User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Apple Products »

macbidioulle(french one) posts imac g5 xbench


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
macbidioulle(french one) posts imac g5 xbench
Thread Tools
windowsblowsass
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: williamsport,pa
Send a message via AIM to windowsblowsass  
2004-09-05, 23:38




looks pretty good comparable to towers (single 1.8)
  quote
onlyafterdark
Sucker for shiny objects
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kitchener, ON
Send a message via AIM to onlyafterdark  
2004-09-06, 00:07

Good news for those who want the power but dont want to pay a lot for it.
  quote
Messiahtosh
Apple Historian
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2004-09-06, 00:14

Quote:
Originally Posted by onlyafterdark
Good news for those who want the power but dont want to pay a lot for it.
Basically, good news for me.
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2004-09-06, 00:22

If I knew how to interpret all the above shit, I'd join all you in your happiness!
  quote
Messiahtosh
Apple Historian
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2004-09-06, 00:37

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0
If I knew how to interpret all the above shit, I'd join all you in your happiness!
I dont know how to interpret it really, but I compared it to my PowerBook, and the PB pales in comparisson, except for the alti-vec numbers.

Open GL, Quartz, UI, the Processor, and the overall results were way in favor of the G5 over my 1.5 GHz G4.

"We are reviewing some 9,000 recent UNHCR referrals from Syria. We are receiving roughly a thousand new ones each month, and we expect admissions from Syria to surge in 2015 and beyond." - Anne C. Richard, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
  quote
Powerdoc
Cat's Dreamlands
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2004-09-06, 00:47

I don't know what credit we should give to Xbench. I have been lurking on their sites, and looked at the performances of the single G5 tower 1,8. The results where varying from 130 to 190 and it was not a question of memory.

Nobody have an explanation of the poor level of performance of the Imac G5, who perform like an old Imac. Strange for a 7200 rpm SATA disk, also used by the towers.

Interesting to see that the level of performance of the memory is good, dispite the slower bus. On Kingstom site, it seems that the Imac G5 is able to work on dual channel when two RAM of equal sizes and specs are used.
  quote
BK0001
 
 
2004-09-06, 09:12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powerdoc
I don't know what credit we should give to Xbench. I have been lurking on their sites, and looked at the performances of the single G5 tower 1,8. The results where varying from 130 to 190 and it was not a question of memory.

Nobody have an explanation of the poor level of performance of the Imac G5, who perform like an old Imac. Strange for a 7200 rpm SATA disk, also used by the towers.

Interesting to see that the level of performance of the memory is good, dispite the slower bus. On Kingstom site, it seems that the Imac G5 is able to work on dual channel when two RAM of equal sizes and specs are used.
The Kingston site does say this. This is the first I heard of this. Questions:

- iMac obviously does NOT REQUIRE paired RAM, but if it does, will this in fact make it dual channel and speed up the iMac? By how much?

- can someone point me to a site that compares these scores to the PowerMac towers?
  quote
BK0001
 
 
2004-09-06, 09:15

MacBidouille site says they were asked by Apple to take down the XBench scores.

The one big comment on the site re: the scores is that the 7200RPM SATA drive did not show scores much better than the old iMac with IDE drives.

Wonder what's going on...
  quote
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2004-09-06, 09:20

My own score:

139.68 Overall
161.72 CPU test
118.13 Thread test
111.57 Memory test
166.23 Quartz graphics test
136.50 OpenGL graphics test
235.41 User Interface test
112.17 Disk test

My overall score is just a little lower, by about 16 points. CPU test is only slightly lower, impressive considering the iMac has 467 MHz on me. I edge it out in the thread test but it womps me in memory (duh, PC133 vs. PC2700 on a 133 MHz vs. 600 MHz bus). It also edged me out in the two graphics tests, which is weird since at the time I ran that benchmark I had a GeForce 3. For some reason, upgrading to the Radeon 9800 Pro actually LOWERED my Quartz and OpenGL scores, but it's clearly a much faster card. It wins in the user interface test, probably because it simply has a higher clock speed. Finally, my computer wins in the disk test. I'm guessing Apple isn't using hard drives with 8 MB of cache.

Although XBench isn't totally accurate (I mean, given that my graphics card benches lower but is much faster), I still think a new iMac would be similar to my computer in performance. I might think about getting an iMac eventually, once it can score... say... 100 points higher than mine. For now, I have an excellent machine.
  quote
windowsblowsass
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: williamsport,pa
Send a message via AIM to windowsblowsass  
2004-09-06, 09:25

keep in mind this was done at a demo machine at the paris expo obviously not optimum conditions
  quote
trailmaster308
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: lousyana
 
2004-09-06, 09:26

Luca, what machine do you have? I have a G4 iMac and if the xbench results aren't that much better I may thing twice about getting the new G5 and just max out the ram.

Did you bring me a monkey?
  quote
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2004-09-06, 09:35

My computer is a souped-up Quicksilver G4. It has a 1.33 GHz G4 upgrade with 2 MB of L3 cache, a Radeon 9800 Pro (although that benchmark was done with a GeForce 3 installed before I got the 9800), 1 GB of RAM, a DVD-RW drive, and two 80 GB hard drives (one 8 MB buffer, one 2 MB buffer).

If you have a 700-800 MHz iMac, it would be an excellent upgrade. Decent even with a 1 GHz. For the 1.25 GHz... I'd say wait for Rev. B, then buy. The main thing setting my computer apart from yours is the L3 cache on the CPU, and the faster hard drive. Those two make a big difference - upgrading from a 7200 RPM drive with 2 MB of cache (now my secondary drive) to one with 8 MB of cache has made everything noticeably quicker. Not a huge improvement, but enough that I can actually tell the difference. And L3 cache also makes quite a difference. iMacs don't have L3.
  quote
trailmaster308
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: lousyana
 
2004-09-06, 09:51

I gotcha. Thanks for the advice. I have the 800 G4 iMac. I don't know why I read into your post that you had something similar. I was about to be real upset and get on my bitching soap box if the new iMac didn't blow my current one away.

Thanks for saving the lives of many small fury creatures!

Did you bring me a monkey?
  quote
thegelding
feeling my oats
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: there are nice people here...that makes me happy
Send a message via AIM to thegelding  
2004-09-06, 09:58

yeah, i have an iMac FP 800 mHz, this would be a great update for me...yet i still may wait for revision B

would love a BTO option of graphics to 128...i would buy today

hard to wait for that 20 inch screen though

g

crazy is not a rare human condition

everything is food if you chew hard enough
  quote
Gizzer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hampshire (the original one)
 
2004-09-06, 10:53

Given that the iMac is an all-new product. When would you guys estimate a Rev B model to be released? As early as January (MWSF)? Or later than that because it is so new?

After my initial gripes about the iMac G5 when it was announced last Tuesday, by Friday afternoon I saw Mr Bank Manager about a loan and now have the money for a 20inch burning a hole in my pocket (I can't believe quite how quickly I gave in - I am Sooooooo weak!!)

BUT, as I own a 1Ghz iMac G4 (with 1Gb RAM), does it look like I should wait for Rev B? Will I not really notice any differences in speed? I'm now worried I got the loan a few months premature!!
  quote
staph
Microbial member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Send a message via AIM to staph  
2004-09-06, 11:01

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gizzer
BUT, as I own a 1Ghz iMac G4 (with 1Gb RAM), does it look like I should wait for Rev B? Will I not really notice any differences in speed? I'm now worried I got the loan a few months premature!!
Xbench scores for the iMac 1Ghz range from around 80 to around 120. You'll definitely see a substantial speed increase
  quote
Gizzer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hampshire (the original one)
 
2004-09-06, 11:57

Phew! That makes me feel a bit better...

...Am still semi-tempted to wait fro rev.b but I guess that realistically, if they don't start shipping until later this month, and the rumours are that even then they will be rolled out in a very slow trickle, I guess that full-flow shipments may not even begin until November? In which case they definitely won't have a rev. B out only 2 months later!


Can anyone here remember how long after the iMac G4 was launched that the rev.b was released?
  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2004-09-06, 12:11

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gizzer
Can anyone here remember how long after the iMac G4 was launched that the rev.b was released?
I believe it was a year+. Introduced MWSF '02...bumped a bit after MWSF '03. Apple added the 17" model somewhere in the middle there as well.

[edit:] Here we go: Rev. A, Rev. A 17-inch model (I'm sure they've got the intro date wrong though), Rev. B.

So it goes.
  quote
Powerdoc
Cat's Dreamlands
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2004-09-06, 13:01

Quote:
Originally Posted by BK0001
MacBidouille site says they were asked by Apple to take down the XBench scores.

The one big comment on the site re: the scores is that the 7200RPM SATA drive did not show scores much better than the old iMac with IDE drives.

Wonder what's going on...
I wonder why Apple told them to do so, and I don't understand why MacBidouille was obliged to do it.

Concerning the performances, I think that the Imac 1,8 will be an huge speed bump compared to my G4 533 digital audio. Even the horrible geforce 5200 ultra is a dream card compared to the geforce 2 mx.
  quote
Messiahtosh
Apple Historian
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2004-09-06, 13:23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powerdoc
Even the horrible geforce 5200 ultra is a dream card compared to the geforce 2 mx.
  quote
Powerdoc
Cat's Dreamlands
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2004-09-06, 13:28

Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiahtosh
The digital audio G4 533 has a geforce 2 Mx video card.
Many people complained that the geforce 5200 ultra was a bad video card, and that much powerful video card are avalaible.

But when you switch from a geforce 2 mx video card to a geforce 5200 ultra you are amazed by the difference of performance.

Is that clear enough, or did I miss something ?
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2004-09-06, 13:29

Quote:
Originally Posted by 709
I believe it was a year+. Introduced MWSF '02...bumped a bit after MWSF '03. Apple added the 17" model somewhere in the middle there as well.

[edit:] Here we go: Rev. A, Rev. A 17-inch model (I'm sure they've got the intro date wrong though), Rev. B.
Yeah, the 17" iMac was added at the MWNY Expo, summer 2002. I know because I watched the keynote simulcast at the San Diego Apple store and remember it clearly.

  quote
Messiahtosh
Apple Historian
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2004-09-06, 13:38

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powerdoc
The digital audio G4 533 has a geforce 2 Mx video card.
Many people complained that the geforce 5200 ultra was a bad video card, and that much powerful video card are avalaible.

But when you switch from a geforce 2 mx video card to a geforce 5200 ultra you are amazed by the difference of performance.

Is that clear enough, or did I miss something ?
Calling the 5200 a "horrible video card" is kind of ridiculous.
  quote
Powerdoc
Cat's Dreamlands
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2004-09-06, 13:43

Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiahtosh
Calling the 5200 a "horrible video card" is kind of ridiculous.
It's not my personal advice. I was refering to some opinions after the specs of the future Imac from think secret was published. My G5 single towers have a geforce 5200 ultra video card, and it was nice for Quake 3.
  quote
Wickers
is not a kind of basket
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2004-09-06, 14:22

IMO,

The GF 5200 is a good card. Just not if you are a gamer.

On the PC side of nVidia, however, I found that the 5200 is not the sharpest of pictures at high res. I have not gotten a chance to test this out on a mac.

no sig, how's that for being a rebel!
  quote
InactionMan
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2004-09-06, 15:13

Last time I ran Xbench on my Sage iMac I got a score of 47 or something so I think I'll be quite happy with the upgrade.
  quote
stoo
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2004-09-06, 17:25

Quote:
My G5 single towers have a geforce 5200 ultra video card, and it was nice for Quake 3.
But Quake 3 is about five years old by now, so it really should run rather well on Apple's lowest end Mac, never mind their Pro range.
  quote
Powerdoc
Cat's Dreamlands
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2004-09-07, 01:07

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoo
But Quake 3 is about five years old by now, so it really should run rather well on Apple's lowest end Mac, never mind their Pro range.
I am such an old thing
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I got a free iMac! Luca General Discussion 20 2007-06-25 07:35
iMac G5 Messiahtosh Apple Products 336 2005-03-08 02:35
Will iMac G5 pics, marketing material, cover stories etc appear before Paris? Messiahtosh Speculation and Rumors 22 2004-08-24 20:08
Should Apple leverage the iMac with the iPod? Messiahtosh Speculation and Rumors 17 2004-08-23 14:26
new imacs imminent confirmed by apple (Merged with hmurchison's thread) windowsblowsass Speculation and Rumors 120 2004-08-09 18:38


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:13.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2019, AppleNova