Slashdot Mirror
Ars Technica Reviews Intel iMacs
Milton Waddams writes "Ars kick off what I'm sure will be a torrent of reviews of the of the new Intel iMac. Overall it looks like it's a bit faster than the iMac G5 and a bit slower than the PowerMac G5 dual core. I'm sure it will surprise many slashdotters to find out that Jobs' statements about the new iMac being twice as fast as the iMac G5 as being slightly over optimistic. AND it doesn't run Windows...yet..." I'm still waiting for the most important benchmark: frames per second in molten core combat.
However, the inside is not all that I would have hoped for. According to the article the specs are not just up to the Powermac G5. The concern of myself and many other mac users is the Photoshop/Illustrator/Final Cut/Shake performance. I know that I am not the only mac user out here that prchased a mac over a PC for graphics and video editing. I don't think I'll move over to the intel just yet. I'll wait until rosetta is faster or apps are moved to native intel. We shall see where things are in a couple of years.
Dual (or tri) booting is always desirable for a tech. If one can run Mac ,Linux (or some unix varient), and MS Windows natively all on one machine they are achieved something dreamt about by the great geek high council from the beginning. It is THE holy triniety.
What about *shock* installing XP?
-- The Heineken Uncertainty Principle: You can never be sure how many bears you had last night.
I notices that the iMac Core Duo test machine had only 512MB of memory, while the Power Mac G5 had 4.5GB. Even the iMac G5 had 1GB. One the surface, I think one would have to compare equivalent computing power to understand why these benchmarks aren't quite legitimate.
/gamlidek/
Put 512MB in each of the test machines and _then_ run the tests.. My experience has shown that the amount of physical memory directly relates to performance. More memory == better performance.
cheers,
"In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are not."