Slashdot Mirror
Intel Mac Performance Behind Hype
Barry Norton writes "Steve Jobs, at the MacWorld tradeshow, boasted: 'the new iMac [with] Intel processor is two to three times faster than the iMac G5.' MacWorld (the publication) has been putting the iMacs through their paces. The results are a good deal less impressive than Steve's boast, showing an average performance increase of 10 to 25 per cent while performing a series of everyday tasks with software specially designed for the new systems." Ars Technica had another perspective on the new systems earlier this week.
Company performs benchmarks to show product in best light!
From http://www.apple.com/imac/intelcoreduo.html:
2. Testing conducted by Apple in December 2005 using preproduction 20-inch iMac units with 2GHz Intel Core Duo; all other systems were shipping units. All scores are estimated.SPEC is a registered trademark of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC); see www.spec.org for more information. Benchmarks were compiled using the IBM compiler and a beta version of the Intel compiler for Mac OS.
3. Testing conducted by Apple in December 2005 using preproduction 20-inch iMac units with 2GHz Intel Core Duo; all other systems were shipping units. All of the iMac and iMac G5 systems ran beta Universal version of Modo. All other applications were beta versions.
And since actual application performance has been subjective since the dawn of time, how is this surprising?
I mean, we're talking about a company that said no one wanted flash players until they made one, that no one wanted to watch video on an iPod until they made an iPod that played video, and that said all x86 architecture and CISC processors sucked until they switched to them.
And you know what? All of the above statements had significant elements of truth to them. Apple is doing nothing more than showing its products, accurately insofar as it goes, in the best possible light. Is this the least bit stunning?
Steve Jobs said that he was talking about the processors being faster...and he specifically said not everything is going to be faster like the hard drives and memory etc etc. Just the processors which is why he showed the SPECmarks or whatever this phantom benchmark that, to my knowledge, isn't a free download from anywhere. Or was I the only one that heard him prefacing the results?
Oh well, let the Mac bashing continue, blood is in the water.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Despite the switch to Intel CPUs, the time honored tradition of "Apple benchmarks" continues :)
Steve Jobs was reporting improvments in CPU benchmarks, but the article refers to application benchmarks.
The CPU is going to be doing different things from those benchmarks in those applications- and may not even be the bottleneck in any given "real world" task.
Now whether Steve should have demonstrated "real world" improvements is up for debate, but all he presented were CPU benchmarks. He made no claim about application performance.
But what was more significant was his frank acknowledgement that Photoshop operating via Rosetta wasn't going to be usable by professionals. The people jumping on the accusation of hype bandwagon need to take those comments into consideration. It's not often that on a new product rollout something is said that directly translates into "Hey, don't go out and buy this right now."
You do realize there is a *reason* no one has tried such, right?
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Let's reserve judgement for "Mac Pro" (that is, the pro level desktop machine) when it comes out. There will be no excuses at all if that machine does not kick serious ass.
The Core Duo is about twice as fast because, as Steve said, each core is about as fast as a G5 and there are two of them.
This means that for most tasks which are single-threaded (searching for text in BBEdit) there's going to be a modest or zero speed increase. For those rare tasks that are written to be multithreaded it'll be ~1.8x as fast (thread overhead, bus contention, etc.)
I'm not surprised either by Steve's stated SPEC benchmarks or real world app benchmarks. That's how concurrency works in the real world whether it's on a dual-core Mac running OSX or a dual-core Athlon running Linux.
Yep. I have an older 1GHz G4 PowerBook and just received the iMac 2.0 GHz dual-core. I compiled Qt 4.1 for both, and *roughly* (I wasn't paying exact attention to the clock) the iMac compiled the entire library (identical configure options) about 7 times faster than the single G4. About what I'd expect. For my shorter jobs it's also about 6-7x faster. The compiler (gcc) utilizes both cores nicely, as I can see with the system load monitor.
Actually, the memory is a lot faster on the new machines, but you're absolutely right about disk and all that other stuff.
Just so people don't have to fast-forward through the keynote (which is over an hour long), here's what Steve Jobs actually said about iMac Core Duo performance compared to the iMac G5:
So, what Jobs is saying is that the SPECint2000 and the SPECfp2000 performance is 2-3 times as fast, and he's also saying that those benchmarks are important, which admittedly is debatable. :-)
For what it's worth, I noticed that lots of the MacWorld tests focused on image processing. That's a useful thing to know about, but aren't most of thoses tasks going to be done using special stuff like Altivec or SSE? If that's the case, they're not really good comparisons of the regular performance of the processors.
I'd love to see some tests with Pro Apps like Apeture and Final Cut Pro. The other telling one would be Maya for rendering. Most people don't need their word processor to run faster but higher end graphics software needs speed. The Apple tests seemed to lean on the side of graphics intensive software so I'm curious about those numbers. I did play with Apeture on one. It was a single chip dual core. Opening files and some functions hesitated but we're talking RAW files on a single chip machine. I was pretty impressed and I'm not a Mac person. I'm sure if most of that was Apeture and not the machine but it's pretty amazing either way. There definately seems to be an overall speed increase no matter who tests them. These are transitional machines and they are selling basically for what current Macs of a similar speed do. I have to believe once they settle in and the chips are better supported they will be much faster. One of the biggest benefits no one hardly talks about is hardware multitasking. I think if you started a shot rendering say in Maya then started working on a model in Modo you'd find little or no slow down if Maya was set to single node. Normally the apps would be stepping on each other. I haven't had a chance to try running multiple apps since I haven't had a chance to build out a dual chip PC system but there's a definate benefit over software multitasking. I'd give the new Mac a year to settle in before debating speed too seriously. Remember the debacle with the P4s when they came out? They cost a fortune and inspite of denials at the time turned out to be much slower because the apps weren't taking advantage of the P4 architecture. Apple switched to a whole new chipset. Having them come out faster is impressive on it's own. Even the apps that are called native I'm sure need refinements. Most of these aren't going to be optimized for dual chips. Non pro apps normally either don't take advantage or don't take full advantage. With dual core the new standard that will change.
Interesting how all the WinTel fans used to use SPEC benchmarks to bash Macs and the PowerPC processor. Now, in some ironic twist of fate, the same people are using the fact that SPECmarks are fairly useless to say that Apple is lying. The bottom line is that the benchmarks are useless except for people doing specialized tasks. The amount of work you can get done in a day has not changed much unless you do serious rendering work, finite element work, or something similarly CPU intensive.
Let's see...the hardware costs about $900. It comes with MacOSX and iLife '06. Apple sells that software for about $200 retail. Plus you get features that aren't available on most PC's, like the built in iSight camera--and the software to run it is an integral part of the OS.
I think the *value* of the Mac package exceeds the budget basement PC you're trying to compare it to. Price out the software for the PC to match the Mac and it won't even be close.
Xcode includes 4.0.1 of GCC but apple was using GCC 3.x to compile the kernel in 10.4. Kernel modules are C++, so it wasn't possible to use GCC 4.0 yet. (since GCC 4 tried to be more compliant.. even KDE 3.x didn't compile on it) Apple said they used intel compilers for the testing though I believe on the intel macs and ibm's compiler for the ppc build. I wish they would have used GCC since its more fair in a way. If anything its optimized for the x86 platform more, but its more apples to apples. :)
Only intel zealots would think that an intel chip would be 3 times faster anyway. POWER isn't that bad or Microsoft wouldn't have put them in xbox 360s. Another factor is that the software "optimized" for x86 hasn't been out long. Sure apple's been keeping the old nextstep port alive all these years (it ran on intel and 68k), but making it run and tuning it for the latest pentium chip are two different things.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
For one, UI responsiveness and multitasking. I know that if I've got an application soaking up all of 1 processor, I'm not going to cause it to go belly-up by shoving it in the background and surfing the web while some single-threaded app happily churns away on that thread.
<Mac Snobbery>Oh, and that reminds me of the nicest feature of OS X: That pop-ups can't take the focus away from you. I hate hitting spacebar, thinking I'm typing into Notepad, and actually I've agreed to a window that flashed up on my screen for about a half a second and I'm wondering if I just bought viagra.</Mac Snobbery>
Right on both counts, and I think these are the reasons:
People who actually will buy a top-of-the-line system because a few extra FLOPS saves them hours and hours of time running photoshop filters are going to see the improvements because by and large, the applications that they use are designed to leverage multiple processors. If they're not, they need to bitch at their vendors, because that's ostensibly why Photoshop costs x-hundred dollars.
People like me, who just want to run World of Warcraft in the foreground and have safari open to look things up on Thottbot as necessary and surf the web during transit, are going to notice the UI responsiveness. Nothing's more annoying than when I can't click on Start for 10 seconds because I'm ripping a CD, or the Java VM is starting up for the first time at the behest of a web application running in the background.
Single-threaded performance is slightly overrated. No task I do, except compilation, gaming, and XSLT transformations, is going to benefit heavily from being twice as fast, even on a single thread. If you stuck a gigabyte of ram into my circa-2001 1GHz P3, set it up next to my office 3.2GHz P4 with HT disabled, and had me take the Pepsi Challenge, I would be hard-pressed to tell the difference in most of the applications I use without getting a stop watch or running Doom 3.
Wait, I don't get it. Are we making fun of Apple because now it appears that G4/5 CPUs are actually about the same as Intel?
Isn't this what Mac lovers have been saying for the past 10 years, but were laughed out of the room?
Does Intel automatically start sucking, because Apple moves to the the CPU? Does PPC get magically better?
Maybe those Macs that were "1/2 as fast and twice as expensive" for the last few years weren't really so slow or so expensive after all--meaning who's the fool?
--
$tar -xvf
...with the exception that I/O Kit and the HFS+ filesystem seem to think a hard drive is a floppy and do their best to set its performance to that level.
I fully understand that my wife's iMac isn't an Xserve, but holy cow, the drive is slow. I'm not exaggerating when I say that the estimate stage of an Amanda backup - that is, basically running "tar --file /dev/null" - takes over an hour to complete on 20GB of content.
For a (not very) quick comparison, here's how long that process takes to run on my home directory on my FreeBSD desktop:
On the Mac, though, we see:Even though my home directory in the Mac has 35% fewer files and directories to glance at, the tar run takes 17 times longer.
Now, I don't want to be that "a file copy takes 20 minutes!" guy, but this thing really is incredibly slow at certain operations. Just because parts of OS X have a Unix heritage doesn't mean that the whole package has Unix-like performance.
Buy a Mac because you like the OS and applications. We did. If you buy one because you think it's going to dominate all available benchmarks, though, then you're going to be sadly disappointed.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Only intel zealots would think that an intel chip would be 3 times faster anyway. POWER isn't that bad or Microsoft wouldn't have put them in xbox 360s. Another factor is that the software "optimized" for x86 hasn't been out long. Sure apple's been keeping the old nextstep port alive all these years (it ran on intel and 68k), but making it run and tuning it for the latest pentium chip are two different things.
It's not. The iMac Intel just has a dual core processor. The actual increase in speed from a G5 to a Core Duo is only about 10~25%, the rest just comes from getting two of them.
So, SURPRISE, comsumer level single-threaded apps only get a 10~25% increase, it's AMAZING.
I am unamerican, and proud of it!