MacSpeedZone has benchmarked the new Intel iMac, and they conclude something completely different than MacWorld did not too long ago. "We are pleased to report that our testing results show that the new Dual Core Intel iMac, which clocks in at 2X 2.0GHz is almost as fast as the current high-end Power Mac that has two Dual Core G5 processors running at 2.5GHz." And so it seems people can't seem to come to a consensus on anything related to the Intel iMac. Whether it be speed, or sales.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-01
The "MHz Myth" is the matter of higher clockspeed=better. Were it true you would be clamoring for a Pentium D in your iMac, rather than a Yonah. Or for that matter, the Opteron would be at the mercy of the Xeon.
The moral of your story is that progress is better than its absence.
Member since:2006-01-18
The G5 is NOT really, really, old.
The overall PowerPC architecture has been around some time, but the G5 was only introduced a couple of years ago. It hasn't stood still either - progressing from 130nm->90nm production, and incorporating dual-core. As a 64-bit chip, and with HyperTransport bus (that is over twice the speed of Intel's FSB) it holds two technological advantages over the Core Duo.
Intel processors have not surpassed it - they have more or less caught up. The advantage that Intel does hold over IBM/G5 is in the manufacturing process.
Member since:2005-07-06
Intel processors have not surpassed it - they have more or less caught up. The advantage that Intel does hold over IBM/G5 is in the manufacturing process.
Intel processors surpassed the G5 (in desktop stuff) shortly after it came out. Moreover, its silly to say that Intel holds the advantage over the G5 in manufacturign process, since the Core Duo runs at slower clockspeeds than the G5. In reality, the Core Duo is dramatically faster than the G5, in integer code anyway, simply because its a much better design.
Member since:2006-01-01
It isn't the age of the G5, it's the design space of the processor. Clock-for-clock Yonah is better at integer code. It's weaker in vector processing. This isn't simply because of the differences in the AltiVec and SSE2/3 instruction sets. It has sophisticated power management, rather than fitting into its thermal profile simply because of its manufacturing process. I'm intentionally ignoring the compeitiveness of the Pentium 4 and earlier Pentium M releases.
The thing Intel has over IBM really is an interest in designing general-purpose desktop processors. You'll notice that IBM happily sells Opterons to segments that don't want POWER. And that they happily design and sell embedded and specialized processors in the PPC family.
Member since:
2005-11-10
Regardless, what we all *really* want to see is XP running on a Mac and a side-by-side comparison of Photoshop etc. This will either proove, or dispel 25 years of Myth and Lore from both sides.
And of course it's faster anyway; the G5 is really really old. The MegaHertz Myth has, and always has been pretty much true; but the G5 went out of date a long time ago and Intel Processors surpassed the G5, MHz Myth and all. (So all you people proclaiming the MHz Myth bunk, wake up and realise that whilst the G5 stood still, Intel chips progressed)