3.06 GHz iMac Performance Tests vs. Power Mac, Mac Pro

Folks, I have assembled a small table of XBench summary results for the new 3.06 GHz iMac vs. the 2.3 GHz PowerMac G5, the 2.08 GHz Mac Pro and the 3.2 GHz Mac Pro. These results follow below:

http://www.campbell-tx.net/Misc/imac.png

As you can see, the new iMac handily outperforms the older G5. It slightly outperforms the 2.8 GHz Mac Pro, and puts in a decent performance against the 3.2 GHz Mac Pro, surprisingly posting a few results that are faster than this fastest Mac on the market today. All in all, I would say that the new 3.06 GHz iMac is darn fast machine!

interesting comparison. i know i am looking at a mac pro vs a top of the line imac. it sounds like you are leaning towards the imac

I'll add some info for 8800 GT later so the graphics option is a fairer fight

While I don't deny that a newer computer would be faster, XBench is pretty much completely unreliable as a measurement of real world performance, or even as a comparative measurement.

That goes for almost any 'benchmarking' app out there. Nothing compares to a real world, hands-on test.
Yet, if I had to choose a 'benchmarking' app, I would suggest Geekbench

sanity1082 said:

interesting comparison. i know i am looking at a mac pro vs a top of the line imac. it sounds like you are leaning towards the imac

Click to expand...

Yup, I am leaning towards the iMac. I have pretty much decided. Now I just need to get to my local Apple Store and see if they have the config I want, or whether I need to order it from the Apple site.

bryphotoguy said:

I'll add some info for 8800 GT later so the graphics option is a fairer fight

Click to expand...

Look forward to this

If you choose an imac over a mac pro......it's cause you can't afford a mac pro.

Blizare said:

If you choose an imac over a mac pro......it's cause you can't afford a mac pro.

Click to expand...

Not true. I could afford either one. As I have posted elsewhere, I eventually went for the Mac Pro, but that was almost a personal decision not a technical one.

In general, the two products are very close together at this point if you recognize that most programs are not yet able to take advantage of very many cores due to the fact that they are not threaded for it yet.

Mac Pro:

3.2 GHz Penryn
Up to 1 TB hard drive per slot
>4 GB RAM
nVidia 8800 graphics

iMac

3.06 GHz Penryn
up to 1 TB hard drive
Up to 4 GB RAM
nVidia 8800 graphics

For most people, 1 TB of disk and 4 GB of RAM is all they will ever need. Hence the iMac will meet most people's needs. The rest of the major specs are close enough that you have to question the enormous pricing differential. The iMac has real advantages in its compact form factor, good looks and wonderful display. The Mac Pro has advantages in its expandability, (slightly) higher speed and ability to support one or more non Apple displays.

I really had to think about it. In the end, I had personally decided that I wanted at least 4 cores in my next machine. If Apple had put a quad core in the iMac vs. the current dual core, there is no question in my mind that I would be driving a new iMac now, not the Mac Pro.

That having been said, I am very pleased with my purchase of the Mac Pro. I am sure that when it arrives it will be an amazing system.

My Mac pro is way sexier to look at than my 24" imac.

upgradeable and dual displays and the fact that SOOOOON graphics intensive programs will take advantage of 4 and 8 core processors. Those are the deal breakers really if you going to use the power.

Your going to love it

Blizare said:

My Mac pro is way sexier to look at than my 24" imac.

Click to expand...

I think they both look fabulous, each in their own way. Personally, I find the looks of the iMac to be a major draw for the product. It is an incredible design - so eye catching, so beautiful.

The Mac Pro is a good looking box as well: not as "eye popping" as the iMac, but still very "eye catching". Its design and structure telegraphs what it is supposed to be: durable, powerful, professional.

Apple has done a nice job with the mechanical design of both of them.

My Score was 183.40. I was at 240 before the Disk Test started. I really need to do something to boost the speed.

CPU- 189.50
Thread- 464.96
Memory- 180.47
Quartz Graphics- 258.56
User I/F- 438.97
Disk- 72.06

What DB said is totally correct. I really do not trust any synthetic benchmark completely. Use real applications or Games.

I have had issues with XBench for years. I have upgraded my systems and they were slower after the upgrade, MUCH slower but in every application, File transfer test, Timed test doing video compression, Conversion, the Upgraded system was WAY faster.

Do not trust Xbench.

I took screen shots once for a doubting friend. He no longer doubts.

dtravis7 said:

Do not trust Xbench.

Click to expand...

Neither do I.