Since the publication ofMacworld’sfirst research lab test of the Intel - establish iMac and our subsequent follow-up , there ’s been a massive amount of discussion about our results . There ’s also been a caboodle of confusion and plenty of heated discussion . All the while , we ’ve retain to try out the raw Intel mac , include tot up some new tests as new Universal applications get in on the scene .
So as the Intel transition move into the second month of 2006 , here ’s an update on what we ’ve learned so far about how Intel - based Macs perform .
2x or not 2x?
When Steve Jobs stood on stage at Macworld Expo in January , he claimed that the new iMac ran as much as two to three time quicker than the late iMac , and the new MacBook Pro laptop run as much as four to five multiplication faster than the PowerBook G4 . There was loud applause from the gang and a suspiration of relief from Mac - watchman everywhere .
Of course , as Jobs himself pointed out , those operation claim were base on some very specific tests . WhenMacworldtested the new Intel - based iMac , we find that speeds varied widely — but that many task commonly run by Mac users today only run between 1.1 and 1.3 times as firm ( or , if you opt , 10 to 30 per centum faster ) on the Intel - base 2GHz iMac as on the 2.1GHz iMac G5 . So while Apple ’s iMac web varlet prominently expose a badge proclaiming “ 2x quicker , ” the reality is far more complicated — and for most typical uses , far less spectacular .
But get ’s be clear : Apple was n’t fibbing when it reported that sure tests demonstrate that the young Intel iMac was faster than its predecessor by constituent from 1.9 to 3.2 . However , those tests were cautiously selected to show the new iMacs at their very good , idealistic cases design to put the the new Intel Core Duo chip that powers these systems in the dependable possible light .
We did see likewise dramatic solution in a few of our tests . interpret a 3 - D picture using the Java - based programArt of Illusion , the Intel - base iMac was 3.2 times as fast as its G5 counterpart . ( It was also faster than a dual - processor Power Mac G5 , suggesting that these Intel Macs are much serious than PowerPC - based models when it fall to Java carrying into action . ) In two tests using a not - yet - public Universal beta of Aspyr ’s Doom 3 , the new iMac was 1.7 and 2.1 times better . Yet many of our other tests showed comparatively small speed improvements , with the Intel - found organisation commonly between 1.1 and 1.3 time as tight as the G5 model .
In tests with two iLife ‘ 06 applications — iMovie and iPhoto — we found signally unlike operation reckon on what feature of speech of the programs we tried . For example , the turn of apply one iMovie effect to a video snip resulted in a remarkable f number melioration of 1.8 times . But a different effect showed only half the improvement , and yet another showed no speed improvement at all . More strangely , both of our attempts to export from iMovie ( to an iPod and to a Web - encoded movie ) weresloweron the Intel - found Mac . ( Apple say it ’s investigating the issue . )
import 100 photo into iPhoto 6 was 1.5 times faster , and exporting from iPhoto to a QuickTime movie was 1.3 times quicker . But exporting iPhoto images to a Web page was only slightly quicker . And exporting those range of a function to single file was actually tedious on the Intel - free-base Macs .
Other trial — creating a Zip archive in the Finder , encode an audio single file in iTunes , and generating a DVD range of a function ( including all required MPEG-2 rendering ) in iDVD — resulted in the most usual range of upper advance , between 1.1 and 1.2 metre as fast on the Intel - based iMac as on the iMac G5 .
Universal application tests
Best result inbold;reference organisation initalic . XFactorrefers to the routine of prison term quicker the iMac Core Duo 2GHz is versus the iMac G5 2.1GHz ( 1.0 = identical speed ) .
All heaps are in minutes : seconds except for Doom results , which are in frames per endorsement . All systems were running Mac OS X 10.4.4 with 512 MB of read/write memory , with G5 ’s processor performance place to Highest in the Energy Saver druthers pane . Using iMovie , we compressed a 6 - arcminute , 46 - minute movie for iPod transference and for the Web using default stage setting . We also applied 3 different video recording effects to a 1 - minute flick , one at at a time . We imported 100 JPEG photo into iPhoto and then export them as a QuickTime movie , a Web page , and as files resized to be not more than 2,000 - by-1,500 pixels . We created a Zip archive in the Finder from a 1 GB booklet . We ran the timedemo 1 test on a beta Universal reading of Doom 3 translation 1.3.1303 set to use Ultrahigh graphics at 1024×768 resolve with all advanced options set to Yes except for vertical sync and antialiasing . We converted 45 instant of AAC audio files to MP3 using iTunes ’ High Quality setting . We give a scene using the Java - based Art Of Illusion 3 - D program . We salvage an iDVD project containing a 6 - minute , 46 - second picture as a disk image . We used BBEdit to run a Text Factory containing five editing , replacement , and sort tasks on a 75.1 megabyte textual matter file.—Macworld Lab examination by James Galbraith and Jerry Jung
Are Two Cores Better than One?
There are legion reasons for such fluctuation in trial solvent . But by far the most important has to do with the dual - core nature of the Intel Core Duo .
In the yesteryear , Macs flummox quicker for the most part because the clock fastness of the CPU got quicker — for lesson , a 1.2GHz PowerBook G4 was clearly faster than a 1GHz PowerBook G4 . However , there ’s another manner to make a Mac faster : contribute more processors . Apple ’s used this approach before . Multiprocessor Power Macs have been available for a while ; all the current Power Mac G5 models use double - core chips , which essentially hold two processors on one strong-arm chip .
Here ’s the catch , though : add processors to a Mac does n’t automatically boost system speed the way increasing the clock speed does . That ’s because programs must be specifically design to stand multiple processors to gain any welfare .
Since powerhouse Power Macs have supported multiple processor for geezerhood now , many grave - obligation professional programs — include graphics tools such as Adobe Photoshop , 3 - D tool such as Maya and Cinema 4D , and telecasting tools such as Final Cut Pro Studio and Adobe After effect — have been alter to take reward of multiprocessing . As Intel - specific versions of such apps arrive , they ’ll undoubtedly execute well on these new iMacs .
But these iMacs are consumer system of rules . And many consumer - level apps do n’t really take advantage of multiprocessing . Toreallytake reward of the Core Duo ’s second processor , such programs will need to be updated to add full multiprocessor optimisation . ( notice that , if you ’re running several programs at once , Mac OS X is impudent enough to spread them out across multiple CPU . That can provide a speed boost if a substance abuser is multitasking , switching between several processor - intensive programs at once . )
To recover out just how much our mental testing programme shoot advantage of the iMac ’s dual - marrow crisp , we disabled one of the iMac ’s two Congress of Racial Equality and re - lam several of our tests . The results prove , for example , that some tasks in iPhoto ( import images and exporting a QuickTime movie ) hire advantage of the second processor core much more than others ( exporting to files and internet pages ) . iTunes isverygood at using both processor meat for rend MP3s , while the Finder seems to only practice a single mainframe when creating our Zip archive .
Testing Multiprocessor Performance
Rosetta applications initalic . ProcessorFactorrefers to the issue of multiplication faster the psychometric test run away with both mainframe cores enabled ( 1.0 = selfsame swiftness ) .
All grievance are in transactions : seconds , except for Doom results , which are in frames per second . All systems were running Mac OS X 10.4.4 with 512 MB of random access memory , with G5 ’s processor execution position to Highest in the Energy Saver predilection pane . We used the same stage setting as in our standard tests , but used Apple ’s CHUD performance tools to disenable the second processor core and re - execute the tests.—Macworld Lab examination by James Galbraith and Jerry Jung
Rosetta: Compatibility with a Caveat
There ’s yet another crinkle in the performance of these new Intel - based iMacs : unlike processors talk different voice communication . broadcast collect for the PowerPC chip ca n’t scarper natively on these new Intel CPUs . Instead , they have to run through Rosetta , an emulation technology that lets Intel - based Macs run PowerPC apps by translate their bidding into ones Intel chips can understand .
All of our tests showed that PowerPC software run less than half as fast on a 2GHz Intel iMac than on the 2.1GHz iMac G5 . But those swiftness difference of opinion are comparative . Yes , if you ’re upgrading to an Intel - free-base iMac from an iMac G5 you buy just a few month ago , your PowerPC apps will track down one-half as tight . But if you ’re upgrading from a two- to four - year - old iMac , you might not see any slow - down — and you might see a velocity - up .
For example , when we compare the new 2GHz iMac to a 700MHz iMac G4 , the first - generation flat - panel iMac discharge in 2002 , we establish that the Intel iMac executed our Rosetta applications programme tryout much faster than its four - year - old herald .
Since many of the everyday applications people use are n’t particularly mainframe - intensive ( Microsoft Office being a big example ) those program should probably seem quite operable under Rosetta . Other programs ( games , for instance ) may be well - nigh unusable .
The speed of applications running under Rosetta will be something to keep in idea , especially when it comes to the approaching sack of the MacBook Pro . The users of that professional - level laptop computer are far more potential to demand serious speed from their applications ; if there ’s no Universal version of Photoshop available at the metre , professional photographer may balk at the idea of running Photoshop at a fraction of its speed . However , given how relatively dull the current PowerBook G4 lineage may be , the situation may not be that bad . And since Photoshop can take vantage of the MacBook Pro ’s twofold - core processor , even a non - Intel edition of Photoshop may be quite usable on the MacBook Pro compared to current PowerBook G4s . But we wo n’t know for trusted until the MacBook Pro arrives and we have a chance to put it through the same tests as the Core Duo iMac .
iMac: Rosetta Application Tests
Best results inbold;reference system initalic .
All scores are in minutes : irregular . All system of rules were running Mac OS X 10.4.4 with 512 megabyte of RAM , except the G4 iMac which was tested with 640 MB of random access memory . The G5 ’s processor performance was set to Highest in the Energy Saver preference pane . We convert 45 hour of AAC audio files to MP3 using iTunes ’ High Quality setting . The Photoshop Suite test is a set of 14 written chore using a 50 Mbit file . Photoshop ’s memory was rig to 70 percent , except for the G4 iMac which was set to 56 % , and History was position to Minimum . We used Microsoft Word to scroll a 500 page document.—Macworld Lab examination by James Galbraith and Jerry Jung
When Universal Isn’t Enough
But just because a program is Universal does n’t mean that it ’s reached its full speed potential difference on Intel - establish Macs . Software development is an evolutionary process . Even if software program vendors ( including Apple ) have delivered oecumenical versions of their apps in time to prevail on these first Intel iMacs , there ’s every reasonableness to believe they ’ll continue to tweak and polish those apps to work well and comfortably on the novel C.P.U. . For example , Apple officials have include to us that iLife ‘ 06 could remain firm to be better optimize .
Those developers have already gone through that optimization process for PowerPC - based Macs . Some programs , for object lesson , offer features written to specifically take advantage of the G4 and G5 central processing unit ’ Velocity Engine , a special set of accelerated mastery . Many of these features will want to be modify to take advantage SSE / MMX , the Intel eq of Velocity Engine .
In addition , the tools that developer use — Apple ’s Xcode development environment and Intel ’s collection of code compiling program — will also likely improve , making it easy for developer to contort even more performance out of their Intel - compatible software system . Even dower of Mac OS X itself , although they do run natively on Intel C.P.U. , will in all likelihood profit from further optimization .
Alien Software: Running Classic and Windows
The loss of Intel - based Macs is a major milepost for users of Mac OS 9 software .
Intel - ground Macs do n’t support Mac OS X ’s classical mode . So if you rely on old - schooling Mac o 9 practical program to get your job done , these new Macs simply are n’t for you . While it ’s passing unlikely that Apple will ever bestow back Classic , you may be able to use a Mac emulator , sort of like a Mac equivalent of VirtualPC . At press time , two emulators were already available in “ experimental interpretation ” for Intel Macs : SheepShaver , which emulate a Power Mac , andBasilisk II , which emulate either a Mac Classic or Mac II . But keep in brain that , since they ’re both ape , they ’ll be running those Classic applications at low speed .
Anyone who ’s had to keep a spare PC around the office staff to run Windows programs , on the other hand , might well have rejoiced at the news program of Apple ’s substitution to Intel . But such jubilation is , for now , untimely . There is n’t yet a verified way to install Windows on your Mac and boot into it . ( Intel - based Macs use a charge system call EFI , rather than the more traditional BIOS , which wee-wee thing harder : Windows XP does n’t digest EFI , although the forthcoming Windows Vista will . ) But batch of clever hacker working hard at the problem , and it ’s only a topic of time before someone figures it out .
Still , it ’s potential that Microsoft will also update practical microcomputer so that it prevail on Intel - free-base Macs . When that find you’re able to expect that it ’ll run window at speed approaching those you ’d find on a normal personal computer . ( It wo n’t be full - speed , however , because Windows will be running inside an covering and partake place with the respite of your Mac . ) Other Windows - in - a - box products will probably appear as well . So the hereafter of running Windows stuff on your microcomputer will be bright , eventually .
Different Chips for Different Folks
The Intel Core Duo is a central processor designed for laptops , cater a compromise between carrying out and good baron - using up and heat - generation characteristics . And so the Core Duo processor in these newfangled iMacs ( as well as the forthcoming MacBook Pro ) is clearly not think to be the be - all , goal - all when it come to naked as a jaybird computing major power .
As a result , it ’s unmanageable to take these first Intel - base Macs and attempt to extrapolate the entire hereafter of the Mac product line from them . For example , Apple ’s coming professional desktop Macs — whatever they ’re squall , since they almost certainly wo n’t be holler Power Macs — will most likely use a raw , high - pep pill Intel crisp design specifically for desktop PCs . They ’ll be flying , and they ’ll be designed to trade off a bit in term of business leader consumption in commutation for speed . ( They ’ll also probably confirm 64 - bite processing , which is authoritative to many substance abuser of the current Power Mac G5 . )
On the other oddment of things , there ’s no elbow room of say how Apple might take advantage of the forthcoming low - power version of the Core Duo processor , not to note the Core Duo ’s low - baron unmarried - core sibling , the Core Solo . All of Intel ’s various chips give Apple a big palette to paint with ; the big mystery is which colors Steve Jobs will choose to use .
The Last Word
With two iMac model as our only unanimous evidence of the Mac ’s changeover to Intel processors , it ’s far to shortly to issue any final judgments about how the transition will go . There are still lots of Brobdingnagian questions yet to be resolve , admit the speed of the MacBook Pro , the velocity of Apple ’s forthcoming Universal versions of its professional applications , and just how fast the first professional Intel - ground desktop Macs will be . ( Even more tantalizing are the forthcoming Mac models we ca n’t even anticipate yet ! )
However , these new iMacs do clear up several mystery and in the main make us feel that the Intel conversion may be a pretty placid one . Apple ’s claim that the new iMac is 2x faster than the old good example may be disputable , but the fact that it is perceptibly faster at almost every aboriginal undertaking — and much , much quicker at tasks that are multiprocessor - friendly — is indisputable .
We also bear that as metre goes on , the patent speed of these first Intel Macs will increase , thanks to optimization in Mac OS X and single applications that take better advantage of multiple processors and specific trait of the Intel - base Mac architecture . And of course , as programs that currently hightail it in Rosetta are updated to be Universal , substance abuser will see notable speed advance .
Most significantly — and when we get late down into talking about flake and psychometric test results , it ’s easy to give out to see the timberland for the Tree — these raw organisation are Macs , period . That Intel chip embed late in spite of appearance may have a lot of meaning when it comes to the appearance , features , and performance of future Mac model — but you ’d never have a go at it it from sitting down at one of these iMacs . The Intel gyration has begun , not with a bang , but with a intimate and comforting Mac boot - up gong .
