eMac outperforms iMac.. according to this..

[NoisyCricket]

http://www.macintouch.com/perfpack/comparison.html#conclu

It says: "The iMac G5 is a wonderful system, and we'd rather pay a few hundred dollars over the cost of an eMac to get one, but all the Apple hype about the G5 falls a little short when you see the low-cost eMac, with its slower G4 processor, pushing the iMac G5 in performance. The eMac is actually faster in several real-world situations, and that raises some serious technical questions that long to be answered. "

I have a hard time believing this..

Comparison:

eMac 1.25GHz PowerPC G4

• 1GB SDRAM DDR333 - 2 DIMMs
• 160GB Ultra ATA drive
• Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
• 17” Flat CRT Display
• 1.25GHz PowerPC G4
• SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
• ATI Radeon 9200 w/ 32MB DDR mem

$1,324.00

iMac 1.8GHz PowerPC G5

• 1GB DDR400 SDRAM - 1 DIMM
• 160GB Serial ATA drive
• Keyboard and Mouse + Mac OS X - U.S. English
• 17-inch widescreen LCD
• 1.8GHz PowerPC G5
• SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
• NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra w/64MB video memory

$2,124.00

So basically, for $800 more... you get:

* a G5 instead of G4
* DDR 400 instead of DDR 333
* LCD instead of CRT display
* NVIDIA 64MB vs. ATI Radeon 9200

Well whatever the article says, I think the iMac looks cooler hehehe

[Henjie]

Here's a better comparo.


~Henjie

[mgd]

I guess you pay a premium for the significantly smaller footprint and the "coolness" factor.

Henjie, I might be missing something, but it doesn't seem like the eMac was included in the review you linked to.

[Edited on 12-14-2004 by mgd]

[Henjie]

Originally posted by mgd
I guess you pay a premium for the significantly smaller footprint and the "coolness" factor.

Henjie, I might be missing something, but it doesn't seem like the eMac was included in the review you linked to.

Oh yeah. Forgot to mention that the 1.25GHz eMac performs roughly the same as a 1.25GHz iMac G4. Sorry about that. :-)


~Henjie

[Maccess]

The seemingly identical performance of the eMac and the iMac G5 is mainly because Apple has yet to release a fully 64-bit operating system.

The current OS, 10.3.x, works on the 64bit G5 but in 32-bit mode. Tiger, OSX 10.4, is partly 64-bit and should improve performance of G5 Macs, but full 64-bit performance won't be around until at least OSX 10.5 AND when applications are updated for a 64-bit architecture.

The CRT-bases eMac has specific advantages over LCD based iMacs for color critical work:

CRTs can display more colours, LCDs can accept a 24bit color signal but the display cannot distinguish between adjacent colors in the spectrum.

CRTs have a wider viewing angle, unlike LCDs, which must be viewed head-on. Off-angle viewing results in colour shifts.

LCDs have specific advantages when it comes to durability:

They generate less heat (resulting in less wear and tear on components).

They use less electricity.

CRTs are notorious for analog board failures and other heat releated issues, but LCDs need to have their flourescent tube replaced every 3-5 years.

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by Maccess]

[mgd]

Given that CRTs are provide more accurate colors, I wonder why has Apple opted to release LCDs with their newer pro machines (I believe the eMac is the last of the CRTs)? I'm of the opinion that a majority of the pro market is in graphic design. I'd think that color accuracy would be a priority in this market over the advantages of an LCD.

Originally posted by Maccess
The CRT-bases eMac has specific advantages over LCD based iMacs for color critical work:

CRTs can display more colours, LCDs can accept a 24bit color signal but the display cannot distinguish between adjacent colors in the spectrum.

CRTs have a wider viewing angle, unlike LCDs, which must be viewed head-on. Off-angle viewing results in colour shifts.

LCDs have specific advantages when it comes to durability:

They generate less heat (resulting in less wear and tear on components).

They use less electricity.

CRTs are notorious for analog board failures and other heat releated issues, but LCDs need to have their flourescent tube replaced every 3-5 years.

[Edited on 12-14-2004 by mgd]

[peter_ob]

Even the old 1 Ghz eMac outperformed an iMac with the same specs according to a MacAddict test done more than a year ago. :P

[papu]

i agree regarding the CRTs, i download my digital images from the camera on location anf do the final color corrections on my desktop eMac..

[Maccess]

You're right about that, mgd.

I think Apple's logic is that graphic designers and other high-end users would prefer to choose monitors from other manufacturers, and does not want to compete in that space.

The Apple LCDs would be for those for whom coolness is more important that obtaining pinpoint color accuracy. That said, Apple LCDs are already among the best for color accuracy AMONG LCDs

[jayveef]

Louderback from PC Mag has this to say ...

2004 Worst Products / Worst Chritmas Gifts

"Desktop PC: For Apple, the entry-level eMac really does represent Think Different. That's because for a company that prides itself on quality, this computer is different. As in bad.
..."

of course this goes without saying that he's a PC Magazine columnist, therefore the biases..

full article

i think the eMac is a great machine. It's very affordable and still delivers power!