Jason Snell...a man that is not so smart

Jump to First Reply
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/feat...est1/index.php



His review was comprehensive but then he had to blow it by somehow accusing Apple that the 2x is wrong.



Yes, if you run single-threaded apps like he did...then you won't see the 2x claim Apple was making. Did he accidently think the 2x claim was for single-threaded apps? Sure Apple's marketing is cheap and sometimes even disgusting...but I thought Snell was smarter than that.



Multithreaded apps are definitely almost 2x faster if not more than on the iMac G5. Had he run apps that were multi-threaded, he would have seen the gain.



Not a whole lot of games are UB'ed yet...but the graphics card in the iMac Core Duo are about twice faster than the card in the iMac G5. So naturally, when 3D intensive games start getting UB'ed they should come close to being twice faster.



H.264 is 'twice faster' if the forum member claims are to be believed (thanks to hardware H.264 decoding).



If we remain purely in the single-threaded app and CPU domains...then, yeah, you won't see very much gain. But if we look at all the big picture, it's not very hard to believe the new iMacs are 2x faster in a great deal of tasks.



People trying to make 'enlightened' judgement about the speed of the new Mac using PPC apps running under Rosetta or single-threaded UB apps are heading down the wrong path.



We're only going to start seeing the true potential of the new Macs when more UB apps become multi-threaded. But the 30% increase in most single-threaded apps is nothing to scoff at.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,461member
    The same thing would have been seen if we had bench'd a



    Single Proc PM G5 2GH against a DP 2GH. Single apps don't tell you much and most of us really want to have those extra procs for downloading stuff and still maintaining a responsive system.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 12
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    The same thing would have been seen if we had bench'd a



    Single Proc PM G5 2GH against a DP 2GH. Single apps don't tell you much and most of us really want to have those extra procs for downloading stuff and still maintaining a responsive system.




    Exactly...



    My 2x800 G4 is more responsive than a Mac mini for this very reason. Sure, the Mac mini may have an advantage in single-threaded app performance...but I can multitask like the wind and my multi-threaded apps are just as fast if not faster than on the Mac mini.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 12
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol



    Yes, if you run single-threaded apps like he did...then you won't see the 2x claim Apple was making. Did he accidently think the 2x claim was for single-threaded apps? Sure Apple's marketing is cheap and sometimes even disgusting...but I thought Snell was smarter than that.





    It is difficult to believe without seeing it that they ignored almost completely that the new iMac has two processors now. And the problem with iLife is not so much the new Intel architecture (although there too may be some optimisation issues), as the fact that iLife is designed essentially for single processor systems.



    Now that dual core Macs are mainstream, there is hope that Apple will finally use this poor second processor to speed up parallelisable tasks in their consumer applications. Does anyone know where are they with this?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 12
    Well said.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 12
    resres Posts: 711member
    SJ said in the keynote that the 2x-3x faster was was based on benchmarks of the raw computing power of the new chips, and that, of course, programs would not see that much of a speed gain. So why do reviewers act so surprised when single threaded real world applications show a more moderate increase in speed?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 12
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Res

    So why do reviewers act so surprised when single threaded real world applications show a more moderate increase in speed?



    That is a question philosophers will have to attempt to answer.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 12
    gruthgruth Posts: 35member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Res

    SJ said in the keynote that the 2x-3x faster was was based on benchmarks of the raw computing power of the new chips, and that, of course, programs would not see that much of a speed gain. So why do reviewers act so surprised when single threaded real world applications show a more moderate increase in speed?



    While I agree that SJ gave these details on the speed boost, Apple's marketing copy makes no such qualifications. The Apple web site unambiguously states "2x faster" in many different places with no footnotes or qualifying caveats. They certainly seem to me to be presenting information on the processor that is likely to disappoint many users who don't know a ton about computers -- the market that the iMac is intended for.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 12
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    He also made no claims or tests on the OS itself. I've heard numerous claims that when you just begin navigating around and opening apps like Safari and iChat that the computer is noticeably faster. Safari opens in less than a "bounce" and loads sites much faster. Menus are "snappier."



    Why weren't comments about these things included? I honestly think this is a VITAL criterion for showing speed differences between machines. After all, what percentage of your computing is really spent rendering, importing, converting, exporting, and so on?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 12
    dhagan4755dhagan4755 Posts: 2,152member
    I have read reports that the OS X interface responsiveness on the new Intel Core Duo iMacs is the best it's ever been for OS X.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 12
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gruth

    While I agree that SJ gave these details on the speed boost, Apple's marketing copy makes no such qualifications. The Apple web site unambiguously states "2x faster" in many different places with no footnotes or qualifying caveats.



    Even so, the point made above by kim kap sol still holds: is that what you do expect from a MACWORLD REVIEW?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 12
    Ah, this is to be expected.



    To enter the exquisite realm of punditry, one must first prove beyond all reasonable doubt that their brain is dysfunctional and highly susceptible to influence by dogma, group-think, and wealthy corporations along with high power players.



    Few here at AI could attain such levels of idiocy. But if you do, you shall reap great rewards - money, fame, and great power over the minds of the knuckle-dragging masses.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 12
    I was disapointed by the MacWorld review too, it seemed to be going out of its way to suggest things weren't much faster. I'm not convinced running a 1 minute video through some filters says a lot, whereas importing and editing a 10 minute movie would be far more realistic.



    I want to know if importing HDV will be in realtime, or if iDVD can create a 90 minute disc in a reasonable time. The speed of BBEdit is far more related to my typing than anything else.



    Give us real use tests.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.