Images have been taken from here: http://www.barefeats.com/mini01.html
More info at that url as well:










Interesting results... h34r:

very impressive.
another reason to buy one

you will be hiding that cube now

*Disko looks at the cube in shame *

surprising that its performance is not too much behind the iMac G5...thus, it is indeed good value for money.

Why would i hide a cube from these results? The only thing the macmini appears to have over it is processing power. For a five and a half year old computer, the Cube stands up quite well against the mini - especially once you've upgraded the processor (which many people have done since they got one years ago).
An upgraded cube kicks the mac mini, and compares to the powermac. *can't wait for a price on the dual 1.7GHz upgrade*

The only real bad performance it gave is hdd tests, but then again it is only a 420rpm, so that explains it all.

Not a bad results I must admit apart from the obivous drive tests being swayed due to the type of rpm drive being used. Still not enough to put one off.

how come the G4s beat the G5s on the CPU test?

i think the imac G5 they have is suppose to be the Imac G4, imac g5's don't have 40gig HD, plus the imac g5 can fit 2 gigs not the maxium 1 gig as they stated.

Nope, that's an iMac G5.

i wonder why they used a 40gig hd?

Why are the G5 processors so slow? doesn't make any sense? whats the point in spending that sort of money and if thats the case why do so many people want a G5 laptop to come out?

well the real difference between a G4 and G5 is that the G5 is a 64bit.

It doesn't always make it faster on the benchmarks. A 64bit processor can just handle more data than a 32bit. What i have notice between the two is that a 64bit processor is more stable than a 32bit processor (macs and pcs). I can't back that up since i don't have the stats, you only really know the difference once you start using both.

A G5 chip on the new Powerbooks won't make the Powerbooks faster but with a wider system bus, new graphics it will. Plus, most people like myself, are waiting for a form factor change.

if your a car freak maybe you will understand this more:

A processor is like a engine. Pretend that the G4 is a V6 engine and the G5 is a V12 engine. lets say both are exactly the same design and have the same litre per cyclinder, the only difference is that one has 6 cyclinders and one has 12. With this one can say that the V12 would produce more power than a V6. However, you can supercharge, tubor charge or whatever to the V6 to give the same power if not more than the V12. If it got to a point that the V6 and V12 has the same power the benchmarks would show something impressive. However, the V6 will need to rev more than the V12 to get the same power. eg. the V6 would be doing 8000rpm while the V12 would do 6000rpm. This means the V12 doesn't need to work as hard.

in underwords a G4 can easily be more powerful than a G5 but would need to work harder making it more prone to error, maintainance and lower reliblity.

this is what i think.

btw. only a car freak would understand this.

lol

So far so good. Your analogy goes a bit off the rails after that tho'.

An improved G4/G5 analogy would be to imagine that the V12 usually only runs on 6 cylinders, with the other 6 cutting in as required.

If the two engines have the same fuel delivery and exhaust systems (the I/O system ) then the V12 will be more powerful. However, if you soup up the V6 with a much better fuel/exhaust system it can be made to perform better than the V12.

As it happens, a G4 running at the same speed as a G5 may well be the more reliable because it has fewer moving parts and will run cooler.

Steve C.
(car and computer freak).

It is interesting that Apple shows a screenshot of Halo to advertise the Mac mini http://www.apple.com.au/macmini/graphics.html when in fact with the Radeon 9200 chip only supporting Vertex Shader, the graphics of Halo on the Mac mini would look, well, ordinary.

The Xbench scores are very much CPU dependent and apart from indicating the speed of the CPU, the Xbench scores don't say much.