[webmotiva]

Note that the tested iMac G5 is not the Gen 3 with PCI Express!

Render 10 Second Ken Burn's Effect
15 seconds, Mac Mini G4 - 1.25 GHz 512 MB RAM
14 seconds, PowerMac G4 - dual 867 MHz 1.5 GB RAM
14 seconds, iMac G5 - 1.8 GHz 256 MB RAM
9 seconds, PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 GHz 512 MB RAM
6 seconds, PowerMac G5 QUAD 2.5 GHz 2.5 GB RAM (processor never above 25%)
13 seconds, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM (5 second delay/stuttor on the "import" of the photo)

Render Six 2 Second Cross Dissolve Simultaneously
60 seconds, Mac Mini G4 - 1.25 GHz 512 MB RAM
57 seconds, PowerMac G4 - dual 867 MHz 1.5 GB RAM
31 seconds, iMac G5 - 1.8 GHz 256 MB RAM
20 seconds, PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 GHz 512 MB RAM
20 seconds, PowerMac G5 QUAD 2.5 GHz 2.5 GB RAM (processor never above 25%)
24 seconds, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM

Export 1 Minute of Video to QuickTime using for CD-ROM Setting (H264)
70 seconds, Mac Mini G4 - 1.25 GHz 512 MB RAM
53 seconds, PowerMac G4 - dual 867 MHz 1.5 GB RAM
35 seconds, iMac G5 - 1.8 GHz 256 MB RAM
22 seconds, PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 Ghz 512 MB RAM
20 seconds, PowerMac G5 QUAD 2.5 GHz 2.5 GB RAM (processor never above 25%)
94 seconds, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM

Create Disc Image in iDVD using Travel Cards theme and 10 Minutes of Video
28 minutes, Mac Mini G4 - 1.25 GHz 512 MB RAM
25 minutes, PowerMac G4 - dual 867 MHz 1.5 GB RAM
12 minutes, iMac G5 - 1.8 GHz 256 MB RAM
9 minutes, PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 GHz 512 MB RAM
5.1 minutes, PowerMac G5 QUAD 2.5 GHz 2.5 GB RAM (processor never above 35%)
10 minutes, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM

...

Fonte: http://www.macaddict.com/forums/topic/76536/1

[Wraven]

Huh? Are you reading your benchmarks that you stole correctly? The Intel iMac beats the G5 in all but one of them...

???

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Not only that, but most of the tests are single processor bound. Look at the quad G5 comments of processor never above 25%. That means only one of four cores were used during the test. So, even running these tests, you still have another processor so you can surf, game or whatever while playing with your benchmarking epenis. *shrug*

[InactionMan]

Wow. Great thread. I wonder why Brad banned himself.

[webmotiva]

Originally Posted by Wraven Huh? Are you reading your benchmarks that you stole correctly? The Intel iMac beats the G5 in all but one of them... ???

Really? Read:

Export 1 Minute of Video to QuickTime using for CD-ROM Setting (H264)
70 seconds, Mac Mini G4 - 1.25 GHz 512 MB RAM
53 seconds, PowerMac G4 - dual 867 MHz 1.5 GB RAM
35 seconds, iMac G5 - 1.8 GHz 256 MB RAM
22 seconds, PowerMac G5 dual 2.0 Ghz 512 MB RAM
20 seconds, PowerMac G5 QUAD 2.5 GHz 2.5 GB RAM (processor never above 25%)
94 seconds, iMac Intel Duo, 2.0 Ghz, 512 MB RAM

Even Mac Mini G4 1.25 beats Intel iMac on UNIVERSAL app by APPLE! Wow!

[chucker]

Trouble is, that's a heavily AltiVec-optimized operation. Intel's SSE3 simply isn't quite as efficient. However, that'll quickly become irrelevant.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by webmotiva Really? Read:

He said in all but one. Read!

[Wraven]

Thank you JLL. And webmotiva, you are a troll.

[mwarner]

There is now a review of the new iMac at wsj.com for those interested. It's a basic fluff piece short on details. It initially sounds like Rosetta is pretty quick, but they don't tell what consumer programs they specifically ran. Sadly, it is starting to sound like there is not much noticible difference in finder speed with the new chip.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

How much you wanna bet Finder is single threaded though? I mean, the real speedup with the new iMac Core Duos will be with people who really multitask. You can have one core running full tilt, with the 2nd core just running OS tasks. Then start up a second program and BOOM! (tm) you have the 2nd core to move things along.

Single applications won't get a boost from multicore CPUs until programmers design their programs with multiple cores (read: good multithreading) in mind.

For simple programs (like my Musical Scales program), spawning a new thread is simple, because I spawn a thread to run a self-contained task and then the spawned thread dies. In real programs, you need to message data / objects between threads and this will cause a rethink in program flow. This will happen but it's going to take time and effort. Think paid upgrades for this amount of programming.

[Luca]

That's enough. This is being discussed elsewhere.