Forums | MacLife

Zetetic Apparatchik · 2006-01-16 9:49 am

goMac wrote:
Universal Binaries can automatically run Altivec code as SSE3, and SSE3 runs just as fast as Altivec.

I doubt the first phrase and question the validity or importance of the second.

Good link on SSE[1-3] and Altivec.

avkills · 2006-01-16 11:30 am

Had to buy more RAM for my G5, so I messed around a bit with a iMac Duo at the Apple store....seemed fairly decent. Did not seem sluggish, even played a 720p H.264 without sweating. I did not stay long, since they did not have the RAM I needed. I bolted and actually found it cheaper at MicroCenter....

(Yes I know... don't buy RAM from Apple, but when you're doing critical work, then you need the stuff to work, and work right. wink )

Anyway, I will probably go back at some point and mess around with it more. I want to do some of my own tests. I now think things will be fine. The software design is really what makes the difference here I think, even though I am still skeptical of Intel's watt/performance claims. I am pretty excited about the laptops though, because those will definitely be snappier than a G4 system from what I briefly tested on the iMac.

-mark

Last edited by avkills (2006-01-16 11:33 am)

akb825 · 2006-01-16 12:54 pm

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:
goMac wrote:
Universal Binaries can automatically run Altivec code as SSE3, and SSE3 runs just as fast as Altivec.
I doubt the first phrase and question the validity or importance of the second.

Good link on SSE[1-3] and Altivec.

AltiVec code doesn't run directly on SSE3, if you code it using the low-level interface. However, if you use the Accelerate framework and their higher level functions, the compiler will use AltiVec variations of the functions for PPC, and SSE3 variations of the functions for SSE3.

About the speed, I've heard that SSE3 is slightly behind AltiVec.

MacBoy4139 · 2006-01-16 12:57 pm

avkills wrote:
Had to buy more RAM for my G5, so I messed around a bit with a iMac Duo at the Apple store....seemed fairly decent. Did not seem sluggish, even played a 720p H.264 without sweating. I did not stay long, since they did not have the RAM I needed. I bolted and actually found it cheaper at MicroCenter....

(Yes I know... don't buy RAM from Apple, but when you're doing critical work, then you need the stuff to work, and work right. )

Anyway, I will probably go back at some point and mess around with it more. I want to do some of my own tests. I now think things will be fine. The software design is really what makes the difference here I think, even though I am still skeptical of Intel's watt/performance claims. I am pretty excited about the laptops though, because those will definitely be snappier than a G4 system from what I briefly tested on the iMac.

-mark

My PowerBook G4 plays 720p w/o sweating.

The points I made before about optimizations also have a lot to do with Intels compilers - they only went into beta on the day of the keynote.

What I'm saying is, the tools are not available yet for "real" optimizations that are on the chip level.

akb825 · 2006-01-16 1:18 pm

avkills wrote:
Had to buy more RAM for my G5, so I messed around a bit with a iMac Duo at the Apple store....seemed fairly decent. Did not seem sluggish, even played a 720p H.264 without sweating. I did not stay long, since they did not have the RAM I needed. I bolted and actually found it cheaper at MicroCenter....

(Yes I know... don't buy RAM from Apple, but when you're doing critical work, then you need the stuff to work, and work right. )

Anyway, I will probably go back at some point and mess around with it more. I want to do some of my own tests. I now think things will be fine. The software design is really what makes the difference here I think, even though I am still skeptical of Intel's watt/performance claims. I am pretty excited about the laptops though, because those will definitely be snappier than a G4 system from what I briefly tested on the iMac.

-mark

The true test for H.264 would be if you can play 1080p without sweating. (BTW, you say you want the RAM to work, why not just buy it from Crucial? From what I've heard Apple just gets their RAM from them anyway)

If you do some more benchmarks on their computers, I would definitely still recommend Fractographer. It would also show how Intel's FPU performance stands up against PPC with their new processors. (when running, it's almost 100% floating point (double precision, to be exact) CPU test, but there's a bit of memory performance in the mix as well. That would only comprise of a couple percent or less, though)

MacBoy4139 · 2006-01-16 1:25 pm

I have Crucial RAM and I am very happy with it. Apple does not always get it from Crucial though - Samsung and Hynx are the main suppliers.

They probably supply crucial though.

akb825 · 2006-01-16 1:36 pm

MacBoy4139 wrote:
I have Crucial RAM and I am very happy with it. Apple does not always get it from Crucial though - Samsung and Hynx are the main suppliers.

They probably supply crucial though.

I got RAM from the cheapest place that I could find that had a lifetime warranty and met the specs, and I'm very happy with it as well. Of course, that mainly constitutes that it doesn't fail. tongue

jr57k · 2006-01-16 1:37 pm

I have to add that having received my iMac 2ghz Intel machine via FedEx today that these applications were NOT Universal Binary. It looks like while the OS Applications (Mail, Safari etc...) have been compiled for the Intel, the iLife applications, including iTunes are still PPC ONLY code (i.e. no option to launch using rosetta). I'm diappointed that the original poster for this thread missed that sad as this thread seems to have been picked up by others. This would mean that these benchmarks were done in emulation which should explain a lot. Overall my new iMac seems as fast or faster than my 2.5ghz dual G5 (X800, 2.5GB memory) that I have at work. Using the machines side by side I can certainly say that Safari seems to render pages MUCH faster on the Intel machine eek . Proper benchmarks to follow.

EDIT - This post was in error cry (see below). It looks like the iLife apps are Universal.

Last edited by jr57k (2006-01-16 1:59 pm)

MacBoy4139 · 2006-01-16 1:38 pm

my iTunes is Universal. I'm using 6.0.2.

You can get a list on your machine which will show all installed apps, and whether or not they are Universal or PowerPC only.

Go to System Profiler - Applications/Utilities/System Profiler

In the left part of the window, scroll to the bottom and click on "Applications" - it is under the Software category.

Last edited by MacBoy4139 (2006-01-16 1:41 pm)

jr57k · 2006-01-16 1:43 pm

That very well could be, but as shipped my iTunes was not. I did a SW Update and it did not say that a newer version was available. I have downloded 6.0.2 at home (dual G4). All I can say is that I've looked at every application to see if "Launch via Rosetta" was there and it was not present for any of the iLife appliations and was for ALL the OS apps, including stuff like Console and Grapher. I'm not sure which version of iTunes was on the machine it very well could have been 6.0.2 (I think it had a 4 JAN date on it) but the machine is at work (it came with a cracked LCD) and I won't be able to check it until tomorrow. I'll post again once I do. If anyone else comes across this before then, feel free to add your findings.

EDIT - Tell you what, I'm going to go grab it from work. I'll post the Profiler results in a few.

EDIT #2 - blush You are correct, they are Universal. Odd confused that I can't seem to select which launch method I want for ANY of the iLife applications, but I can for everything else. I wish Apple would hurry up and send me my RMA information. This is killing me.

Last edited by jr57k (2006-01-16 1:58 pm)

MacBoy4139 · 2006-01-16 1:45 pm

Sorry, when I read the post first, I didn't see the edit - probably the same thing you did for me smile

Last edited by MacBoy4139 (2006-01-16 1:46 pm)

akb825 · 2006-01-16 1:59 pm

Since the original poster used iMovie as a test, I'd say it's likely it was universal binary in their iMacs. (or at least launchable through Rosetta) Are you sure these are all the iLife '06 apps rather than '05? If, for some reason, they didn't come with '06, you'll have to go to an Apple store or something with a receipt and they'd likely give you a copy.

BTW, you're saying it came with a cracked LCD? That seriously sucks. sad

jr57k · 2006-01-16 2:01 pm

Yeah, the LCD is cracked. That package looked fine, but the styrofoam inside was squashed on the left hand side. It looks like someone may have forced it into the packaging and cracked the LCD in the process. I called Apple and 5 minutes later I had an RMA. They were great on the phone, but I had to tell them a few times that it did not look damaged in shipping (i.e. no smooshed corners).

the following versions of the iLife apps were included,

GarageBand:

Version: 3.0.0
Last Modified: 1/4/06 10:40 AM
Kind: Universal
Get Info String: GarageBand 3.0.0 (72), Copyright (c) 2005-2006 by Apple Computer, Inc.
Location: /Applications/GarageBand.app

iDVD:

Version: 6.0
Last Modified: 1/4/06 10:43 AM
Kind: Universal
Get Info String: iDVD 6, Copyright � 2001-2006 Apple Computer Inc.
Location: /Applications/iDVD.app

iMovie HD:

Version: 6.0
Last Modified: 1/4/06 10:43 AM
Kind: Universal
Get Info String: 6.0, © Apple Computer, Inc., 1999–2006
Location: /Applications/iMovie HD.app

iPhoto:

Version: 6.0
Last Modified: 1/4/06 10:45 AM
Kind: Universal
Get Info String: iPhoto 6.0, Copyright © 2002-2006 Apple Computer, Inc.
Location: /Applications/iPhoto.app

iTunes:

Version: 6.0.2
Last Modified: 1/4/06 10:19 AM
Kind: Universal
Get Info String: iTunes 6.0.2, © 2000-2006 Apple Computer, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Location: /Applications/iTunes.app

iWeb:

Version: 1.0.0
Last Modified: 1/4/06 10:37 AM
Kind: Universal
Get Info String: 1.0, Copyright 2006 Apple Computer, Inc.
Location: /Applications/iWeb.app

Last edited by jr57k (2006-01-16 2:06 pm)

akb825 · 2006-01-16 2:06 pm

I hope that gets worked out quickly. (besides, we need those benchmarks! wink )

jr57k · 2006-01-16 2:16 pm

mandelbrot variation zoomed took 33 seconds in Fractographer. I should also mention that I have not added any memory or loaded any applications. In contrast my dual 867 G4 took 2 min 45 seconds to complete the same task. I'll run the rest of them and post as an edit to this post.

EDIT - Here is the list from a Dual 2.0Ghz Core Duo

cos = 3 seconds
cos zoomed = 3 seconds
e zoomed = 5-6 seconds (i.e. more than 5, but less than 6. It would be nice if this thing had a timer on it)
e zoomed 2 = 4-5 seconds
e zoomed 3 = 4-5 seconds
exponent zoomed = 3 seconds
julia 1 = 2 secs
julia 1 zoomed = 3 secs
julia 2 zoomed = 1 secs
julia 3 = 1 secs
julia 5 = 2 secs
julia 5 zoomed = 2 secs
julia 6 = 8 secs
julia 7 = 7 secs
julia 8 = 7 secs
julia 9 = 2 secs
julia 10 = 2 secs
mandelbrot = 1 secs
mandelbrot variation zoomed = 33 secs
mandelbrot zoomed 1 = 2 secs
mandelbrot zoomed 2 = 1 secs
sin 5 = 2 secs
sin 6 = 2 secs

I just ran mendelbrot variation zoomed again and got the same thing (33secs).

Last edited by jr57k (2006-01-16 2:36 pm)

avkills · 2006-01-16 2:19 pm

I was going to test a 1080p, but the stream wasn't loading and I had to split. But yes, 1080p is the real test.

I'll download fractographer later and post some benches from my Dual 2 G5.

-mark

akb825 · 2006-01-16 2:29 pm

Thanks for the info. According to your edited post, it looks like all your iLife apps are indeed universal binaries.

It's interesting how fast the iMac was with the fractals. It's about 7 seconds faster (for the longest one) than my dual 2.7 GHz PowerMac. Either it's more dependent on memory speed than I thought or the new intel processors are really that good. Perhaps we could have somebody with a dual core PowerMac test it for reference?

Last edited by akb825 (2006-01-16 2:33 pm)

jr57k · 2006-01-16 2:33 pm

let's settle on some video and I can benchmark as well. I've got tons of 720p at work but all I've got there is FCP and I don't have any 1080p.

For benchmarking I have at my disposal,

dual 867 G4 with an ATI9800PRO and 1.75GB of memory

AlBook 1.67 15" (high res) with 2GB of memory

dual 2.5Ghz G5 with 2.5GB of memory and an X800

Intel Core Duo 2Ghz with 512MB (until I ship it back to Apple)

As a side note: the iSight is not nearly as good as the external one that I have. The colors are all off (reddish) and there is much more noise. It does seem brighter though.

Last edited by jr57k (2006-01-16 2:34 pm)

akb825 · 2006-01-16 2:42 pm

lol I love the edit wars we're having.

avkills · 2006-01-16 2:43 pm

I am working on a project right now, so it might be a few days for me, but this is what I have.

Dual 2Ghz G5 with 3.5 GB RAM, X800 256MB

AlBook 867Mhz G4 with 768MB RAM, 32MB vram.

I also have a Dual 2Ghz G5 with 1.5GB RAM and nVidia 5200 at work... good to see how memory makes a difference.

-mark

MacBoy4139 · 2006-01-16 2:48 pm

Download a trailer from Apple's website to get some 1080i at least.

jr57k · 2006-01-16 2:54 pm

The edits are killing me. Seems more like a chat than a forum wink

As for the original topic, I've imported an 8MP photo, done a 10 seconds Ken Burns (start = 1X and finish = 2X) on it and exported it to CDROM (Quicktime). Here is what I saw

DUAL 867G4
import and process ken Burns - 15 seconds
export to Quicktime CDROM - 11 seconds

Core Duo 2Ghz Intel
import and process Ken Burns - 15 seconds. (seemed to take longer on the import but less time on the Ken Burns)
export to Quicktime CDROM - 16 seconds. The export progress seemed to surge forward, then pause, then surge again, G4 was smooth.

I've got the photo if anyone wants to try it let me know and I'll post it somewhere.

Last edited by jr57k (2006-01-16 3:04 pm)

akb825 · 2006-01-16 2:55 pm

There are some 1080p trailers here.

avkills · 2006-01-16 3:07 pm

jr57k wrote:
The edits are killing me. Seems more like a chat than a forum

As for the original topic, I've imported an 8MP photo, done a 10 seconds Ken Burns (start = 1X and finish = 2X) on it and exported it to CDROM (Quicktime). Here is what I saw

DUAL 867G4
import and process ken Burns - 15 seconds
export to Quicktime CDROM - 11 seconds

Core Duo 2Ghz Intel
import and process Ken Burns - 15 seconds. (seemed to take longer on the import but less time on the Ken Burns)
export to Quicktime CDROM - 16 seconds. The export progress seemed to surge forward, then pause, then surge again, G4 was smooth.

I've got the photo if anyone wants to try it let me know and I'll post it somewhere.

I wonder if what we are seeing here is the G4 using Altivec and the Core Duo doing it all with standard FP math w/o using SSE3. It may very well be possible that Apple has not had time to optimize the intel versions to use SSE3. shrug If this is true, then those times are actually pretty impressive.

-mark

Last edited by avkills (2006-01-16 3:11 pm)

MacBoy4139 · 2006-01-16 3:39 pm

avkills wrote:
jr57k wrote:
The edits are killing me. Seems more like a chat than a forum

As for the original topic, I've imported an 8MP photo, done a 10 seconds Ken Burns (start = 1X and finish = 2X) on it and exported it to CDROM (Quicktime). Here is what I saw

DUAL 867G4
import and process ken Burns - 15 seconds
export to Quicktime CDROM - 11 seconds

Core Duo 2Ghz Intel
import and process Ken Burns - 15 seconds. (seemed to take longer on the import but less time on the Ken Burns)
export to Quicktime CDROM - 16 seconds. The export progress seemed to surge forward, then pause, then surge again, G4 was smooth.

I've got the photo if anyone wants to try it let me know and I'll post it somewhere.
I wonder if what we are seeing here is the G4 using Altivec and the Core Duo doing it all with standard FP math w/o using SSE3. It may very well be possible that Apple has not had time to optimize the intel versions to use SSE3. If this is true, then those times are actually pretty impressive.

-mark

I personally have been debating this as well. Apple has the "Accelerate" framework that is supposed to switch between SSE3 and Altivec, depending on which platform it is running on.

At the same time, Intel doesn't have anything but a beta (that was just released on MWSF keynote day) of their compiler.

My feeling? The best is yet to come.

Forums | MacLife

#51 2006-01-16 9:49 am

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

goMac wrote:

#52 2006-01-16 11:30 am

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

#53 2006-01-16 12:54 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

goMac wrote:

#54 2006-01-16 12:57 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

avkills wrote:

#55 2006-01-16 1:18 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

avkills wrote:

#56 2006-01-16 1:25 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

#57 2006-01-16 1:36 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

MacBoy4139 wrote:

#58 2006-01-16 1:37 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

#59 2006-01-16 1:38 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

#60 2006-01-16 1:43 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

#61 2006-01-16 1:45 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

#62 2006-01-16 1:59 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

#63 2006-01-16 2:01 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

#64 2006-01-16 2:06 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

#65 2006-01-16 2:16 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

#66 2006-01-16 2:19 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

#67 2006-01-16 2:29 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

#68 2006-01-16 2:33 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

#69 2006-01-16 2:42 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

#70 2006-01-16 2:43 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

#71 2006-01-16 2:48 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

#72 2006-01-16 2:54 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

#73 2006-01-16 2:55 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

#74 2006-01-16 3:07 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

jr57k wrote:

#75 2006-01-16 3:39 pm

Re: Intel iMac Benchmarks - Slow With Encoding

avkills wrote:

jr57k wrote:

Board footer