#Xbench review mac
It shows the user-interface performance of the Intel Mac to be much lower than the UI performance of the G5 iMac, even though the reviewer remarked that the former felt snappier. “Um, why does anybody trust XBench? The XBench CPU test shows the Intel Developer Kit machines (3.8 GHz P4) being slower than the top iMac (1.5 GHz G4). I’m in the market for a new PowerMac, but thought it was silly that the iMac was just as fast as a G5 – so I was going to wait for the Intel PowerMac’s. “Judging by XBench (a dual-core 2.0 Ghz G5 is 30% faster processor-wise than the Intel iMac. Let’s hope for a revised review that addresses these and other issues raised in the Ars forum. No wonder he found the graphic results “odd and inexplicable”.
#Xbench review full
For full details, including updated score results, check this post at Ars: The app is not a serious benchmarking tool, but it is even worse in this case: the graphic test results for the Intel iMac are ALL flawed, since apparently Xbench for X86 was linked against OS X 10.4, which forced it to beam sync. This makes hard disk & “general system responsiveness” comparisons very uneven (in this case, unfair to the G5 models). * The Intel iMac was a brand new machine, with a clean System, whereas the iMac G5 and PM G5 weren’t, as the author acknowledges. There was probably something wrong with the DVD drive, which is entirely possible considering that: My old G4 can encode faster that what the iMac G5 did. That alone makes many of the results meaningless. * First, the Intel iMac had 512MB, yet the iMac G5 used had 1GB, and the Power Mac had freaking 4.5GB. There are a lot of serious mistakes in the benchmarking process, many mentioned in Ars’ forum discussion of the review. These make the system match the iMac specs as closely as possible. To get the $1483 figure, add the $29 remote, the $80 graphics upgrade, the $50 hard drive upgrade, the $40 DVD burner upgrade, the $260 2005FPW upgrade, and the $25 speakers. In this particular comparison, the “Apple Tax” is almost nothing.ĮDIT: Sorry, the link doesn’t save changes to the cart.
The X1600XT in the Intel Mac has 4x the pixel fill rate and 2x the memory bandwidth of the X600SE in the Dell, and supports Pixel Shaders 3.0 while the X600SE only supports Pixel Shaders 2.0. According to the SPECrates available at, the Pentium-D 820 at 2.8 GHz is roughly equivalent to a Core Duo 1.67 in integer, and a Core Duo 2.0 GHz in floating-point. The $1700 iMac Core Duo 20″ has a faster CPU and a faster graphics card. The closest Dell I can find to the iMac is the the XPS200 (slimline model). The Dell comparison is interesting, though. No Dell with a base price of $619.0 has a dual core processor.
That means the base computer price was $619.0. How? The 2405FPW is a $680 build to order option on. Check glossary terms both in the source and target languages.I got a 24 inch LCD and a Dell Pentiun D 8 from Dell.Automatically insert glossary terms to your translation in the CAT tool by using keyboard shortcuts.
Xbench has 2 versions: 2.9 (free) and 3.0 (paid).
0 kommentar(er)
