I'm having the same dilemma right now - I'm not sure whether to get an iMac G5 or the new Intel iMac since I'm planning to use Adobe Creative Suite 2. I guess I'll just have to wait until the user reviews and benchmarks come out. Oh well, the new version won't get her til about 6-8 weeks so I'll have plenty of time to decide which one to get.
shouldn't this be a bit of a no-brainer? If you are going to be using Adobe CS2 for a significant proportion of your time on the computer, get the G5. CS2 won't go Intel-native for a long while yet.
shouldn't this be a bit of a no-brainer? If you are going to be using Adobe CS2 for a significant proportion of your time on the computer, get the G5. CS2 won't go Intel-native for a long while yet.
Yes but contrast that with the total amount of years he'll own the computer. CS2 should be universal by the end of the year and when that happens all the iMac dual core users begin to crush the performance of iMac G5.
Intel does a lot better in Interger performance and other than filters that's mainly what PS utilizes. I'd either hold off on buying an iMac altogether or buy the dual core and tough it out in Rosetta.
Let us not forget that the iMac dual core allows for expanded desktops which cannot be done on the iMac G5
Remember that if you want to run CS on Intel, you'll either have to run it via emulation (Rosetta) or at the very least pony up for an upgrade to the universal binary version of CS.
There is no way that Adobe will give away the universal version of CS to existing customers ? they won't miss this opportunity to maximise their profits.
Remember that if you want to run CS on Intel, you'll either have to run it via emulation (Rosetta) or at the very least pony up for an upgrade to the universal binary version of CS.
There is no way that Adobe will give away the universal version of CS to existing customers ? they won't miss this opportunity to maximise their profits.
Indeed. I believe that they said that they wouldn't be bringing out Intel native versions until the next major update. In other words, if you want the Intel native version, you're going to have to buy or upgrade to CS 3, whenever that comes out.
I've not seen a single post from anyone at MacWorld regarding the "snappinessTM" of the new iMAC. Sure they are 2 to 3 times faster in benchmarks, but how do they feel in normal use?
I've not seen a single post from anyone at MacWorld regarding the "snappinessTM" of the new iMAC. Sure they are 2 to 3 times faster in benchmarks, but how do they feel in normal use?
A safe guess would be that they are like the dual 2.0 GHz G5. But it is a little strange two days after the introduction no one can tell anything.
I've seen a few such reports, but wouldn't place too much weight on them. Did they have a dual-processor G5 right next to them to compare? Did they do anything more complicated than a bit of resizing and applying a handful of filters?
Perhaps the issue is more complicated than I originally suggested. Undeniably, we need to see some real-world, controlled comparisons to G5 machines. Speaking of which, how come there still aren't any? I thought the iMac was released Tuesday?
Perhaps the issue is more complicated than I originally suggested. Undeniably, we need to see some real-world, controlled comparisons to G5 machines. Speaking of which, how come there still aren't any? I thought the iMac was released Tuesday?
I even placed a call in to Adobe to find out what system they would recommended to get the best performance out of CS2.
Of course they claim they haven't tested the systems yet, but the person I spoke with said that within the next few weeks they would post a tech article explaining CS2's compatibilities and any known issues with the Intel Mac's.
Here's my official opinion now that I had more time at Macworld to put the new Macs through their paces. Overall the machines were fast. I use a rev A dual 2 GHz G5 at home with plenty of RAM so that is what I'm comparing these new machines to.
All the native apps ran well and even Photoshop CS ran fine under Rosetta. They didn't have any good sample images so I loaded one from iPhoto and blew it up to 600 dpi and Photoshop ran decently. I might go back tomorrow with my own files so I can test it out further.
The machines also played 720p HD QT movie trailers very well with minimal hit to the CPU. My guess is that the H264 decoding is running on the graphics card.
Safari ran well and did a good job opening multiple simultaneous tabs.
The machines boot fast. The startup chime is unchanged but appears slightly later in the boot process... there's a slight delay between power on, the screen coming on, and then the chime.
The one complaint I had was with iTunes. I took an existing music track that was on the machine and "converted" it on the machine. This is a CPU bound task since it wasn't ripping from a CD. On my G5 I can get about 24x encoding but these new Macs topped out at 6.5x. My guess is that it can't use altivec and can't use the GPU so it is running as fast as it can on the plain CPU. Granted this wasn't a scientific test. If you were ripping from CDs though I doubt you'd notice a big difference.
So overall I though the machines were great. For the first time ever I'd consider getting an iMac for myself, replacing my G5 tower with one of these dual core iMacs. And if I like the iMacs for myself, I know average users will be pleased as punch.
Only thing I didn't do was video transcoding. I'll encode a video tonight on my G5 and then do the same at the show to get the final word. This may be able to leverage the new GPUs so it may be blazing fast. I also wish I could have played some existing games through Rosetta.
The machines also played 720p HD QT movie trailers very well with minimal hit to the CPU. My guess is that the H264 decoding is running on the graphics card.
First of all thanks for trying to run tests. But what "minimal hit to the CPU" means? 5%, 10%, 20%, 40%? Keep in mind that there are two CPUs therein, so the maximum is 200%.
Also your iTunes results are really strange. Altivec or no, the new machines cannot be so much slower.
Also your iTunes results are really strange. Altivec or no, the new machines cannot be so much slower.
Indeed. It seems the results have been confirmed here
My post from that thread:
There's something very wrong with the OS X intel version of iTunes. My 1.4 GHz Duron with 384 MB RAM running Windows 2000 and iTunes 6.0.2 converts aiff to 128 Kbps AAC at 10 x speed. Hopefully Apple will fix this quickly.
Heard back from a Apple supplier who was at the show, and apparently Photoshop does not run very well on Intel chips in it's current "PPC only" form.
Now this is purely based on his own tests. I should point out that his company supplies Mac's and software to various design firms throughout Vancouver, so he tested CS2 on the intel machines using common tasks we do day to day. Overall, he basically said if you want to run Photoshop on an iMac, your best bet is to go with the G5 model for now. Wait for a Universal CS3.
Anyways.. just thought I'd throw this out there. I don't know of any specific tasks he did. Just an overall impression. \
Just a thought... I hope everyone realises how large a step this is for any given company... including Apple. I'm pretty impressed for the video on the MacBook I found. Check it out....
Steve Jobs said in the Keynote that if you used Photoshop a lot you would not be satisfied with the Intel machine. Should be acceptable for others.
He isn't usually quite so direct so I would consider that pretty heavily. Probably better to time a new purchase with the new Photoshop version if you can.
Steve Jobs said in the Keynote that if you used Photoshop a lot you would not be satisfied with the Intel machine. Should be acceptable for others.
He isn't usually quite so direct so I would consider that pretty heavily. Probably better to time a new purchase with the new Photoshop version if you can.
Although I think that is the case to a certain extent, from what others are claiming you are only taking at most a 30% hit over a Dual G5 with the Core Duo iMac 2.0(he doesn't want to canabalize his G5 line just yet) - I ran the same test on my Dell XPS with a multithreaded P4 3.4 Ghz and couldn't come close the the 2ghz Core Duo iMac running under emulation. Photoshop runs plenty fast enough for me on my Dell to edit 8MP RAW files all day long. I really hope my MacBook PRO turns into my main system quickly, and from what it sounds like it will.
Comments
Originally posted by Mr. H
shouldn't this be a bit of a no-brainer? If you are going to be using Adobe CS2 for a significant proportion of your time on the computer, get the G5. CS2 won't go Intel-native for a long while yet.
Yes but contrast that with the total amount of years he'll own the computer. CS2 should be universal by the end of the year and when that happens all the iMac dual core users begin to crush the performance of iMac G5.
Intel does a lot better in Interger performance and other than filters that's mainly what PS utilizes. I'd either hold off on buying an iMac altogether or buy the dual core and tough it out in Rosetta.
Let us not forget that the iMac dual core allows for expanded desktops which cannot be done on the iMac G5
There is no way that Adobe will give away the universal version of CS to existing customers ? they won't miss this opportunity to maximise their profits.
Originally posted by Messiah
Remember that if you want to run CS on Intel, you'll either have to run it via emulation (Rosetta) or at the very least pony up for an upgrade to the universal binary version of CS.
There is no way that Adobe will give away the universal version of CS to existing customers ? they won't miss this opportunity to maximise their profits.
Indeed. I believe that they said that they wouldn't be bringing out Intel native versions until the next major update. In other words, if you want the Intel native version, you're going to have to buy or upgrade to CS 3, whenever that comes out.
Originally posted by skyweir
I've not seen a single post from anyone at MacWorld regarding the "snappinessTM" of the new iMAC. Sure they are 2 to 3 times faster in benchmarks, but how do they feel in normal use?
A safe guess would be that they are like the dual 2.0 GHz G5. But it is a little strange two days after the introduction no one can tell anything.
Basically they claim Photoshop under Rosetta actually performed fairly well. No complaints at least.
http://www.creativemac.com/articles/...e.jsp?id=36696
Originally posted by PB
Awesome erbium, thanks.
I've seen a few such reports, but wouldn't place too much weight on them. Did they have a dual-processor G5 right next to them to compare? Did they do anything more complicated than a bit of resizing and applying a handful of filters?
Perhaps the issue is more complicated than I originally suggested. Undeniably, we need to see some real-world, controlled comparisons to G5 machines. Speaking of which, how come there still aren't any? I thought the iMac was released Tuesday?
Originally posted by Mr. H
Perhaps the issue is more complicated than I originally suggested. Undeniably, we need to see some real-world, controlled comparisons to G5 machines. Speaking of which, how come there still aren't any? I thought the iMac was released Tuesday?
Yes, this is strange.
Of course they claim they haven't tested the systems yet, but the person I spoke with said that within the next few weeks they would post a tech article explaining CS2's compatibilities and any known issues with the Intel Mac's.
All the native apps ran well and even Photoshop CS ran fine under Rosetta. They didn't have any good sample images so I loaded one from iPhoto and blew it up to 600 dpi and Photoshop ran decently. I might go back tomorrow with my own files so I can test it out further.
The machines also played 720p HD QT movie trailers very well with minimal hit to the CPU. My guess is that the H264 decoding is running on the graphics card.
Safari ran well and did a good job opening multiple simultaneous tabs.
The machines boot fast. The startup chime is unchanged but appears slightly later in the boot process... there's a slight delay between power on, the screen coming on, and then the chime.
The one complaint I had was with iTunes. I took an existing music track that was on the machine and "converted" it on the machine. This is a CPU bound task since it wasn't ripping from a CD. On my G5 I can get about 24x encoding but these new Macs topped out at 6.5x. My guess is that it can't use altivec and can't use the GPU so it is running as fast as it can on the plain CPU. Granted this wasn't a scientific test. If you were ripping from CDs though I doubt you'd notice a big difference.
So overall I though the machines were great. For the first time ever I'd consider getting an iMac for myself, replacing my G5 tower with one of these dual core iMacs. And if I like the iMacs for myself, I know average users will be pleased as punch.
Only thing I didn't do was video transcoding. I'll encode a video tonight on my G5 and then do the same at the show to get the final word. This may be able to leverage the new GPUs so it may be blazing fast. I also wish I could have played some existing games through Rosetta.
Originally posted by Xool
The machines also played 720p HD QT movie trailers very well with minimal hit to the CPU. My guess is that the H264 decoding is running on the graphics card.
First of all thanks for trying to run tests. But what "minimal hit to the CPU" means? 5%, 10%, 20%, 40%? Keep in mind that there are two CPUs therein, so the maximum is 200%.
Also your iTunes results are really strange.
Originally posted by PB
Also your iTunes results are really strange.
Indeed. It seems the results have been confirmed here
My post from that thread:
There's something very wrong with the OS X intel version of iTunes. My 1.4 GHz Duron with 384 MB RAM running Windows 2000 and iTunes 6.0.2 converts aiff to 128 Kbps AAC at 10 x speed. Hopefully Apple will fix this quickly.
Now this is purely based on his own tests. I should point out that his company supplies Mac's and software to various design firms throughout Vancouver, so he tested CS2 on the intel machines using common tasks we do day to day. Overall, he basically said if you want to run Photoshop on an iMac, your best bet is to go with the G5 model for now. Wait for a Universal CS3.
Anyways.. just thought I'd throw this out there. I don't know of any specific tasks he did. Just an overall impression.
Originally posted by erbium
Anyways.. just thought I'd throw this out there. I don't know of any specific tasks he did. Just an overall impression.
Which cannot be different. The point is to see how real PPC applications (PS included) perform under Rosetta in numbers.
http://theory.isthereason.com/?p=650
He isn't usually quite so direct so I would consider that pretty heavily. Probably better to time a new purchase with the new Photoshop version if you can.
Originally posted by kcmac
Steve Jobs said in the Keynote that if you used Photoshop a lot you would not be satisfied with the Intel machine. Should be acceptable for others.
He isn't usually quite so direct so I would consider that pretty heavily. Probably better to time a new purchase with the new Photoshop version if you can.
Although I think that is the case to a certain extent, from what others are claiming you are only taking at most a 30% hit over a Dual G5 with the Core Duo iMac 2.0(he doesn't want to canabalize his G5 line just yet) - I ran the same test on my Dell XPS with a multithreaded P4 3.4 Ghz and couldn't come close the the 2ghz Core Duo iMac running under emulation. Photoshop runs plenty fast enough for me on my Dell to edit 8MP RAW files all day long. I really hope my MacBook PRO turns into my main system quickly, and from what it sounds like it will.