As surprising as the Boot Camp development might be, the performance results are decidedly boring. Given the Intel processor and motherboard, the iMac Core Duo's performance when running Windows was right about where we expected compared to other Windows PCs'. On CNET Labs' Photoshop CS test, it trailed dual-core PCs from Dell and HP, but only by a small percentage. We didn't expect it to top either of these systems, given their more powerful Pentium D 900-series desktop processors. Compared to the same iMac Core Duo system running Mac OS X, the system showed a large but not unexpected jump in performance with Photoshop. Where the iMac Core Duo in Mac OS X took 6.5 minutes to complete the test, because it must use the Rosetta translation software, the same system running Windows XP Pro took less than 3 minutes.
(Lower times are better)
We're also not shocked by the iTunes, video-encoding, and Doom 3 tests. As it was written with the Mac OS X in mind, iTunes has historically run slower on Windows PCs. The same holds true for the iMac hardware running Windows: the Windows partition on the iMac took 26 seconds longer to finish our test. Our Sorenson video-encoding test looks much better on the Windows partition than on the OS X side for the same reason the Photoshop results skewed in favor of Windows: Sorenson runs natively in Windows XP and is emulated via Rosetta in OS X.
(Lower times are better)
(Lower times are better)
The release of Boot Camp doesn't change our opinion of the iMac as a gaming system. No matter which OS you run, its weak ATI Radeon X1600 graphics chip, which shares memory with the system itself, isn't going to deliver high frame rates. The iMac Core Duo performed better under Windows than under OS X (25.9 frames per second vs. an even less playable 16.2), but we still don't recommend it for serious 3D gaming.
| Doom 3 1,024x768 4XAA 8XAF |
Finally, on our SysMark 2004 test, the iMac Core Duo shows that when running Windows XP, it can hold its own against any other standard Windows desktop on common productivity apps. The Dell XPS 400 wins on the SysMark 2004 Overall test, largely due to its faster Pentium D 940 processor. The iMac running Windows, though, takes out HP's newest Media Center PC, 214 to 200 on the Overall test. In short, anything Dell or HP can do, an Apple iMac Core Duo can do almost as well, if not better.
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
| SysMark 2004 Overall | SysMark 2004 Internet Content Creation | SysMark 2004 Office Productivity |
System configurations:
Apple
iMac Core Duo (Mac OS X)
Macintosh OS 10.4.4; 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo; 1GB DDR2 SDRAM 667MHz; 128MB
ATI Radeon X1600 PCIe; 250GB Maxtor 7,200rpm Serial ATA hard drive
Apple
Apple iMac Core Duo (Windows XP Pro)
Windows XP Pro SP2; 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo; 1GB DDR2 SDRAM 667MHz; 128MB ATI
Radeon X1600 PCIe; 250GB Maxtor 7,200rpm Serial ATA hard drive
Apple
iMac G5 2.10GHz
Macintosh OS 10.4; PowerPC G5 2.10GHz; 512MB DDR2 SDRAM 533MHz; 128MB ATI
Radeon X600XT PCIe; 250GB Serial ATA hard drive
Dell
XPS 400 (Viiv)
Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005; 3.2GHz Intel Pentium D 940; Intel
945P chipset; 1,024MB DDR SDRAM 533MHz; 256MB Nvidia GeForce 6800 (PCIe);
two Maxtor 250GB 7,200rpm Serial ATA; integrated Intel (RAID 1)
HP
Pavilion Media Center TV m7360n
Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005; 2.8GHz Intel Pentium D 920; Intel
945G chipset; 2,048MB DDR2 SDRAM 533MHz; 256MB Nvidia GeForce 6200 SE
(PCIe); Maxtor 300GB 7,200rpm Serial ATA
- See more CNET content tagged:
- Apple iMac,
- OS X Leopard,
- Apple Mac OS,
- Apple Macintosh,
- Apple Computer
User reviews
- Average user rating: 4.0 stars out of 21 reviews
- My rating: 0 stars Write review
-
Showing 3 of 21 user reviewsSee all 21 user reviews
-
9 out of 9 people found this review helpful
-
5 out of 5 people found this review helpful
-
3 out of 3 people found this review helpful
- See all 21 user reviews Write review

