Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Benchmarked: The Quad-Core i7 iMac is Super Fast

Nice review. Thanks for posting a link to it. I use handbrake so seeing that the i7 will make a difference there is good news to me. I originally ordered an i5 through Amazon but changed to an i7 this past weekend. I am looking at delivery next week. 🙂
 
That review is full of errors

It talks about the I7 Bloomfield and not Lynnfield.

Honestly that guys knows nothing about these machines.
 
robby818 said:
Nice review. Thanks for posting a link to it. I use handbrake so seeing that the i7 will make a difference there is good news to me. I originally ordered an i5 through Amazon but changed to an i7 this past weekend. I am looking at delivery next week. 🙂
Click to expand...

Do you already have a shipping date? When is the expected arrival date?
 
I thought that one of the major benefits of multi-core systems for every day use was that you could run several single-threaded applications simultaneously without them fighting for CPU cycles. This article doesn't even touch upon that...

Surely you gain benefits with single-threaded applications as soon as you start running a large number of them? I would typically have several virtual machines, PHP/Apache/MySQL running alongside a plethora of development tools.

Furthermore, the i7 architecture should also better serve the RAM requirements of multiple simultaneous applications versus the Core2.

The i7 must surely smoke the Core2 when multi-tasking. But these tests assume the "real world" single threaded application user would only be using one single threaded application at any one time.
 
These results tally with my observations. I'm waiting for the threads to start on how to interpret CPU utilisation graphs on an i7. I posted about this the other day. PC people might be able to help us as they have a huge head start on the i7!
 
spacepower7 said:
That 47 minutes includes ripping the DVD straight from the 8x Superdrive. If you used a 16x or higher external DVD drive, then I would imagine the speed would be closer to ~30 minutes.
Click to expand...

As I've just mentioned on another thread, I 2 passed m4v h.264 handbrake encoded a pre ripped DVD last night in 15mins flat.

AWESOMENESS.
 
Uncle Pinny said:
As I've just mentioned on another thread, I 2 passed m4v h.264 handbrake encoded a pre ripped DVD last night in 15mins flat.

AWESOMENESS.
Click to expand...

What was the FPS? I am getting about 80+ FPS with the internal drive. I didn't expect there to be that big a jump..damn.
 
zedsdead said:
What was the FPS? I am getting about 80+ FPS with the internal drive. I didn't expect there to be that big a jump..damn.
Click to expand...

Notice I said 'pre ripped'


....as in a dvd image I'd previously extracted using Fairmount. Superdrive still sucks even in 2009!
 
zedsdead said:
What was the FPS? I am getting about 80+ FPS with the internal drive. I didn't expect there to be that big a jump..damn.
Click to expand...

These computers are certainly fast enough that the drive itself becomes a bottleneck, but keep in mind that there are A LOT of options in handbrake.

You rip differently for an iPod vs a Hugh quality rip to display on a nice tv or on your screen. Resolution, # of passes, etc... will have a huge effect on the framerate. It may not be an apples to apples comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back