[windowsblowsass]

looks pretty good comparable to towers (single 1.8)

[onlyafterdark]

Good news for those who want the power but dont want to pay a lot for it.

[Messiahtosh]

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.

[psmith2.0]

If I knew how to interpret all the above shit, I'd join all you in your happiness!

[Messiahtosh]

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.

[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.

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?

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...

[Luca]

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.

[windowsblowsass]

keep in mind this was done at a demo machine at the paris expo obviously not optimum conditions

[trailmaster308]

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.

[Luca]

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.

[trailmaster308]

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!

[thegelding]

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

[Gizzer]

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!!

[staph]

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

[Gizzer]

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?

[709]

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.

[Powerdoc]

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.

[Messiahtosh]

Originally Posted by Powerdoc Even the horrible geforce 5200 ultra is a dream card compared to the geforce 2 mx.

[Powerdoc]

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 ?

[psmith2.0]

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.

[Messiahtosh]

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.

[Powerdoc]

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.

[Wickers]

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.

[InactionMan]

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.

[stoo]

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.

[Powerdoc]

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