has a better GPU too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
PC Magazine agrees Apple has been ahead of the curve.
Penryn will be a 45-nm shrink of the latest Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors. Like the naming structure, we expect the line between "mobile" processors and "desktop" processors to become blurred in 2008, with more desktop PCs using the same CPUs as larger, faster notebooks. We've seen this trend in all-in-one desktops such as the Apple iMac and Sony VAIOs
The line is distinguishable by the hefty price difference but like I say, I expect an overall move to mobile chips just not as quickly as Apple want to move there. Even if Apple came out with a quad core Penryn, I'd get a MBP over an iMac.
Just like a kid who isn't designed to walk isn't crippled?
Uh-no not like that at all. A handicapped person is a design flaw. Genetically they are designed to walk.
Quote:
You don't really have any evidence online, which is why you should never play online poker.
Are you attempting to playing jedi mind tricks on me? I have shown independent evidence. You have shown nothing from another source, only your own opinion.
Quote:
Sure but that's a different issue.
I'm not sure what you mean by a different issue. Other than being inconvenient to your argument. Software would need to be optimized for Intel instructions and the better parts of the chip from the G5, such as SSE 4. Those optimization make it even faster than the G5. The G5 is stuck in 2005, Intel Core is evolving.
Quote:
A 2.8 GHz Core 2 Extreme is $851 and a 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad is $266. So you are paying over 3 times more for the CPU and actually losing a lot of performance.
Why do you keep talking about quad core as though its automatically faster. Most of the time only one or two processors will get much work. Unless you are working often with multithread apps or doing some heavy work most of the time four cores will rarely ever see any action.
Most of the time most software will only be able to make good use of one or two 2.8 processors or one or two 2.4 processors. There are only a few apps under certain circumstances that will make make good use of all four 2.4 processors.
If I mostly have apps that are only going to use one or two processors. Do I want 2.8 or 2.4?
Quote:
Even if Apple came out with a quad core Penryn, I'd get a MBP over an iMac.
Uh-no not like that at all. A handicapped person is a design flaw. Genetically they are designed to walk.
The iMac is designed to satisfy the mid-range and yet it doesn't. Is that closer to a design flaw?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Are you attempting to playing jedi mind tricks on me? I have shown independent evidence. You have shown nothing from another source, only your own opinion.
Since I don't really consider online benchmark sources to be any more reliable than my own, I wouldn't feel they'd back me up. Plus the one you posted was enough to show there's not a significant difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I'm not sure what you mean by a different issue.
It's different because you can't really compare two architectures using heavy optimization. Some benchmarks will compare Altivec vs no SSE etc. I'm sure Apple did this when trying to flog their old G4s. If both are optimized I guess it's fairer but it's hard to get a truly fair assessment of real-world performance that way as not every app will be so heavily optimized.
I agree that Intel chips are easier to optimize for but I don't see where this is going. I don't really care about Intel vs G5 because PPC is outdated as you said. The quad G5 is faster than the Intel iMac, you don't have to believe it but that's how it is even though it won't always be the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Why do you keep talking about quad core as though its automatically faster. Most of the time only one or two processors will get much work. Unless you are working often with multithread apps or doing some heavy work most of the time four cores will rarely ever see any action.
Ok but with a desktop CPU, you are getting the other two cores free compared to the laptop CPU and at a higher clock speed. 2.4GHz quad desktop costs the same as 2GHz dual mobile. You're gaining 2 cores when you need them plus extra clock speed for apps that aren't properly multithreaded for the same price. There's no downside to using desktop components other than Apple can't weld a screen onto it, which isn't really a disadvantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Most of the time most software will only be able to make good use of one or two 2.8 processors or one or two 2.4 processors.
If I mostly have apps that are only going to use one or two processors. Do I want 2.8 or 2.4?
Sure but then use the desktop equivalent, which will be half the price and get rid of the screen and it's cheaper again. If you had the choice between say a cube with a 2.8 GHz desktop CPU with no screen for $1499 or the 24" iMac at $2299, which would you go for? The iMac because it's slimmer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
As most people in the computer market are.
So if that's the case then why not get rid of the iMac altogether? If Apple are so ahead of the game then why don't they just get rid of all the consumer 'desktops'? After all the Macbook is only £350 more than the roughly equivalent Mini and the Macbook Pro is only £350 more than the roughly equivalent iMac.
I think they might eventually do that and I honestly wouldn't object to it when as I say the components make it worthwhile to do so. Once they get quad core laptops with good GPUs under £1000 then I don't see the consumer desktops having much more to offer and I'd quite happily see Apple have one laptop lineup and a Mac Pro with 8+ processors but now is not the time for such a radical change. We need solid desktops for at least another two years and neither the iMac nor Mini suffice.
I really wish they'd get rid of both and just make a small tower that ranges up to the Mac Pro with a Core 2 Quad at the top end. The lineups would look so much cleaner as you'd just have one consumer laptop and desktop and one pro laptop and desktop. You'd have the Macbook and Macbook Pro, the Mac and the Mac Pro.
The iMac is designed to satisfy the mid-range and yet it doesn't. Is that closer to a design flaw?
You make some good points but here I think your argument breaks down. The iMac does satisfy the mid-range market. What you advocate for, a quad core machine that is headless, is more of a high end enthusiast machine than a mid-range machine.
You are far from a 'mid range' user and I don't say that as an insult. Apple doesn't make a machine to satisfy enthusiasts that know the difference between dual core and quad core.
Comments
Mac Performance In The Raw - Wow! The Intel iMac Is Almost As Fast As The Quad Core Power Mac
We are pleased to report that our testing results show that the new Dual Core Intel iMac, which clocks in at 2X 2.0GHz is almost as fast as the current high-end Power Mac that has two Dual Core G5 processors running at 2.5GHz.
They must have done that benchmark wrong because I've tested an iMac against a quad G5 and it came in at half the speed but again we're talking CPU performance not throughput. Whenever I get a high resolution uncompressed movie on the iMac it chokes but the G5 is fine.
This test is a dual intel vs a quad G5. This test was done a year and a half ago before many pro apps were universal. The current iMac has a faster processor, faster bus, and denser HDD.
The G5 had a 1GHz system bus and the Mac Pro 1.33GHz. The iMac is 667MHz. The processors are slower not counting the 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme. Denser HDD is available to the older machines now too.
You know intel core 2 is not two year old technology that is a argumentative statement. My point is that it is faster than the workstation Mac from two years ago. You use "slow laptop parts" as a red herring.
Ok look I know the processors are fast and the software optimization on Intel is better, the point I'm making is that desktop class Intel CPUs are faster still at half the price. It's actually a factor of 2 across the board; all the equivalent CPUs in the desktop range cost half of those in the laptop range or you can get a faster quad for the same price as a dual core. It's a price/performance argument.
Which is what I think is the case. In the context of the computer market as a whole, that is fine. Someone has to sell to the niche customers and Apple makes a lot of money having an almost total monopoly on that segment. However, Apple isn't just a computer maker, they are the entire Mac platform. That means that you have not only those who are interested in the niche designs, but those who are interested in an operating system much better than windows. When you lock that operating system to niche hardware you not only waste Apple's best trump card in OSX, but you cause discontent among those who are looking for something a little more familiar and practical. Apple has a chance to revolutionize the computer industry the way Microsoft never could. The problem is that they want to control everything right down to what computer you should buy.
Bingo! In a way, Apple has way more of a monopoly than Microsoft. It's just that when your market share is so much smaller, no one pays attention. Having never used a Mac and really wanting to, I'm really disappointed in what boils down to some kind of lame marketing game.
Bingo! In a way, Apple has way more of a monopoly than Microsoft. It's just that when your market share is so much smaller, no one pays attention. Having never used a Mac and really wanting to, I'm really disappointed in what boils down to some kind of lame marketing game.
Very true. If Apple gains more Mac market share, then I'm sure the federal government will take notice and file suit on the system and hardware monopoly of Apple. That being said, I still prefer OS X to Windows by a very wide margin.
Very true. If Apple gains more Mac market share, then I'm sure the federal government will take notice and file suit on the system and hardware monopoly of Apple. That being said, I still prefer OS X to Windows by a very wide margin.
I doubt it. Apple has the right to bundle their products with their computers. It's an issue of Compatibility, and user experience. Look at how much shit you have to go through to build, and maintain a M$ box. It's a nightmare experience. What M$ did was have a strangle hold on the wintel manufacturers, and used it to threaten them with penalties. There is a huge difference.
They must have done that benchmark wrong because I've tested an iMac against a quad G5 and it came in at half the speed but again we're talking CPU performance not throughput.
They actually conducted two tests. The first they encoded one quicktime movie. This test did not overly tax either the iMac or the G5. In this test the G5 did not really perform much better than the intel iMac.
The second test was encoding two quicktime movies. This test 100% of the iMac CPU was used and most of the 4 G5 cores were used. In this test the iMac was beat by a wider margin because the G5 has more cores. But the iMac was only beat by 79 seconds.
Ok look I know the processors are fast and the software optimization on Intel is better, the point I'm making is that desktop class Intel CPUs are faster still at half the price. It's actually a factor of 2 across the board; all the equivalent CPUs in the desktop range cost half of those in the laptop range or you can get a faster quad for the same price as a dual core. It's a price/performance argument.
The funny thing is at the beginning of this thread I was one of the people who more championed Apple making an xMac. I do see the advantages of having a mid-range Mac with no monitor and a couple of expansion slots. The MacPro is way more than I need.
But the pro xMac side began to have unrealistic and unreasonable reasons why Apple should do this. That's when I began too look more against the xMac. But really I see where the market is headed and understand why Apple probably will never do a mid-range Mac, even if I do see the usefulness of one.
Within that the current iMac line is plenty fast and you guys try to take something that is complex and simplify it down to only CPU spec sheets. Apple does not run its business solely by CPU speed charts.
If Apple gains more Mac market share, then I'm sure the federal government will take notice and file suit on the system and hardware monopoly of Apple.
The government cannot punish Apple for having a monopoly of its own product. That is not against the law. You misunderstand what MS was doing. They forced OEM's to bundle their own products and threatened them if they bundled competitive products. Forcing OEM's to not bundle Netscape by awarding price breaks is against the law.
What are you people still trying to accomplish here?
Better yet, what are you trying to accomplish? Why are you so damn hostile to anyone who is different than you?
They actually conducted two tests. The first they encoded one quicktime movie. This test did not overly tax either the iMac or the G5. In this test the G5 did not really perform much better than the intel iMac.
The second test was encoding two quicktime movies. This test 100% of the iMac CPU was used and most of the 4 G5 cores were used. In this test the iMac was beat by a wider margin because the G5 has more cores. But the iMac was only beat by 79 seconds.
I'm sure Quicktime only uses one processor-worth per encoding task but it seems to be able to distribute each process over separate cores. I can only get Quicktime to use all of the G5 (350%+ in the activity monitor) with 3-4 encodings at once.
The tests I did were with Shake and the iMac is almost exactly half the speed of the quad G5, which you'd expect:
dual 1.66 Mini = 1 hour 20 min
dual 2GHz Core 2 Duo iMac = 52 mins
quad 2.5GHz G5 = 25 mins
for the same motion graphics render, which did not exceed the Ram in each. Since a desktop Intel quad costs the same as the dual core imac CPU then you are paying the same for half the speed.
But the pro xMac side began to have unrealistic and unreasonable reasons why Apple should do this. That's when I began too look more against the xMac. But really I see where the market is headed and understand why Apple probably will never do a mid-range Mac, even if I do see the usefulness of one.
Sure but when is the market headed there? I'm sure the automobile market is heading towards flying cars but that doesn't mean we should take all our wheels off now. At the moment. desktop parts still have a price/performance ratio that is twice as good as the equivalent laptop parts.
I'm sure that in 5-10 years we will have laptops with 10-20 core CPUs and GPUs in the low end that are today's high end and flash drives where you can fit two or more in an iMac and displays that don't get dead pixels and at that point, I would agree that making a mid-range desktop is probably not as big of an issue. But we're not at that stage right now.
Within that the current iMac line is plenty fast and you guys try to take something that is complex and simplify it down to only CPU spec sheets. Apple does not run its business solely by CPU speed charts.
We didn't reduce it to *only* anything, as I said this is what the opponents to this are doing to make the idea look absurd. As I said before there are many reasons. The display is a big problem - this includes not being able to use it with a games console, with a KVM switch, not being able to repair it easily or upgrade it. Not having two internal drives etc. I'm not going to go through them all again so that you can try and reduce it to one again. There are *many* valid reasons for wanting this product and a huge market just waiting for it.
Better yet, what are you trying to accomplish? Why are you so damn hostile to anyone who is different than you?
You mistake an opposing viewpoint as hostility.
The tests I did were with Shake and the iMac is almost exactly half the speed of the quad G5, which you'd expect:
dual 1.66 Mini = 1 hour 20 min
dual 2GHz Core 2 Duo iMac = 52 mins
quad 2.5GHz G5 = 25 mins
There are many more options for improving the performance of the Power Mac than an iMac. I'm not sure about your set up but if you are using Shake then its likely you have optimized the performance.
The guys at MacSpeedZone made some effort to not add performance gain to the Power Mac in attempt to isolate as much of the work as possible onto the processor and less in the through put.
Their quicktime render just took minutes which means it was a small video file. As the video gets larger PM faster bus and performance gains work to its benefit.
My over all point is processor for processor todays iMac would be faster than the Power Mac.
Sure but when is the market headed there? I'm sure the automobile market is heading towards flying cars but that doesn't mean we should take all our wheels off now.
Flying cars don't exist. But a real comparison in the automobile industry between traditional petroleum cars and hybrid cars. In America people are growing more interested in efficient fuel vehicles. Many companies are exploring alternative power vehicles. Most are just making even more petroleum efficient cars.
Toytota more than any other car manufacturer has embraced hybrid vehicles. Because of their efforts is now the worlds largest car manufacturer. Toyota's top selling vehicles all have hybrid versions. Alternative fueled vehicles are the future and Toyota has the vision to seeing where its all going.
What are you people still trying to accomplish here?
And what are you still trying to accomplish here?
There are many more options for improving the performance of the Power Mac than an iMac.
And with an xMac. I'm glad you agree the iMac is crippled.
I'm not sure about your set up but if you are using Shake then its likely you have optimized the performance.
The tests were done with each machine having the setup it came with from Apple.
The guys at MacSpeedZone made some effort to not add performance gain to the Power Mac in attempt to isolate as much of the work as possible onto the processor and less in the through put.
Mine was solely a CPU test.
Their quicktime render just took minutes which means it was a small video file. As the video gets larger PM faster bus and performance gains work to its benefit.
Everybody knows that benchmarks that run using small files are flawed. Also, they didn't use enough simultaneous encodings.
My over all point is processor for processor todays iMac would be faster than the Power Mac.
Yeah but I'm saying that you can buy a quad for the same price as an iMac CPU and the quad is twice as fast. The difference between the Intel and PPC isn't all that much - there were benchmarks done for a quad Mac Pro vs a quad G5 when it came out and they turned out almost even.
The benefit of Intel is the lower price.
Flying cars don't exist. But a real comparison in the automobile industry between traditional petroleum cars and hybrid cars. In America people are growing more interested in efficient fuel vehicles. Many companies are exploring alternative power vehicles. Most are just making even more petroleum efficient cars.
Toytota more than any other car manufacturer has embraced hybrid vehicles. Because of their efforts is now the worlds largest car manufacturer. Toyota's top selling vehicles all have hybrid versions. Alternative fueled vehicles are the future and Toyota has the vision to seeing where its all going.
Fair point, now tell me have those manufacturers stopped producing standard fuel cars in favour of hybrids or do they offer you a choice? There's a difference between phasing out and just dropping an entire market. I wouldn't mind if they phased out the mid-tower in 5-10 years but it has gone too soon.
Lemon Bon Bon.
And with an xMac. I'm glad you agree the iMac is crippled.
I said in the previous post I see the usefulness of a mid-range Mac. No I don't think the iMac is crippled its not designed to be expandable.
Mine was solely a CPU test.
Fair enough. But bear in mind we have no evidence of your findings, you could be flat out lying. At least Mac Speed Zone has a website where they publish their findings. They can be easily critiqued and criticized.
Everybody knows that benchmarks that run using small files are flawed.
I've never heard that. I've seen plenty of benchmark tests where they use small video files.
Yeah but I'm saying that you can buy a quad for the same price as an iMac CPU and the quad is twice as fast.
That is not blanketly true, it depends on so many factors. Most software isn't even designed to take advantage of four processors. So all four will not be used their most efficient, which would not double the performance.
The difference between the Intel and PPC isn't all that much - there were benchmarks done for a quad Mac Pro vs a quad G5 when it came out and they turned out almost even.
Show me what benchmarks you were looking at. The only ones I've ever seen that were close is because the apps were PPC and the Intel had to use Rosetta. Even with that the many times the intel still beat the G5. But with intel native apps G5 was easily beat. Most of these types of tests are a year and a half old, when intel on the Mac was still very new. Now that their has been more time for code optimization, I'm sure the gap has widened.
NOT UNIVERSAL
UNIVERAL
PC Magazine agrees Apple has been ahead of the curve.
Penryn will be a 45-nm shrink of the latest Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors. Like the naming structure, we expect the line between "mobile" processors and "desktop" processors to become blurred in 2008, with more desktop PCs using the same CPUs as larger, faster notebooks. We've seen this trend in all-in-one desktops such as the Apple iMac and Sony VAIOs
Originally Posted by Marvin:
Yeah but I'm saying that you can buy a quad for the same price as an iMac CPU and the quad is twice as fast.
That is not blanketly true, it depends on so many factors. Most software isn't even designed to take advantage of four processors. So all four will not be used their most efficient, which would not double the performance.
Marvin was comparing apples to apples: a $266 2.40GHz quad-core desktop cpu with a $241-$291 2.00GHz dual-core mobile chip (price depending of which version you choose). He repeated this three times on two occasions. For the sake of it, I'll repeat it myself here, so you'll base your remarks on what has been said not what you imagine was been said:
Originally Posted by Marvin:
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
Given what we know about dual and quads and associated chipsets, it is fair to say that a desktop 2.40GHz quad-core chip is roughly twice as fast as a mobile 2.00GHz dual-core chip.
And this will still be the case for penryn:
- quad-core desktop penryns (Q1 2008) will start at 2.5GHz and $250 (roughly)
- quad-core mobile penryns (Q3 2008) will cost $850 (roughly)
So even a year from now we may still be discussing the same arguments.
I said in the previous post I see the usefulness of a mid-range Mac. No I don't think the iMac is crippled its not designed to be expandable.
Just like a kid who isn't designed to walk isn't crippled? That's a matter of semantics. It's not just about expandability either, it's mainly options. If Apple provided enough options then people wouldn't need upgradability. One of those options would be a matte display.
Hey if I can get a 17" iMac* with a matte screen + matching display, no chin, two hard drives, quad CPU and an nVidia GPU for £900 then I'll go and get it right now. Where is it? That's likely what my setup would be if I could get a mid-tower so if the iMac is good enough then I should be able to get an iMac like that somewhere.
*normally I'd get a 20"+ but I don't like repair costs for the iMac so I'd go for the 17" to keep the initial purchase price down.
I actually don't need a big display but I need raw power. Apple seem to think the more power you need, the bigger display you need too. This is evident with them only offering a 15" screen with the MBP and only a 13" with the MB. It's a stupid way of thinking because the two things don't correlate at all.
Fair enough. But bear in mind we have no evidence of your findings, you could be flat out lying. At least Mac Speed Zone has a website where they publish their findings. They can be easily critiqued and criticized.
You don't really have any evidence online, which is why you should never play online poker. But even thinking logically, a quad G5 is close to a Mac Pro so if you're saying an iMac is as fast or faster than a quad G5 then you are saying it's almost on par with a Mac Pro, which doesn't make sense because it's not.
I've never heard that. I've seen plenty of benchmark tests where they use small video files.
It's the same with any test, you need to do the test over a sustained period of time and a certain number of times otherwise you could have issues like memory allocation or disk access coming into play.
That is not blanketly true, it depends on so many factors. Most software isn't even designed to take advantage of four processors. So all four will not be used their most efficient, which would not double the performance.
No but then you do something else. If you encode 3 movies on a quad, you can still use the computer as normal.
Now that their has been more time for code optimization, I'm sure the gap has widened.
Sure but that's a different issue. But if there's more optimization then it's likely a quad core is better and it costs the same.
(2.66X4)/(2.5x4) = 1.064 * 1194 = 1270 -> 1384
(3x4)/(2.5x4) = 1.2 * 1194 = 1432 -> 1589
The difference has a little to do with the clock speed difference but software optimization plays a part in it. Still, ignoring clock speed, I'd readily admit the Intels are 10% faster for the same clock speed compared to the G5.
On that front, a 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme should be just 40% slower than a quad 2.5GHz G5. A quad 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 CPU should be 5% faster. Let's compare prices then. A 2.8 GHz Core 2 Extreme is $851 and a 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad is $266. So you are paying over 3 times more for the CPU and actually losing a lot of performance.
The form factor is all it has going for it but as I say, If I want a small form factor, I'd be as well to get a laptop and get the benefits it offers. The imac design has no real benefit except to save space, which is not that high a priority for most people as a headless computer can easily go under the desk. If someone is untidy then the space saved will get filled by more useless junk anyway.
2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
120GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Nvidia 8600M GT 128MB
MacBook Pro 15-inch Widescreen Display
$1999
2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
320GB Serial ATA Drive
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB memory
20-inch glossy widescreen LCD
$1649
For $250, I'd get the laptop any day. It has a better GPU too.
PC Magazine agrees Apple has been ahead of the curve.
Penryn will be a 45-nm shrink of the latest Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors. Like the naming structure, we expect the line between "mobile" processors and "desktop" processors to become blurred in 2008, with more desktop PCs using the same CPUs as larger, faster notebooks. We've seen this trend in all-in-one desktops such as the Apple iMac and Sony VAIOs
The line is distinguishable by the hefty price difference but like I say, I expect an overall move to mobile chips just not as quickly as Apple want to move there. Even if Apple came out with a quad core Penryn, I'd get a MBP over an iMac.
Just like a kid who isn't designed to walk isn't crippled?
Uh-no not like that at all. A handicapped person is a design flaw. Genetically they are designed to walk.
You don't really have any evidence online, which is why you should never play online poker.
Are you attempting to playing jedi mind tricks on me? I have shown independent evidence. You have shown nothing from another source, only your own opinion.
Sure but that's a different issue.
I'm not sure what you mean by a different issue. Other than being inconvenient to your argument. Software would need to be optimized for Intel instructions and the better parts of the chip from the G5, such as SSE 4. Those optimization make it even faster than the G5. The G5 is stuck in 2005, Intel Core is evolving.
A 2.8 GHz Core 2 Extreme is $851 and a 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad is $266. So you are paying over 3 times more for the CPU and actually losing a lot of performance.
Why do you keep talking about quad core as though its automatically faster. Most of the time only one or two processors will get much work. Unless you are working often with multithread apps or doing some heavy work most of the time four cores will rarely ever see any action.
Most of the time most software will only be able to make good use of one or two 2.8 processors or one or two 2.4 processors. There are only a few apps under certain circumstances that will make make good use of all four 2.4 processors.
If I mostly have apps that are only going to use one or two processors. Do I want 2.8 or 2.4?
Even if Apple came out with a quad core Penryn, I'd get a MBP over an iMac.
As most people in the computer market are.
Uh-no not like that at all. A handicapped person is a design flaw. Genetically they are designed to walk.
The iMac is designed to satisfy the mid-range and yet it doesn't. Is that closer to a design flaw?
Are you attempting to playing jedi mind tricks on me? I have shown independent evidence. You have shown nothing from another source, only your own opinion.
Since I don't really consider online benchmark sources to be any more reliable than my own, I wouldn't feel they'd back me up. Plus the one you posted was enough to show there's not a significant difference.
I'm not sure what you mean by a different issue.
It's different because you can't really compare two architectures using heavy optimization. Some benchmarks will compare Altivec vs no SSE etc. I'm sure Apple did this when trying to flog their old G4s. If both are optimized I guess it's fairer but it's hard to get a truly fair assessment of real-world performance that way as not every app will be so heavily optimized.
I agree that Intel chips are easier to optimize for but I don't see where this is going. I don't really care about Intel vs G5 because PPC is outdated as you said. The quad G5 is faster than the Intel iMac, you don't have to believe it but that's how it is even though it won't always be the case.
Why do you keep talking about quad core as though its automatically faster. Most of the time only one or two processors will get much work. Unless you are working often with multithread apps or doing some heavy work most of the time four cores will rarely ever see any action.
Ok but with a desktop CPU, you are getting the other two cores free compared to the laptop CPU and at a higher clock speed. 2.4GHz quad desktop costs the same as 2GHz dual mobile. You're gaining 2 cores when you need them plus extra clock speed for apps that aren't properly multithreaded for the same price. There's no downside to using desktop components other than Apple can't weld a screen onto it, which isn't really a disadvantage.
Most of the time most software will only be able to make good use of one or two 2.8 processors or one or two 2.4 processors.
If I mostly have apps that are only going to use one or two processors. Do I want 2.8 or 2.4?
Sure but then use the desktop equivalent, which will be half the price and get rid of the screen and it's cheaper again. If you had the choice between say a cube with a 2.8 GHz desktop CPU with no screen for $1499 or the 24" iMac at $2299, which would you go for? The iMac because it's slimmer?
As most people in the computer market are.
So if that's the case then why not get rid of the iMac altogether? If Apple are so ahead of the game then why don't they just get rid of all the consumer 'desktops'? After all the Macbook is only £350 more than the roughly equivalent Mini and the Macbook Pro is only £350 more than the roughly equivalent iMac.
I think they might eventually do that and I honestly wouldn't object to it when as I say the components make it worthwhile to do so. Once they get quad core laptops with good GPUs under £1000 then I don't see the consumer desktops having much more to offer and I'd quite happily see Apple have one laptop lineup and a Mac Pro with 8+ processors but now is not the time for such a radical change. We need solid desktops for at least another two years and neither the iMac nor Mini suffice.
I really wish they'd get rid of both and just make a small tower that ranges up to the Mac Pro with a Core 2 Quad at the top end. The lineups would look so much cleaner as you'd just have one consumer laptop and desktop and one pro laptop and desktop. You'd have the Macbook and Macbook Pro, the Mac and the Mac Pro.
The iMac is designed to satisfy the mid-range and yet it doesn't. Is that closer to a design flaw?
You make some good points but here I think your argument breaks down. The iMac does satisfy the mid-range market. What you advocate for, a quad core machine that is headless, is more of a high end enthusiast machine than a mid-range machine.
You are far from a 'mid range' user and I don't say that as an insult. Apple doesn't make a machine to satisfy enthusiasts that know the difference between dual core and quad core.