|
Posted on 01/24/2006 12:11:29 AM PST by Swordmaker
Steve Jobs' much publicised claim of a two-to-three-times speed increase in the new Intel-based iMac is bunkem, according to the latest benchmark tests.
The new Intel-based iMac G5 is not much faster than its PowerPC predecessor, Macworld has discovered.
Macworld benchmarks show that the iMac G5 running an Intel 2.0 GHz Core Duo gained only between 10 to 25 percent in performance compared to the IBM architecture, far lower than the doubling in throughput widely claimed by Apple.
The magazine carried out a series of tasks using two Apple applications, iMovie and iPhoto, discovering that performance boost ranged from worthy to absolutely nothing, depending on the application function tested.
For Apple applications that aren’t yet Intel native - running using the Rosetta emulator - the performance is only half what it would be on the PowerPC architecture that preceded the switch to Intel.
This is potentially calamitous for the average Mac user because until Apple applications arrive that have been compiled to run on the Intel chips natively, they will be forced to use Rosetta and see performance drop compared to their PowerPC machines.
The uncomfortable irony in this is that after years of rubbishing everything to do with Intel for its association with mainstream PCs, Apple performed a remarkable u-turn once it decided to move to the Intel architecture.
The company’s website projects the performance gain expected from the new chips with as much hyperbole as it can muster. “This revolutionary bit of technology is actually two processors built into a single chip, giving iMac up to twice the horsepower it had previously. So the wows will come faster than ever before,” it purred.
Now it transpires that the two processors add up to more like one-and-a-bit processors in extra zip, about what you’d expect given that this is the latest dual-core design.
The magazine puts forward an explanation for the gulf between what is claimed and what has been found to be the case - biased benchmarking.
Apple generated the spectacular doubling in performance by using what are known as "synthetic benchmarks", programs designed to test chip throughput using raw approximations of how applications behave. Long a controversial subject in chip testing, these benchmarks do not necessarily correspond to the actual performance users will experience with real-world applications.
Vendors are assumed to exaggerate performance hikes from new chips, so it is not a surprise that the move to Intel has not yet generated the returns claimed for it. But this is an unusually sensitive time for Apple. It is in the process of moving its loyal user base to a new hardware platform and needs them to keep paying premium prices for its hardware.
In particular, it is apparent from the disappointing scores from the Rosetta emulator that the key to this historic move will be the availability of new, native applications such as Adobe Photoshop and not simply the underlying chip platform.
|
Software that is designed to be multi-threaded will see the 2x-3x improvement in performance. Software that runs on only one processor will get only a small improvement.
The article is a load of bunk.
First off the author is mistaken about the name of the new iMac. It is not an "iMac G5". Secondly there is nothing in the article that is new. Everyone already knows that using Rosetta is going to cause a performance hit until native applications come out.
I remember the negative press when Apple switched to OS X. That was perhaps a far more challenging transition than the one faced by Apple's switch to Intel. Given Rosetta and Apple's developer tools, the transition to Intel should be quicker.
People who buy an Intel iMac and expect PowerPC applications to run twice as fast are probably the same people who vote Democrat and expect tax cuts.
Hell, even my Asteroids is running fine in emulation mode.
Quit bitching!
To be fair, Jobs' claims came from a special, optimized benchmark. He was being truthful, but truthful about a meaningless benchmark. Performance for native Intel apps is about 20% better, which is still a great improvement.
Now I just need to actually buy a MacBook Pro... it's difficult being in college, with no job. Damn.
Talking to me or the author of the article?
Do I detect a bias in the author of this article? Yup.
"Oops" ping.
When hasn't it been?
Walt Mossberg said that the performance under emulation was the same as that on the previous Imac. Where did they get this 50% performance drop?
I think someone who doesn't wait a year before buying an Intel machine, is nuts.
Yes, but how about Quark Xpress & Photoshop?
Right. The system as a whole has a 2x-3x aggregate performance improvement (how many things you can run at the same time how fast). That's not to say for any one particular program running by itself that it will go that fast -- it may, but of course, performance varies. And he did make the claim about the specific benchmarks -- just like all his competitors do. He was very clear they were benchmarks and in fact that all benchmark numbers are a little exaggerated (if you watch the video).
On the other hand, I was in the store and played around with one for a few minutes over the weekend and it certainly SEEMED very fast for interactive usage, even for things running under Rosetta. So I don't think that its speed will particularly disappoint anyone.
On the other hand, it's certainly fun to try taking down Steve Jobs a notch :-)
That will be difficult. This week, he'll net about $4 billion by selling Pixar and exercising his Apple options.
That will be difficult. This week, he'll net about $4 billion by selling Pixar and exercising his Apple options.
I guess that's why there hasn't been a big blowout price on the PPC models.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
