<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mac Performance (June 2007)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:13:01 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: studentlife - a studentblog experience</title>
		<link>http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-751</link>
		<dc:creator>studentlife - a studentblog experience</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:38:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/#comment-751</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] Ich habe heute eine Liste aller Macs ab dem iMac G3 mit den jeweiligen Benchmark-Ergebnissen von Geekbench entdeckt und musste erschrocken feststellen, dass mein altes G4 PowerBook nicht mehr so das schnellste ist. Und das nach 2 Jahren. Natürlich kann sich das auch denken, aber dass es so weit hinten liegt. Zum Vergleich: Ein MacBook mit einem 2.16 Ghz, Core 2 Duo Prozessor, schafft es immerhin auf 2821 Punkte und gegen Ende der Liste kommt dann mein PowerBook mit 748 Punkten. Dafür läuft es aber noch top. Und wenn ich demnächst meinen Hauptspeicher etwas aufstocke, gibt es sicher noch ein paar mehr Punkte. Schade dass ein Computer bereits nach einem halben Jahr schon als veraltet gilt. Die vollständige Liste findet ihr übrigens hier. [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Ich habe heute eine Liste aller Macs ab dem iMac G3 mit den jeweiligen Benchmark-Ergebnissen von Geekbench entdeckt und musste erschrocken feststellen, dass mein altes G4 PowerBook nicht mehr so das schnellste ist. Und das nach 2 Jahren. Natürlich kann sich das auch denken, aber dass es so weit hinten liegt. Zum Vergleich: Ein MacBook mit einem 2.16 Ghz, Core 2 Duo Prozessor, schafft es immerhin auf 2821 Punkte und gegen Ende der Liste kommt dann mein PowerBook mit 748 Punkten. Dafür läuft es aber noch top. Und wenn ich demnächst meinen Hauptspeicher etwas aufstocke, gibt es sicher noch ein paar mehr Punkte. Schade dass ein Computer bereits nach einem halben Jahr schon als veraltet gilt. Die vollständige Liste findet ihr übrigens hier. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Primate Labs Blog : Mac Performance (August 2007)</title>
		<link>http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-726</link>
		<dc:creator>Primate Labs Blog : Mac Performance (August 2007)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:39:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/#comment-726</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] in June I posted a Mac performance comparison using results in the Geekbench Result Browser. Since then Apple&#8217;s released updated iMacs and [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] in June I posted a Mac performance comparison using results in the Geekbench Result Browser. Since then Apple&#8217;s released updated iMacs and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray M</title>
		<link>http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-458</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Aug 2007 08:43:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/#comment-458</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Hi
Great Work!&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I am in the process of deciding which mac model would be best for my audio recording needs.
I have Protools mpowered 7.3, which actually runs at 16bit operation (up to 20 tracks without dropouts),  on my emac g4 ppc (1ghz)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I am debating bewtween going all out on a power mac, and saving my money for other audio equipment and buying an iMAC 1.83 Ghz machine. I&#039;m not too sure about the iMAC&#039;s ability to run protools 7.3 smoothly.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Can you help me with this?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi<br />
Great Work!</p>
<p>I am in the process of deciding which mac model would be best for my audio recording needs.<br />
I have Protools mpowered 7.3, which actually runs at 16bit operation (up to 20 tracks without dropouts),  on my emac g4 ppc (1ghz)</p>
<p>I am debating bewtween going all out on a power mac, and saving my money for other audio equipment and buying an iMAC 1.83 Ghz machine. I&#8217;m not too sure about the iMAC&#8217;s ability to run protools 7.3 smoothly.</p>
<p>Can you help me with this?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ace</title>
		<link>http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-322</link>
		<dc:creator>Ace</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:40:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/#comment-322</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Nice.. with 2.16 core 2 duo, I&#039;m still like on the bottom 20.. I want that Mac Pro!! :D&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice.. with 2.16 core 2 duo, I&#8217;m still like on the bottom 20.. I want that Mac Pro!! <img src='http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':D' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anthony Pittarelli</title>
		<link>http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-306</link>
		<dc:creator>Anthony Pittarelli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 02:47:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/#comment-306</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;if your wifes G5 is running like crap sell it and get a new intel mac, it will be way fast and you can probably make ome money in the deal&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>if your wifes G5 is running like crap sell it and get a new intel mac, it will be way fast and you can probably make ome money in the deal</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yeah What They Said 6/28: tunequest: music, notes, ephemera, etcetera</title>
		<link>http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-291</link>
		<dc:creator>Yeah What They Said 6/28: tunequest: music, notes, ephemera, etcetera</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:55:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/#comment-291</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] Comprehensive Mac performance tests. Comparative results from running Geekbench on every Mac released since the slot-load iMac (400Mhz G3 from October 1999). My Intel iMac at home scores a 2338 while my G5 PowerMac at the office scores a 2108. My PowerBook G4 scores a lowly 692. [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Comprehensive Mac performance tests. Comparative results from running Geekbench on every Mac released since the slot-load iMac (400Mhz G3 from October 1999). My Intel iMac at home scores a 2338 while my G5 PowerMac at the office scores a 2108. My PowerBook G4 scores a lowly 692. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-260</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:40:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/#comment-260</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;HELP!!! My wife has a Dual 2.5 GHz PowerPC G5 (June 2004) w/3GB running OS 10.4.9 and it runs like a dog ever since we got it. It seems like even the simplest of tasks (i.e. closing an application) will frequently whirl up the fans and take 10s of seconds to perform. We have spoken with Apple support a number of times and even took it into the Apple store and they can&#039;t seem to fix the problem. They actually have trouble quantifying the problem. The best they could do was get the G5&#039;s fans to run hard by opening all 7 of the 3D examples in grapher at the same time. They replaced the &quot;logic board&quot;, but nothing seemed to change. We are running close to the end of our 3 years of Apple support and are getting desperate. I recently found geekbench hoping that one of the tests could quantify the problem and maybe even identify the weak link.  Her G5 scored a 179.9 (http://www.geekpatrol.ca/browse/2006/?view&amp;id=18178) is this about right using geekbench 2006? Can anyone tell me if something looks strange? Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HELP!!! My wife has a Dual 2.5 GHz PowerPC G5 (June 2004) w/3GB running OS 10.4.9 and it runs like a dog ever since we got it. It seems like even the simplest of tasks (i.e. closing an application) will frequently whirl up the fans and take 10s of seconds to perform. We have spoken with Apple support a number of times and even took it into the Apple store and they can&#8217;t seem to fix the problem. They actually have trouble quantifying the problem. The best they could do was get the G5&#8217;s fans to run hard by opening all 7 of the 3D examples in grapher at the same time. They replaced the &#8220;logic board&#8221;, but nothing seemed to change. We are running close to the end of our 3 years of Apple support and are getting desperate. I recently found geekbench hoping that one of the tests could quantify the problem and maybe even identify the weak link.  Her G5 scored a 179.9 (<a href="http://www.geekpatrol.ca/browse/2006/?view&amp;id=18178" rel="nofollow">http://www.geekpatrol.ca/browse/2006/?view&amp;id=18178</a>) is this about right using geekbench 2006? Can anyone tell me if something looks strange? Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Primate Labs Blog : PC Performance (June 2007)</title>
		<link>http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-259</link>
		<dc:creator>Primate Labs Blog : PC Performance (June 2007)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 05:54:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/#comment-259</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] I posted a Mac performance comparison last week, I&#8217;ve been thinking about doing a similar Windows performance comparison. One of [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I posted a Mac performance comparison last week, I&#8217;ve been thinking about doing a similar Windows performance comparison. One of [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mindflayer.net &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Benchmarks on Apple gear</title>
		<link>http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-256</link>
		<dc:creator>mindflayer.net &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Benchmarks on Apple gear</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/#comment-256</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] you&#8217;re looking to make a decision on Mac gear, check out Primate Labs results using Geekbench 2. Good info there, and validates my gut feel on [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] you&#8217;re looking to make a decision on Mac gear, check out Primate Labs results using Geekbench 2. Good info there, and validates my gut feel on [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mindflayer</title>
		<link>http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-255</link>
		<dc:creator>Mindflayer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:19:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/mac-performance-june-2007/#comment-255</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;@13/chalres:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that Photoshop CS2 is not universal, and runs under Rosetta on the Macbook Pro. A fair test would be CS3 on both the G5 and Macbook Pro. I have a Macbook Pro Core Duo, a Macbook Pro Core 2 Duo, and a G5 Dual 2, and I can tell you that the Core 2 Duo with CS3 - which is a Universal App - is faster in some functions than the G5.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@13/chalres:</p>
<p>Keep in mind that Photoshop CS2 is not universal, and runs under Rosetta on the Macbook Pro. A fair test would be CS3 on both the G5 and Macbook Pro. I have a Macbook Pro Core Duo, a Macbook Pro Core 2 Duo, and a G5 Dual 2, and I can tell you that the Core 2 Duo with CS3 &#8211; which is a Universal App &#8211; is faster in some functions than the G5.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
