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.
When I say "his iMac," I mean the brand-new Intel-based Apple he just received as a demonstrator (whatever it is called).
Keep in mind, the MacBook Jobs demonstrated was in fact a prototype...Apple now confirms that production models are not ready yet. Also, InfoWorld had an acerbic bit on the inflated performance claims.
On this test they are using only one 512 Ram stick in a machine designed for two matched sticks. Apple's and Mossberg's figures are based on a iMac with two 1Gig (2 gigabytes) sticks.
Apple has stated that Rosetta is a RAM hog... it works much better with lots of RAM.
I don't know... I just bought five 20" G5 iMacs for clients for $1145...
I think if you read the citation carefully, you'll see that the "previous iMac" being referred to is the lamp stand version... 800MHZ.
Who's fudging what, then? I think they're miffed over the Intel changeover.
If you read the comments on the original article, the commentators point out MacWorld's statistical approach is backwards... for example: if the speed is increased from 100 to 150, then it is either a 50% increase or a 33% increase, depending on whether you are looking at the starting speed or the increased speed.
For example Jobs stated that one application was 1.84 TIMES as fast on the new machine compared to the old... that is either a 54% increase... or 84% faster... almost twice as fast... or only 1/3 faster. Depends on perspective.
Reminds me of Mark Twain's line about there being three kinds of lies. Anyway, I plan to replace my Powerbook sometime in the not-to-distant future but I think I'll wait until there are a couple of more iterations of the Macbook until I make my move.
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.