MacWorld's iMac Core Duo Benchmarks Debunked?

madgunde writes "Looks like MacWorld magazine was a little premature in reporting that the new Apple iMac Core Duo doesn't live up to Apple's speed claims. The folks over at MacSpeedZone have done some performance testing of their own that debunks MacWorld's results and shows that the new iMac Core Duo DOES live up to the hype. Not only did the new iMac wipe the floor with the old model in their tests, but using MacWorld's own test methodology would allow MacSpeedZone to conclude that the new Intel iMac is almost as fast as a PowerMac Quad G5. " I see only one way to solve this: Give me one. I'll run WoW on it, and decide.

Comments

WoW not such a good benchmarking program...

[eldavojohn]

I see only one way to solve this: Give me one. I'll run WoW on it, and decide.

I hate to break it to you, but the only lag you'll experience from either setup will probably be server side (depending on your realm). I mean, my P4 3.0 Ghz with 2 gigs of RAM and a 6600GT lags sometimes and runs fluid as real life at others.

Many of the users of WoW have done all they can to reduce the lag on their end. It's time for Blizzard to step up to the plate and use the massive amounts of money we give them monthly to get some better servers. I'm not so good with math but 5,000,000 users paying 12 dollars a month is .... $60 million?

OUTGOING

[Anonymous Coward]

HELLO WORLD
63493 63493
HELLO WORLD
68042 68042 48323 48323 48042 48042 32844 32844 44573 44573
29568 29568 46594 46594 29911 29911 93530 93530 57870 57870
13521 13521 76491 76491 44244 44244 20421 20421 34186 34186
30488 30488 66551 66551 91066 91066 28459 28459 74313 74313
14650 14650 60354 60354 16043 16043 65072 65072 69952 69952
76627 76627 63903 63903 91026 91026 04037 04037 13030 13030
84582 84582 63942 63942 03959 03959 12091 12091 47548 47548
19696 19696 96530 96530 65022 65022 88171 88171 65667 65667
98104 98104 16924 16924 66825 66825 58445 58445 57816 57816
59880 59880 23090 23090 24269 24269 32770 32770 85029 85029
92949 92949 68775 68775 43330 43330 94323 94323 84751 84751
50452 50452 67901 67901 10599 10599 71546 71546 85597 85597
68656 68656 93838 93838 08178 08178 28949 28949 02682 02682
81184 81184 37192 37192 64146 64146 95671 95671 67173 67173
51510 51510 78649 78649 95433 95433 42116 42116 15698 15698
30799 30799 87127 87127 99457 99457 10076 10076 68824 68824
07556 07556 51262 51262 89503 89503 67651 67651 16369 16369
98351 98351 44303 44303 67773 67773 24725 24725 74294 74294
89553 89553 74041 74041 62712 62712 60036 60036 99798 99798
53421 53421 00791 00791 71775 71775 44908 44908 93826 93826
34033 34033 87286 87286 11837 11837 37495 37495 98074 98074
99766 99766 40093 40093 87511 87511 34163 34163 25028 25028
65548 65548 33299 33299 31186 31186 97987 97987 97908 97908
79365 79365 82153 82153 22780 22780 98585 98585 57248 57248
42833 42833 73802 73802 96609 96609 93414 93414 38311 38311
73776 73776 80148 80148 16154 16154 07516 07516 50961 50961
01088 01088 56271 56271 93364 93364 19107 19107 77313 77313
92342 92342 01501 01501 67141 67141 02855 02855 19904 19904
78329 78329 56143 56143 95893 95893 48277 48277 02888 02888
46609 46609 33532 33532 26780 26780 25685 25685 49160 49160
69670 69670 66025 66025 90869 90869 77317 77317 75949 75949
40583 40583 44327 44327 33658 33658 41649 41649 50781 50781
80648 80648 39675 39675 12629 12629 56855 56855 79686 79686
69588 69588 67558 67558
K-BYE

Wow

[cosmotron]

This is good to know.

AND It Runs Linux!

[Real World Stuff]

I use posted benchmoarks for a general idea of performance but I know they are not set in stone. I know I am going to tweak the machine anyway and adjust it to my needs and this will impact the way it functions.

Re:Two possible slashdot headlines from next week

[Spazntwich]

I hear they're going to be bundled with Duke Nukem Forever.

that's all very nice..

[LittleGuernica]

But does it run windows yet? i dont know what it takes to run XP or Vista on it, maybe a bit more cowbell, but i really feel that running a dual boor imac really ties the room together, like a nice rug.. i'm dissapointed in the geek community that no one has managed to run windows on it yet...come on! (arrested development style) maybe i should put out a bounty on the wholoe dual boot thing..o wait...

Nah. I call double bullshit

[nagora]

Look at the tasks that MacWorld tested. They're all real things that real people do all the time. Sure, I could write a Towers of Hanoi program in assembler (I have one here I wrote in Forth, if that's any help) which would "max out" the processor useage and run lots faster on the new machines. But who cares?

In the real world computing tasks are dependant on the system, not just the CPU, and a computer that is 9% SLOWER at exporting an image while resizing is NOT going to deliver Job's promise.

Spare CPU capacity is neither here nor there; the user's experience is the time from clicking "go" or whatever to seeing the little timer/bouncing ball turn back to a regular arrow. Because users can't task-switch every 300ns; they click and wait most of the time.

So, MacSpeed's figures are probably correct but totally academic for most users, and MacWorld's figures are probably well short of the machine's capacity but a much better indication of the user's experience.

TWW