Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TimothyMDean

Performance of new iMac vs. old?

Recommended Posts

I am considering an upgrade of an old iMac G4 to one of the new Intel models. I've been reading performance reports that compare the new Intel iMacs to a recent PPC iMac G5, but I've having a hard time deciding what that means when going from a 4+ year old G4 (one of the old models with the half-sphere base shape)

 

This Mac is used primarily by my wife, who uses nothing but MS Office applications. If I've understood correctly, MS office does not yet come in a Universal binary form, so I expect it will run slower than on the latest PPC versions. But I'm wondering if I'd see a slowdown for MS office when compared to this old iMac's performance.

 

Can anyone provide any information or point of reference that I can use here? I'd hate to get my wife this new iMac only to find that the apps she uses on her old Mac work even slower on the new Mac.

 

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically (What I think)

G4<intel<G5

So the G5 is the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am considering an upgrade of an old iMac G4 to one of the new Intel models. I've been reading performance reports that compare the new Intel iMacs to a recent PPC iMac G5, but I've having a hard time deciding what that means when going from a 4+ year old G4 (one of the old models with the half-sphere base shape)

 

This Mac is used primarily by my wife, who uses nothing but MS Office applications. If I've understood correctly, MS office does not yet come in a Universal binary form, so I expect it will run slower than on the latest PPC versions. But I'm wondering if I'd see a slowdown for MS office when compared to this old iMac's performance.

 

Can anyone provide any information or point of reference that I can use here? I'd hate to get my wife this new iMac only to find that the apps she uses on her old Mac work even slower on the new Mac.

 

Any thoughts?

 

From what I have heard office actually runs quite fast (almost faster as some people say) in Rosetta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I have heard office actually runs quite fast (almost faster as some people say) in Rosetta.

 

Hmm - I've seen a bunch of reports of apps running under Rosetta being much slower than running on a G5. Have I been misinformed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically (What I think)

G4<intel<G5

So the G5 is the best.

 

Makes sense, and that is what I would expect. However, it seems like the degree of difference between each would depend on whether we were talking about native applications or Rosetta-based applications. In my case, I'm worried specifically about Rosetta-based applications.

 

So do you have any evidence or anecdotal stories that make you think that a Rosetta-based app like the current MS office would be faster than Office running on a G4? If I could be confident that this were true, I'd go order my new Intel iMac right away!

 

Thanks for the feedback..

 

- Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

basically here is my take on the situation...

 

Tiger was never designed to opperate nativly on intel. I assume they had it in the works but there i only so much r&d anyone is willing to do before a product can ship.

My point is all the intel macs will be very simmilar to the G5 variations until we get an OS specifically written for them...in comes OSX 10.5 Leopard - Late 06. I am expecting it to e a significant speed boost on intel macs, and maybe not even existing on ppc at all.

 

in rosetta terms. MS office was partly written into rosetta so people would not complain too much on the speed differences. its slower than on a native g5 but it'll be faster than photoshop...Tried it in a store, takes longer to load into word but once its running its great...

 

Lastly on Rosetta - consider the mac you buy an investment. I've just bought a MacBookPro. I will have to suffer with rosetta until photoshop and dreamweaver comes out mid 06/early07 but there are things we can do to help...RAM RAM RAM...when Adobe announced that they would be not putting out a dual binary any time soon they said Ram will help, and since OSX is so dependant on Ram anyway then its probably to max out the ram, from crucial.com, when buying the machine...

 

UBinaries

4-5times faster...maybe but I don't think the current version of xcode is streamlined enough yet. when the next version is released I do think we'll have speed boosts in apps again, possibly closer to the Apple anouncements, but Steve doesn't lie...he just tells the truth from his perspective

 

One more thing...

cfsporn>>Basically (What I think)

>>G4<intel<G5

>>So the G5 is the best.

man, I love ya, get over the chip thing or go on springer...its not what matters, you'll break my heart with tis never ending rant on intel...go buy that g5 imac, or better yet buy the new intel model and try it out...oh man, get over it...seriously...you crazy guy...I'm amazed this matters so much to you, I just...I'm already gone mad, whatever...change your avatar to a ppc chip!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, you are doing apps that have not been ported yet! That changes everything. An intel will be the same speed as a G4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, you are doing apps that have not been ported yet! That changes everything. An intel will be the same speed as a G4.

Can you say that as a fact? I don't think so. I don't think it is a universal fact that all rosetta apps run at the speed of a G4. Look at the pro apps for example, they sure don't run at G4 speed (as they won't run at all!) so why don't you get over the chip change, and move on. It happened, it's over, your precious G5 won't be around forever. It's life.

 

TimothyMDean:

As I said, I have heard that office runs quite nicely on Rosetta, you may want to go to a store and try it out. They usually have apps installed on the demo machines :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like performance for MS Office should be at least comparable when I switch from the G4 to an Intel iMac. As long as that's the case, I can comfortably by the new iMac now rather than waiting for universal binary versions of MS Office.

 

Thanks for all the great feedback!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, you are doing apps that have not been ported yet! That changes everything. An intel will be the same speed as a G4.

Can you say that as a fact? I don't think so. I don't think it is a universal fact that all rosetta apps run at the speed of a G4. Look at the pro apps for example, they sure don't run at G4 speed (as they won't run at all!) so why don't you get over the chip change, and move on. It happened, it's over, your precious G5 won't be around forever. It's life.

 

TimothyMDean:

As I said, I have heard that office runs quite nicely on Rosetta, you may want to go to a store and try it out. They usually have apps installed on the demo machines :)

I am just reporting off of tests that have been done. However I did test a intel iMac and it was just as fast as my G5 on Universal apps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like performance for MS Office should be at least comparable when I switch from the G4 to an Intel iMac. As long as that's the case, I can comfortably by the new iMac now rather than waiting for universal binary versions of MS Office.

 

For what it's worth I had a long play in an Apple Store on an Intel iMac and MS Word seemed quicker than it is on my G4 Mac Mini. What exactly that says I'm not sure as I've never used Word on a G5.

 

However, Word does take two or three seconds to initially load on the Intel machine, but after that it seemed pretty quick. Subsequent loads are much faster. I believe Rosetta caches previously converted PPC code.

 

I noticed the memory footprint of Word is much greater than on my G4(presumably due to Rosetta). I have 1gb of memory on my Mac Mini and if/when I do get a new Intel iMac I'll definately need a minimum of 1gb RAM as I'll be using a fair few old Rosetta emulated apps.

 

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that if you are looking at buying a new computer today then you should buy an intel based machine because as someone else mentioned you are makeing an investment in future performance. Currently there is a lot of stuff that is faster on a g5 still [adobe, microsoft, etc.] but the intel based units are faster already when running universal binaries and they will only get faster as software catches up. PowerPC macs are old technology. The performance is only going to fall as intel stuff continues to increase with software that is further optimized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say that if you are looking at buying a new computer today then you should buy an intel based machine because as someone else mentioned you are makeing an investment in future performance.  Currently there is a lot of stuff that is faster on a g5 still [adobe, microsoft, etc.] but the intel based units are faster already when running universal binaries and they will only get faster as software catches up.  PowerPC macs are old technology.  The performance is only going to fall as intel stuff continues to increase with software that is further optimized.

 

Thanks for the recommendations. My question was never really about whether I should upgrade to an Intel iMac or not. Rather, it was about whether to upgrade now or later, once applications like Office have had a chance to release universal binaries. Given that my wife uses almost exclusively MS office for her day-to-day work, it didn't make sense to upgrade right away if performance was going to be really bad as compared to her existing G4.

 

Based on feedback here and other reviews I read, I think I am fairly safe in doing the upgrade now without seeing a drop in performance from a G4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking more specifically for the performance of adobe programs but from what I can get out of the conversations I have had with various people and with Adobe is that the performance will be similar to a G4 when you are running rosetta and for everything else it will be a huge upgrade from what you have now. That being said it is always a good idea to wait a bit for brand new technology if you can. So I would say wait if you can stand it but if not you will still see a big upgrade and what can I say I am not going to wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say that if you are looking at buying a new computer today then you should buy an intel based machine because as someone else mentioned you are makeing an investment in future performance. Currently there is a lot of stuff that is faster on a g5 still [adobe, microsoft, etc.] but the intel based units are faster already when running universal binaries and they will only get faster as software catches up. PowerPC macs are old technology. The performance is only going to fall as intel stuff continues to increase with software that is further optimized.

 

Thanks for the recommendations. My question was never really about whether I should upgrade to an Intel iMac or not. Rather, it was about whether to upgrade now or later, once applications like Office have had a chance to release universal binaries. Given that my wife uses almost exclusively MS office for her day-to-day work, it didn't make sense to upgrade right away if performance was going to be really bad as compared to her existing G4.

 

Based on feedback here and other reviews I read, I think I am fairly safe in doing the upgrade now without seeing a drop in performance from a G4.

 

 

Unless you exclusively use Apple's Pro Software products, I would wait until the software you use is released in Universal Binaries. It could be 6 months to a year wait for the software upgrades, chances are there will be faster hardware by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
basically here is my take on the situation...

 

Tiger was never designed to opperate nativly on intel. I assume they had it in the works but there i only so much r&d anyone is willing to do before a product can ship.

My point is all the intel macs will be very simmilar to the G5 variations until we get an OS specifically written for them...in comes OSX 10.5 Leopard - Late 06. I am expecting it to e a significant speed boost on intel macs, and maybe not even existing on ppc at all.

 

WRONG! Wow...this is total FUD. Since 10.0 (I think) Apple has had an x86 version of OS X in the works...just in case. Tiger was designed from the get-go to be x86 ready in Apple's super secret labs. So was Jaguar and Panther. It was specifically written for x86, so people, get over it.

Time to move on...PPC is a great architecture, but Apple had to go for an all in one solution. Intel can fab processors, motherboards, networking gear, ect. That's the total package. That's why they didn't go with AMD, AMD only supplies processors. You've gotta contract out the motherboard work to someone else, which may cause headaches. Anyone remember 10.0? It had it's share of bugs (even PPC native). The software will get better with time, as will the hardware. We need to stop having such an emotional attachment to processors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
basically here is my take on the situation...

 

Tiger was never designed to opperate nativly on intel. I assume they had it in the works but there i only so much r&d anyone is willing to do before a product can ship.

My point is all the intel macs will be very simmilar to the G5 variations until we get an OS specifically written for them...in comes OSX 10.5 Leopard - Late 06. I am expecting it to e a significant speed boost on intel macs, and maybe not even existing on ppc at all.

 

WRONG! Wow...this is total FUD. Since 10.0 (I think) Apple has had an x86 version of OS X in the works...just in case. Tiger was designed from the get-go to be x86 ready in Apple's super secret labs. So was Jaguar and Panther. It was specifically written for x86, so people, get over it.

Time to move on...PPC is a great architecture, but Apple had to go for an all in one solution. Intel can fab processors, motherboards, networking gear, ect. That's the total package. That's why they didn't go with AMD, AMD only supplies processors. You've gotta contract out the motherboard work to someone else, which may cause headaches. Anyone remember 10.0? It had it's share of bugs (even PPC native). The software will get better with time, as will the hardware. We need to stop having such an emotional attachment to processors.

 

i call foul on you! lol Apple went intel because AMD didn't perform to Apple's standard for performance per watt and heat issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
basically here is my take on the situation...

 

Tiger was never designed to opperate nativly on intel. I assume they had it in the works but there i only so much r&d anyone is willing to do before a product can ship.

My point is all the intel macs will be very simmilar to the G5 variations until we get an OS specifically written for them...in comes OSX 10.5 Leopard - Late 06. I am expecting it to e a significant speed boost on intel macs, and maybe not even existing on ppc at all.

 

WRONG! Wow...this is total FUD. Since 10.0 (I think) Apple has had an x86 version of OS X in the works...just in case. Tiger was designed from the get-go to be x86 ready in Apple's super secret labs. So was Jaguar and Panther. It was specifically written for x86, so people, get over it.

Time to move on...PPC is a great architecture, but Apple had to go for an all in one solution. Intel can fab processors, motherboards, networking gear, ect. That's the total package. That's why they didn't go with AMD, AMD only supplies processors. You've gotta contract out the motherboard work to someone else, which may cause headaches. Anyone remember 10.0? It had it's share of bugs (even PPC native). The software will get better with time, as will the hardware. We need to stop having such an emotional attachment to processors.

 

i call foul on you! lol Apple went intel because AMD didn't perform to Apple's standard for performance per watt and heat issues.

Amd was not chosen because of their lack of a mobile chip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not because of the mobile chip, AMD has the turion tech its because of performance per watt especially for the notebooks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
basically here is my take on the situation...

 

Tiger was never designed to opperate nativly on intel. I assume they had it in the works but there i only so much r&d anyone is willing to do before a product can ship.

My point is all the intel macs will be very simmilar to the G5 variations until we get an OS specifically written for them...in comes OSX 10.5 Leopard - Late 06. I am expecting it to e a significant speed boost on intel macs, and maybe not even existing on ppc at all.

 

WRONG! Wow...this is total FUD. Since 10.0 (I think) Apple has had an x86 version of OS X in the works...just in case. Tiger was designed from the get-go to be x86 ready in Apple's super secret labs. So was Jaguar and Panther. It was specifically written for x86, so people, get over it.

Time to move on...PPC is a great architecture, but Apple had to go for an all in one solution. Intel can fab processors, motherboards, networking gear, ect. That's the total package. That's why they didn't go with AMD, AMD only supplies processors. You've gotta contract out the motherboard work to someone else, which may cause headaches. Anyone remember 10.0? It had it's share of bugs (even PPC native). The software will get better with time, as will the hardware. We need to stop having such an emotional attachment to processors.

 

i call foul on you! lol Apple went intel because AMD didn't perform to Apple's standard for performance per watt and heat issues.

Amd was not chosen because of their lack of a mobile chip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PERFORMANCE PER WATT

 

And hence you have bought in to Steve's Reality Distortion Field.

 

Believe what you want, but Intel does provide Apple with a total solution. Think about the iPod...Intel manufactures the XScale chip series. Cry foul all you want, but it's not all about performance per watt..it's what Intel can provide Apple with in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats one of the main reasons Apple switched and how have i fallend into Steves reality distortion field?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Performance per watt is part of the reason Apple switched to Intel without a doubt; it's also part of what Intel is offering Apple for the future. Apple made a business choice in going with Intel. They are one of the best known (Intel Inside goes a really long way in the non-tech world; think about it), most respected, most adept with dealing with a high volume demand, most advanced, cheapest and best mobile chip manufacturers in the world. Intel have a LOT to offer Apple without a doubt, and more in the future, PPW is just a part of that (a large part, but just a part none the less).

 

Haven't we discussed this before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point i'd like to add is that if apple went AMD they would have to also find a chipset and motherboard manufacture. Where as apple got a total package from Intel. Thus making life far simpler in terms of supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×