Apple Makes the Switch: iMac G5 vs. iMac Core Duo
Review by Anand Lal Shimpi
For detailed review go to : AnandTech
Final Words
I do stand by my comments however, that the current Intel based Macs are more of a public beta test than something the masses should transition to. The problem is quite plainly the dependence on Rosetta. If you find yourself running applications that are all Universal today, then the new iMac is a wonderful solution, however anything that requires Rosetta to run is going to hurt. If you absolutely have to buy a machine today and it absolutely had to be an iMac, the early adopter in me would still recommend the Intel based offering, but it would be full of painful times as you wait for application support.
This is the second Apple article I've written where I've felt that their base memory configurations are way off balance, especially on the Intel side of things. If you are expected to have to use Rosetta for things like Microsoft Office, you're going to need more than 512MB of memory. And Rosetta aside, if you're going to use iLife applications as they were intended, you're going to need more than 512MB. Given Apple's history with memory upgrades, we'll probably see them move to 1GB standard late this year with their Powermac replacement, but until then I can at least complain.
As far as performance of the new Intel based Macs go, at least in Universal applications, it's quite good. While the G5 was clearly no slouch, in many cases offering performance better than a Core Solo processor, it does lose the performance per watt battle. It's also worth noting that a pair of G5s could never make it into an iMac of this form factor, meaning that the Core Duo's dual core performance advantages are reasonable to flaunt.
More than anything I am interested to see how long it takes to bring Intel's compiler technology to the OS X platform. As Johan pointed out in his series on the G5, gcc 4.0 doesn't exactly produce the best code for AMD/Intel architectures, especially when compared to Intel's own C compilers. At last year's Fall IDF Intel had a session on their compilers and OS X, so I tend to believe that things will get faster for Intel based Macs over time. Not only when Rosetta is no longer needed, but also as applications are better optimized for their architecture (e.g. Quicktime).
I'll close, as always, on a note about the future. We've seen that today, Intel already has the performance per watt crown with the Core Duo, and they also have the power advantage, consuming a third less power than a similarly clocked G5. Yet the first Intel based Macs are nothing more than the G5 versions with a different motherboard and cooling. You tend to not over design your chassis when you are Apple, you design them to be as sleek and as minimal as possible. With the Core Duo based iMac consistently consuming 20 - 30W less than the G5 version, you can expect that the truly exciting Intel based Macs are the ones that don't look like these. It's those that I would personally wait for.
Review by Anand Lal Shimpi
For detailed review go to : AnandTech
Final Words
I do stand by my comments however, that the current Intel based Macs are more of a public beta test than something the masses should transition to. The problem is quite plainly the dependence on Rosetta. If you find yourself running applications that are all Universal today, then the new iMac is a wonderful solution, however anything that requires Rosetta to run is going to hurt. If you absolutely have to buy a machine today and it absolutely had to be an iMac, the early adopter in me would still recommend the Intel based offering, but it would be full of painful times as you wait for application support.
This is the second Apple article I've written where I've felt that their base memory configurations are way off balance, especially on the Intel side of things. If you are expected to have to use Rosetta for things like Microsoft Office, you're going to need more than 512MB of memory. And Rosetta aside, if you're going to use iLife applications as they were intended, you're going to need more than 512MB. Given Apple's history with memory upgrades, we'll probably see them move to 1GB standard late this year with their Powermac replacement, but until then I can at least complain.
As far as performance of the new Intel based Macs go, at least in Universal applications, it's quite good. While the G5 was clearly no slouch, in many cases offering performance better than a Core Solo processor, it does lose the performance per watt battle. It's also worth noting that a pair of G5s could never make it into an iMac of this form factor, meaning that the Core Duo's dual core performance advantages are reasonable to flaunt.
More than anything I am interested to see how long it takes to bring Intel's compiler technology to the OS X platform. As Johan pointed out in his series on the G5, gcc 4.0 doesn't exactly produce the best code for AMD/Intel architectures, especially when compared to Intel's own C compilers. At last year's Fall IDF Intel had a session on their compilers and OS X, so I tend to believe that things will get faster for Intel based Macs over time. Not only when Rosetta is no longer needed, but also as applications are better optimized for their architecture (e.g. Quicktime).
I'll close, as always, on a note about the future. We've seen that today, Intel already has the performance per watt crown with the Core Duo, and they also have the power advantage, consuming a third less power than a similarly clocked G5. Yet the first Intel based Macs are nothing more than the G5 versions with a different motherboard and cooling. You tend to not over design your chassis when you are Apple, you design them to be as sleek and as minimal as possible. With the Core Duo based iMac consistently consuming 20 - 30W less than the G5 version, you can expect that the truly exciting Intel based Macs are the ones that don't look like these. It's those that I would personally wait for.