New intel Macs

Well, no one has mentioned "Inpple" yet - sounds like something that grows on the surface of your skin where the sun doesn't shine.

GOSH! I've been sitting on this Inpple for a week now and it hasn't gone away! Do you think I should see a doctor?
 
MBHockey said:
It's pretty clear from benchmarks that if Apple does in fact release an iBook powered by dual-core Yonah's, they will significantly outperform the current PowerBooks.
Click to expand...
Despite Apple's claim that the Intel-based iMac is two or three times faster than the G5-based Mac that preceeded it, the MacBench tests are in, and the Intel-based iMac is quite a bit slower than the G5-based iMac.

http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=150870
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=150801
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=150688

You can compare them to other Macs here:

http://db.xbench.com/
 
I'm so tired of these tests. They are utterly meaningless. Apple's numbers are junk and these numbers are junk. I want to see info like at www.barefeats.com.

A "Floating Point" score of 67 doesn't mean anything to anyone. What matters is how long my iMovies take to render, my MP3s to rip, my Photoshop filters to run, my frame rate in Halo, my iPhoto database to process, my scrolling in PDFs and my searches via Spotlight (and so on).

I don't there will be any question that the new iMacs will be faster at most everything I mentioned above (assuming native apps). But I could be wrong. It'll be interesting to see.

According to Luxology, Apple actually UNDER-estimated the speed increase for their particular app:

http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=4782

I'm not saying everything is gonig to be a bed of roses on the new iMacs, but to suggest that the new iMacs are slower is simply not going to prove itself correct.
 
what are apple going to do with the 'mac pro'? i mean, the Yonah is essentially a mobile processor, and very good it is too. does intel have a comparable desktop processor that doesn't need the the speed/heat/power compromise?

i mean, the yonah held up pretty well against desktop athlon64's buyt they still beat it. i get the feeling that the intel macs currently selling are the fastest they can do, and as such doesn't really bode well for the powermacs replacements.

another thought i had is that the iMac is not what it should be. they boast that it's less than 2 inches thick, but it could be a lot smaller now, i mean, that was the smallest case they could possibly put a G5 into, with cooling. now the imac is little more than a desktop macbook pro, so why isn't it sized accordingly? why isn't it an inch thick, with bugger-all bezelling? i want the imac to be a cinema display in size, is that too much to ask?

it also raises the question of the powermac. this was a case designed from start to finish to offer amazing cooling for a chip that needed it more than anything else. the G5 was a monster of a hot chip, where the intels aren't. the heat sinks no longer need to be that big, nor do there need to be so many fans. the perforations need not be there any more. basically, what i'm saying is that current design is precisely form following function, for a function that is no longer needed. i was dissapointed by the lack of a form factor change for the imac. i will be very dissapointed also if the powermacs suffer the same fate. this is an opportunity to make the gargantuan Powermac smaller, and perhaps prettier.
 
Lt Major Burns said:
it also raises the question of the powermac. this was a case designed from start to finish to offer amazing cooling for a chip that needed it more than anything else. the G5 was a monster of a hot chip, where the intels aren't. the heat sinks no longer need to be that big, nor do there need to be so many fans. the perforations need not be there any more. basically, what i'm saying is that current design is precisely form following function, for a function that is no longer needed. i was dissapointed by the lack of a form factor change for the imac. i will be very dissapointed also if the powermacs suffer the same fate. this is an opportunity to make the gargantuan Powermac smaller, and perhaps prettier.
Click to expand...
I don't think the PM needs to be "prettier" - it's a professional's machine, not for the typical home user. It's not meant to sit on your desk and be stared at all day long.

I wouldn't be disappointed if they kept the same design, but you have a good point in that the current design was heavily created for keeping the temperature cool. The "cheese grater" look keeps good air circulation, and all those fans - !!!

I will be very much looking forward to the "ProMac" with 2 dual core processers. However, isn't "Merom" a mobile chip? Apple's going to want a full desktop chip in their PM replacements, so won't they probably be using the Conroe chip? I also hope that Apple ships more than 512MB in their Intel PMs. If you're going to be buying such a powerful computer, 512MB doesn't cut it at all.
 
These are code names of intel processors. "Yonah" is the core duo currently used in intel iMacs and the MacBook Pro. "Merom" is the processor that will replace Yonah later in 2006. "Conroe" is a desktop processor based on the same development (all these processors are based on the Pentium M, intel's earlier mobile processor).

Merom and Conroe should bring 64bit extensions.
 
Lt Major Burns said:
... i will be very dissapointed also if the powermacs suffer the same fate. this is an opportunity to make the gargantuan Powermac smaller, and perhaps prettier.
Click to expand...
I think by the time the towers are ready there probably will be a design change, but even if it remained the same I hope any space savings will mean more internal drive bays and perhaps SLI.
 
I am still thinking to buy iMac G5, especially now that many people who bought them recently are selling them cheep to buy the new intel model.
Do you think that for the next 2-3 years the new software is gonna be "digestible"
by the "old" G5's?
 
the G5 will be supported for it's lifetime. for the next 4-5 years at least. all software from no on will be universal, so that won't be an issue.

however, there is a reason people are selling their G5's, it's because the intels are that much faster.
 
Anyone knows when the Intel-based desktops will be available?

I don't know if I should buy now a Dual Core PowerMac G5 or wait for a Dual Core Intel based Mac?

Any opinions?
 
intel will only make Conroe (the processor likely to be used by the intel pro Macs) available in the middle of 2006, so I guess we won't see intel based PowerMacs before Summer.
 
I heard someone say today that it's called "Core Duo" which makes you think it has two cores but in actuality it only has one. He said it was a marketing scam. I thought he was getting mixed up between two processors and a single processor with two cores, but he said no. Btw, he was talking about the MacBook.

He's mistaken, correct?
 
Shookster said:
I heard someone say today that it's called "Core Duo" which makes you think it has two cores but in actuality it only has one. He said it was a marketing scam. I thought he was getting mixed up between two processors and a single processor with two cores, but he said no. Btw, he was talking about the MacBook.

He's mistaken, correct?
Click to expand...
Yes he's getting confused. Core Duo = dual cores = 2 processors on 1 chip = MacBook Pro and new iMac :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top