Who’s Crazy?
Earlier this week, Apple Computer introduced Intel-based replacements for their PowerMac G5 desktop systems, and announced an October shipping date for Intel-based XServes, Apple’s line of rack-mounted servers. The announcements complete Apple’s transition to Intel CPUs on their entire Macintosh line.
On its website Apple says:
Ushering in a new era of outstanding performance, Mac Pro introduces the 64-bit Dual-Core Intel Xeon “Woodcrest” processor to the Mac lineup. A state-of-the-art processor, it makes Mac Pro one of the fastest desktop computers on the planet.
…
And at 3GHz, the Mac Pro runs up to 2x faster than the Power Mac G5 Quad.
Macworld has done some early benchmarks, and this is what they have to say about the 2.66GHz Mac Pro:
The standard configuration of the Mac Pro outperforms its PowerPC-based G5 predecessors by a wide margin, helping to justify Apple’s 2005 decision to switch to processors from Intel.
Outperforms by a wide margin, huh? Are they nuts, or is it me?
A video render that took 30 seconds on the Power Macs takes only 28 seconds on the new Mac Pro. An MPEG2 encode operation that used to take 1:52 now takes only 1:47, and an iMovie effect that previously ran 39 seconds now comes in at 38 seconds! WHOOooooooo!!
To be fair, there are some tests where the Intel-based machines have a more impressive edge. But there are also results like this: MP3 encoding that took 43 seconds on the old machine takes 48 seconds on the new one. A Photoshop benchmark that runs in 45 seconds on a Power Mac takes almost twice as long on a Mac Pro.
The Photoshop results aren’t terribly surprising. There is not yet an Intel-native version of Photoshop for the Mac. That’s expected sometime next year, almost certainly at an upgrade price of hundreds of dollars. It’s hard to be certain, but that new version probably will perform a little bit better on a Mac Pro than on a Power Mac.
Okay, Apple’s business depends on shipping machines. It’s no surprise they’re hyping their new products. Macworld’s business depends on Apple’s business, and I guess if you’re shilling computers for a living, you don’t need to maintain even the appearance of objectivity or journalistic integrity.