iMac: ATI 4850 vs ATI 5850

[Paulyboy]

I'm thinking about snagging one of the I7 refurbs that are now occasionally popping up in the Apple Online Store. I currently have a late 2006 24" iMac with the 7300GT 128mb and 2mb of RAM. I can't say I'm in desperation mode yet but the I7 would definitely make any nagging, but mainly minor, issues I'm having go away. I would also definitely love the extra real estate the beautiful 27" display provides.

I would say I'm more or less an average user although I do occasionally do projects in iMovie and encode them to DVD for family and friends. I also rip all my DVD purchases to a Plex library for my HTC.

I do play games although I can't say I'm a hardcore gamer. For the most part I don't play 3D shooter-type games. Perhaps the most demanding game I'll be playing this year is Dragon Age: Origins and its expansion (I actually just purchased it from Direct2Drive's 50% off sale and stuck it on an external HD until I decide to upgrade this year).

So clearly going from what I have now to an I7 would be major overkill. However, I promised myself that as long as I have the money I won't be cheap with the next iMac I get. Last time I went with the 7300GT instead of the 7600GT, which saved me around $300. I actually don't really regret that decision because I've managed to last almost 3.5 years without making many compromises. But I'd like my next iMac to last even longer and perhaps even have better resale value.

So with that all said I will have enough money in April. I've already settled the I5 vs I7 debate (I7, especially at the price the refurb store offers). The only thing left that gives me pause is the 4850 GPU. It's a decent GPU, and obviously would be a huge leap for me, but I can't help but wonder about the new ATI 5xxx GPUs (specifically the 5850 mobile) that would seem likely destined for the next iMac refresh.

I've done some Googling but I'm curious what people on these forums think about the differences between the 4850 and 5850? Obviously the 5850 is going to be better but how much better? Enough to wait it out?

And for the record SSD, USB 3, and Blue-ray have no relevance in my decision. :)

Thanks for any advice. :)

-PN

[Rodus]

Apple always lag behind with GPU's so IMO we won't see the high end 5xxx series in the iMac any time soon. The 5850 is better then the 4850 to be sure but frankly if it's just gaming you're looking at then it'd make more sense to buy a console or a dedicated gaming rig (PC). Anyway, the 4850 is still a very decent card so if you have your heart set on an i7 then probably better to buy now then wait for an unsure amount of time for an upgrade that may or may not appear (plus the i7's will have great resale price if you decided to go for a spec bumped one 6 mths down the line). BTW you can happily overclock the mobile 4850 to higher levels then the standard speed desktop 4850.

edited to add: Hellhammers link shows the 5850 has 128 bit memory bandwidth vs the 256 bit in 4850, this could make a fair bit of difference,

[Hellhammer]

Benchmarks (http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-5850.23069.0.html) shows that 5850 is actually slower than 4850 though we don't know what drivers etc the 5850 had.

While Mobile 4850 is just underclocked desktop 4850 with about the same performance as desktop 4830, Mobile 5850 is underclocked desktop 5770 but it's slower than desktop 5750.

In summary, mobile 5850 won't be much faster (if any) than mobile 4850 because 4850 is based on high-end desktop chip while 5850 is based on mid-level desktop chip. Real world differences we don't know before 5xxx iMac is released (if it ever will) because it depends on what GPU  uses and how much memory and what are the clock speeds.

[Paulyboy]

Apple always lag behind with GPU's so IMO we won't see the high end 5xxx series in the iMac any time soon. The 5850 is better then the 4850 to be sure but frankly if it's just gaming you're looking at then it'd make more sense to buy a console or a dedicated gaming rig (PC). Anyway, the 4850 is still a very decent card so if you have your heart set on an i7 then probably better to buy now then wait for an unsure amount of time for an upgrade that may or may not appear (plus the i7's will have great resale price if you decided to go for a spec bumped one 6 mths down the line). BTW you can happily overclock the mobile 4850 to higher levels then the standard speed desktop 4850.

edited to add: Hellhammers link shows the 5850 has 128 bit memory bandwidth vs the 256 bit in 4850, this could make a fair bit of difference,

Thanks for the response.

Gaming is only one of many things I use my Mac for so I have no interest in a "gaming PC". As I stated I'm not really a hardcore gamer. I don't even use Bootcamp. I don't play 3D Shooters for the most part and I don't really care if I can get 60fps at 1900x1080 on everything I get my hands on (not that the type of games I typically play would push the limits anyways).

However, since I'm going to be spending 2k on an iMac this year sometime I'd like to make sure I get the most out of it and it lasts a long time. I don't care about Blue-ray, SSD is too expensive presently, and it will be awhile before USB 3 becomes standard (it's highly unlikely it will be in the next iMac anyways). But the GPU could be upgraded. I may not be a very hardcore gamer but I also don't necessarily need to upgrade immediately. It would obviously be nice, and I'll have the money to do so next month, but I'm willing to wait if these 5xxx GPUs, which *might* be in the next revision, are really that much better.

So I'm just trying to gather all the information possible. :)

-PN

[definitive]

if you want to get the most out of your money, then i suggest you wait until the next refresh with a better graphics card. a 4850 isn't much for a 2560x1440 resolution that the 27" imac has. it would have been a more suitable card for the top-end 21.5" instead, and 4670 should have been the base card instead of the 9400m which in my opinion is a joke for the price that you pay on their cheapest system.

[dh2005]

The 9400M was the component about which I had the greatest reservations before buying a Mini. I seriously considered waiting for the next generation before investing.

But, in practice, it's not bad. It's surpassed my expectations, in fact. I figured it'd be some lame piece of crap that could just about run Doom 3 if I asked it nicely. But I can run Doom 3 on maximum settings, and get more than 30 frames per second out of it.

Sure, Doom 3's an older game, but it still looks terrific when run on maximum settings. And if performance gaming is your plan, the Mini shouldn't even enter your thinking. Suffice it to say that the 9400M makes a decent account of itself in the Mini - it's a better match than I expected.

[Bryan Bowler]

OP, this is a good thread and a great question to ask. I'm in the same boat as you. I'm going to buy an i7, but I can easily wait up until August before I really need it...so I'm holding out for the next update too. Throughout this time, I was wondering what the ATI 5850 will bring to the table, if in fact it is included in the next update. (purely speculation of course)

From the answers we have so far, it looks like there is no way of really telling until it actually gets here and some benchmarks are made.

Bryan

[willcodejavafor]

Benchmarks (http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-5850.23069.0.html) shows that 5850 is actually slower than 4850 though we don't know what drivers etc the 5850 had.


So I'm waiting in wain! :mad:

[Sambo110]

Except that the 5850 can max Crysis with 8xAA at 1080P.

[willcodejavafor]

Except that the 5850 can max Crysis with 8xAA at 1080P.

But still barley beating 4850, it is rather underwhelming. So when is the 6xxx series coming out? :) I have high hopes for that one in the iMac.

j/k

[Rodus]

Another good chart here (http://twisted-reviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ati-mobility-radeon-3dmark06-1280x768-default.png).
The 5850 mobility barely beats the 4670 let alone the 4850. Looks like ATI cut it down too much.

its 128-bit memory bus, which differs it from the good old Mobility Radeon HD4850’s with its 256-bit memory, won’t allow it to shine even when it gets better drivers
We just don’t have a clue why ATI released a card that will potentially run slower than its predecessor.

[Sambo110]

But the 4850 can't play Crysis at 1080P, very high with 8x AA, yet the 5850 can...

[Hellhammer]

Another good chart here (http://twisted-reviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ati-mobility-radeon-3dmark06-1280x768-default.png).
The 5850 mobility barely beats the 4670 let alone the 4850. Looks like ATI cut it down too much.

They didn't cut 5850 too much. The difference is that mobile 4850 is actually the same chip as desktop 4850 but just underclocked. Mobile 5850 is based on desktop 5770 which is about as fast as desktop 4850 so that's why there is no big difference!

There is no Cypress (desktop 5850) based mobile GPU yet, just Juniper (desktop 5770) based ones. I don't know will there ever be a mobile Cypress GPU, maybe Cypress is just too hot and expensive to be used in laptops yet.

But still barley beating 4850, it is rather underwhelming. So when is the 6xxx series coming out? :) I have high hopes for that one in the iMac.

j/k

Northern Islands (successor of Evergreen, 5xxx series) are expected to be released as early as Q3 2010 but it can also be early 2011. Mobile variants will come few months after desktop ones though

[Paulyboy]

OP, this is a good thread and a great question to ask. I'm in the same boat as you. I'm going to buy an i7, but I can easily wait up until August before I really need it...so I'm holding out for the next update too. Throughout this time, I was wondering what the ATI 5850 will bring to the table, if in fact it is included in the next update. (purely speculation of course)

From the answers we have so far, it looks like there is no way of really telling until it actually gets here and some benchmarks are made.

Bryan

Yeah we both sound like we're in very similar situations. I was hoping to get something out of this thread that would push me one way or another but I didn't expect anything. I've been around Macs a long time and have been a regular reader of this forum for awhile so I pretty much know what to expect. And so far this thread, while very interesting, has yielded pretty much what I expected - not enough to push me one way or another.

I know I'd be immensely happy with the current I7 and it would probably be the biggest jump in capability between Macs I've ever experienced in my 25 years (and 7 Macs) of involvement with Apple. However, I'm also in a position where I could easily wait 3-6 more months if I had to.

So for now I'll wait until about mid-April, when I'll have the money, and see if anything more is reported by then. I don't expect we'll know anything more by then but we'll see.

On a related note, did anyone notice how in Valve's stunning Steam for the Mac announcement they said they worked closely with Apple and GPU manufacturers to ensure the best possible experience? Could this mean Apple might actually take GPUs in future iMacs more seriously?

-PN

[Transporteur]

But the 4850 can't play Crysis at 1080P, very high with 8x AA, yet the 5850 can...

The 5850 can? :eek:
Impressive! My 4870 can't do that. Not even close to that.
I demand a 5850 in the next Mac Pro! :D

[Sambo110]

The 5850 can? :eek:
Impressive! My 4870 can't do that. Not even close to that.
I demand a 5850 in the next Mac Pro! :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_bGHsrqxj8

Probably only at around 20-30 FPS, but can the 4850 do that?

[Hellhammer]

But the 4850 can't play Crysis at 1080P, very high with 8x AA, yet the 5850 can...

I think you mean the desktop version, right? As I've said it twice, there is no desktop 5850 based mobile GPU because mobile 5850 is based on desktop 5770, not 5850. Mobile 4850 is based on desktop 4850 though

[Sambo110]

Eh, I'm sure Apple will put something better in. Why can't they have desktop GPU's in the higher end iMac.

[Transporteur]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_bGHsrqxj8

Probably only at around 20-30 FPS, but can the 4850 do that?

The description says 32fps+. Impressive, really. I reckon my 4870 doesn't even make the half of that.

Eh, I'm sure Apple will put something better in. Why can't they have desktop GPU's in the higher end iMac.

Heat. To keep the iMac silent, they have to put in a mobile chip.
Apple computers still are not supposed to do gaming. They can, true, but a decent PC can and will do much better!

[Sambo110]

But with Steam coming out, I think Apple might focus on gaming more. And they could make the higher end iMac a bit thicker, I wouldn't care, and most people buying it wouldn't. As long as it's silent while you're not gaming I would be happy with it. They could have 3/4 models thin and using laptop parts like now, but the fourth one should have either an amazingly good mobility GPU, or a desktop one.

[Hellhammer]

Eh, I'm sure Apple will put something better in. Why can't they have desktop GPU's in the higher end iMac.

Heat and space. Look at Pic1 (http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/879/tlfsqzezwntwkylrlarge.jpg) Pic2 (http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/9364/cwt1ibtcyojyjfywlarge.jpg), there is no space for desktop GPU really, unless Apple makes iMac a lot thicker so the GPU would fit there horizontally. Desktop 5850 consumes as much as 151W while mobile 5850 tops out at 39W and mobile 4850 tops out at 45-65W (couldn't find more precise data) so that would mean a +400W PSU in iMac (=even more heat + less "greener"). Even though I would love to have a desktop GPU in iMac, it feels impossible without massive redesign

[coolmacguy]

I was kind of in this line of thinking but decided to buy now because after further research, as several people have pointed out in this thread, the 4850 is really about the best we can hope for for the near future. Any options Apple has now that are better are really just minor improvements.

The iMac will never be able to run the top end cards because of it's design.

[peakchua]

the 5850 seriously loses but only wins in the 3dmark benchmarks probably because of the advanced features. APPLE would be stupid to include this in the new imac and should include the 5870 with GDDR5 memory. and stop lying apple, the whole world knows its mobility so just admit it.!!!

[peakchua]

Benchmarks (http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-5850.23069.0.html) shows that 5850 is actually slower than 4850 though we don't know what drivers etc the 5850 had.

While Mobile 4850 is just underclocked desktop 4850 with about the same performance as desktop 4830, Mobile 5850 is underclocked desktop 5770 but it's slower than desktop 5750.

In summary, mobile 5850 won't be much faster (if any) than mobile 4850 because 4850 is based on high-end desktop chip while 5850 is based on mid-level desktop chip. Real world differences we don't know before 5xxx iMac is released (if it ever will) because it depends on what GPU  uses and how much memory and what are the clock speeds.



they average it out.. the one with lowrr frps has a kinda low processor. the other one had a processor not even close to the quadcore i5 i7 used in imac so the 5850 should perform siginificantly better

[Hellhammer]

they average it out.. the one with lowrr frps has a kinda low processor. the other one had a processor not even close to the quadcore i5 i7 used in imac so the 5850 should perform siginificantly better

Most what I've looked where pretty same. i5 @2.3GHz vs 2.9GHz C2D, not huge difference between them, i5 can even be faster. 4850 beat it anyway. See e.g. Fear 2 and Crysis

[MathijsDelva]

I too think Apple will focus a bit more on GPU & gaming performance since Steam is out. Also, that article on the homepage suggests Apple is actively working on gaming performance. This is something Apple has never done before..

[peakchua]

Most what I've looked where pretty same. i5 @2.3GHz vs 2.9GHz C2D, not huge difference between them, i5 can even be faster. 4850 beat it anyway. See e.g. Fear 2 and Crysis


ok, thanks! but without averaging, the 5850 is about 5% faster. the 5870 is only faster because of higher clocks.. sad i know how it consumes EVEN more power. 5850 is apples bet bet to hold of until the northern islands 6xxx series comes out which will bring significant improvements to the mac/ATI RADEON line. 5850 seems to be one of those preperation. AMD took the 5xxx family to put in new technoligies etc but decreased or incrementely upgraded the speed of the desktop products not the mobility, in fact some of them are slower which is kinda a flop for amd :apple:

[Hellhammer]

ok, thanks! but without averaging, the 5850 is about 5% faster. the 5870 is only faster because of higher clocks.. sad i know how it consumes EVEN more power. 5850 is apples bet bet to hold of until the northern islands 6xxx series comes out which will bring significant improvements to the mac/ATI RADEON line. 5850 seems to be one of those preperation. AMD took the 5xxx family to put in new technoligies etc but decreased or incrementely upgraded the speed of the desktop products not the mobility, in fact some of them are slower which is kinda a flop for amd :apple:

Southern Islands will focus on power efficiency but it doesn't guarantee better mobile GPUs. SI will unlikely introduce new cores thus unless ATI releases mobile Cypress, we won't see big increases in performance. Due power efficiency, I would guess that ATI does so though as even NVidia was able to provide "mobile" Fermi even though Fermi is a lot hotter. Mobile Cypress would be pretty expensive though.

ATI 4850 consumes more power than 5870 thus 5870 is possible in terms of power consumption but Apple might find it confusing.

[hundert]

If you really have done a lot of research, you would choose i5 over i7 :)

However, I do not know the prices in your country on the refurbs, so the i7 might be a nice catch. And even if it is:

i7 is good for rendering (as example). If you render on iMac with i7, it is faster, but mac with i7 gets much much much hotter, which will cause damage to display or other parts. That happens on the old macs too... black stains appear on the screen.

iMac is really not for rendering. And for occasional CPU power, i5 is enough :) i7 is only in plus, when you do rendering for more than half an hour or other tasks that depend on CPU completely for longer period of time (that's not browsing, or looking movies, that's rendering mostly).

As for update, I don't think it will happen until end of October.

Your money, do what you want with it.


Here is the Thread about people who have black spots on Screen:
That is because of the heat. Macs have crappiest cooling system you can imagine.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=861355

[Hellhammer]

If you really have done a lot of research, you would choose i5 over i7 :)

However, I do not know the prices in your country on the refurbs, so the i7 might be a nice catch. And even if it is:

i7 is good for Rendering. If you render on iMac with i7, it is faster, but mac with i7 gets much much much hotter, which will cause damage to display or other parts. That happens on the old macs too... black stains appear on the screen.

iMac is really not for rendering. And for occasional CPU power, i5 is enough :)


As for update, I don't think it will happen until end of October.

As far as I can tell, i5 and i7 are pretty equal in terms of heat

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intellynnfieldlaunch_090409000254/19912.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intellynnfieldlaunch_090409000254/19913.png

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-750-core-i7-860-870-processor-review-test/9

[hundert]

I am an overclocker I know everything about i5 and i7

i7 gets much hotter than i5.


The reason Anandtech shows different Power Consumption for i7 and i5 is because the chips they used had different VID. Newer revisions of CPUs have lower VID.

VID is a Voltage specified by Intel for the chip. The voltage gets improved with new steppings or revisions.

In other words, they have a crappy i5 750 and a good i7 860.

Anandtech also makes errors. Things like TIM (themal grease) can get applied in a wrong way, the cooler might be mounted unstraight. However, there is no word about temperature in the article.

Here is link http://www.anandtech.com/show/2839/8

I had 8x i7 860 with different Batches and I had one with 62° and one with 49°C both under load. I remounted the cooler more than 5 times and applied TIM in different ways and one chip was hotter than the other.

In the Link you gave: They probably had mainboard lie down on a table, not in a closed case, like every test person does. That's why temps are so close.
i7 860 really gets 8-15°C hotter, depending on batch.

[Hellhammer]

I am an overclocker I know everything about i5 and i7

i7 gets much hotter than i5.


The reason Anandtech shows different Power Consumption for i7 and i5 is because the chips they used had different VID. Newer revisions of CPUs have lower VID.

VID is a Voltage specified by Intel for the chip. The voltage gets improved with new steppings or revisions.

In other words, they have a crappy i5 750 and a good i7 860.

Anandtech also makes errors. Things like TIM (themal grease) can get applied in a wrong way, the cooler might be mounted unstraight. However, there is no word about temperature in the article.

Here is link http://www.anandtech.com/show/2839/8

I had 8x i7 860 with different Batches and I had one with 62° and one with 49°C both under load. I remounted the cooler more than 5 times and applied TIM in different ways and one chip was hotter than the other.

In the Link you gave: They probably had mainboard lie down on a table, not in a closed case, like every test person does. That's why temps are so close.
i7 860 really gets 8-15°C hotter, depending on batch.

It makes no sense! Only difference is 130MHz i.e. a bigger multiplier plus Hyper-Threading. The chip is the same. With your logic, the i5 can also be a lot hotter, depending on your luck.

[peakchua]

IMO, the 5850 without gddr5 is an inferior card compared with 4850 with gddr3 due to rops, texture units and memory bottleneck, apple should just admit its mobiity i wouldnt mind :) :D

[TMRaven]

Altho power consumption directly transfers into heat, I don't think the manner in which thermal paste is applied affects power consumption.

That said, the chips are the same (i5 lynnfield is just i7 lynnfield with 20x133 multiplier instead of 21x133 and hyperthreading turned off) intel did it for marketing reasons.

And yes, according to your logic, an i5 could be hotter on any day if the thermal paste was applied badly. If you look over temperature threads, you'll notice that people who post temps for their i5s and i7s are virtually the same.

[hundert]

It makes no sense! Only difference is 130MHz i.e. a bigger multiplier plus Hyper-Threading. The chip is the same. With your logic, the i5 can also be a lot hotter, depending on your luck.

It is hyper threading alone that is reason for the heat. On Windows you can turn HT off in bios and chip gets much cooler.

Yes, i5 can be hotter as I stated. But in average the i7 will be 10° kelvin hotter.

I wish I could prove it to you, but I don't want to void the warranty putting the i7 in instead of i5. There is a sticker that prevents me from doing it.

[johnnyfiive]

Some very mixed responses in this thread. As an actual hardware reviewer, let me add my two cents on what the differences are between the i5 and i7. Most important is Hyper Threading. i5 750 (4 cores/4 threads) has none, while the i7 860 (4 cores/8 threads) does. Automatically, the i7 860 will consume more power and in turn produce more heat. This is a side effect of Hyper Threading, but more threads tend to equal more heat with Intel's architecture.

The only reason to spend the extra cash and get the i7 setup over the i5 is simple, demand. If you have a high demand for multi-threaded jobs (encoding, very heavy multitasking) then the i7 option is for you. If you don't have a high need for multiple threads, then go with he i5. There aren't many apps that will utitilize all 8 threads but the ones that do will certainly show performance improvements.

The 4850 is an older GPU and there is no reason to get that over a 5850 no matter what platform you're using (PC, Mac, mobility options, etc.). If Apple is hinting towards a 5850 GPU powered iMac, and you have the patience to wait it out, then by all means wait. The 5850 is a newer generation altogether supporting new features like DX11 (BootCamp), uses less power and overall has higher performance. If the 5800 series is just now coming to Apple products, the chance of 68xx series GPU's coming anytime soon is unlikely. Considering the 4800 series is still being offered on now iMac's and Mac Pro's is a sign of slow progression so a 6800 series by years end is unrealistic.

I've built many PC's and overclock the living crap out of them. I got my AMD six core 1090T to 4.5GHz from 3.2GHz. I got my i5 750 2.66GHz to 4.4GHz, and my i7 920 (D0 Stepping) 2.66GHz to 4.5Ghz. So overclocking wise, i5's and i7's are fantastic, but there is no doubt that the Hyper Threaded capable CPU's use more power and produce more heat. Throughout my reviews and overclocking endeavors, I noticed about a 10C difference between the i5 750 and i7 920 when under load. AMD however, are icebergs in comparison, even the six core at load runs 20C+ cooler than an i5 or i7 at similar clocks.

It's too bad Apple didn't partner with AMD, imagine a 6 core iMac with a 5850 for encoding videos and gaming. It would be cheaper, it would run very cool, and it would produce nice encoding results because more physical cores is always better when encoding. I know in the PC world the 5850 makes the 4850 seem like a piece of crap, especially when you factor in the DX11 features and AA/AF improvements. And of course, the monthly ATi driver releases that almost always improve performance.

[TMRaven]

i7 920 is rated at 130tdp while i7 860 in the iMacs are rated at 95tdp, so of course it would be 10c hotter than the i7 750 in the iMacs.

[dexthageek]

i7 920 is rated at 130tdp while i7 860 in the iMacs are rated at 95tdp, so of course it would be 10c hotter than the i7 750 in the iMacs.

This is probably just a typo but, iMac has an i7 860, the i5 is the 750

[TMRaven]

Yes, typo indeed.

[johnnyfiive]

i7 920 is rated at 130tdp while i7 860 in the iMacs are rated at 95tdp, so of course it would be 10c hotter than the i7 750 in the iMacs.

Its gonna be hotter iMac or not. The i7's have more threads so its going to consume more power. It's basically what I explained above. The iMac uses a 1156 socket i7 860, not a 1366 socket i7 920. The Mac Pro towers use the i7 920's which uses triple channel DDR3 memory controller while the 1156 socket (i5/i7 8xx) uses a dual channel DDR3 memory controller.

[dexthageek]

Its gonna be hotter iMac or not. The i7's have more threads so its going to consume more power. It's basically what I explained above. The iMac uses a 1156 socket i7 860, not a 1366 socket i7 920. The Mac Pro towers use the i7 920's which uses triple channel DDR3 memory controller while the 1156 socket (i5/i7 8xx) uses a dual channel DDR3 memory controller.

Are you trying to tell people NOT to get the i7 because its hotter and will therefore, wear out their Mac quicker?

[Hellhammer]

I've built many PC's and overclock the living crap out of them. I got my AMD six core 1090T to 4.5GHz from 3.2GHz. I got my i5 750 2.66GHz to 4.4GHz, and my i7 920 (D0 Stepping) 2.66GHz to 4.5Ghz. So overclocking wise, i5's and i7's are fantastic, but there is no doubt that the Hyper Threaded capable CPU's use more power and produce more heat. Throughout my reviews and overclocking endeavors, I noticed about a 10C difference between the i5 750 and i7 920 when under load. AMD however, are icebergs in comparison, even the six core at load runs 20C+ cooler than an i5 or i7 at similar clocks.

Many AMD 1090T have wrongly calibrated heat sensor... For example, Phenom x4 965 have ~15c higher temps than x6 even though they are based on same architecture and both are 45nm. In power consumption, 965 uses several watts less too. It's very likely that the temps you have got aren't right. Lynnfields consume even less power than Phenom x4s.

Also, at TMraven said, you cannot compare 130W CPU to 95W

[TMRaven]

Its gonna be hotter iMac or not. The i7's have more threads so its going to consume more power. It's basically what I explained above. The iMac uses a 1156 socket i7 860, not a 1366 socket i7 920. The Mac Pro towers use the i7 920's which uses triple channel DDR3 memory controller while the 1156 socket (i5/i7 8xx) uses a dual channel DDR3 memory controller.

Yes, we all know this. I'd like to see more test numbers that actually prove the i7 860s in the iMacs to consume more power and thus run hotter than the i5 750s though. Hellhammer's graph from 3d guru shows the two to consume the same amount of power when encoding in x264-- which is hyperthreaded. Hundert said it might be flawed due to differences in thermal paste, but does the application of thermal paste really affect power consumption? (we know it could affect heat, but does it affect power consumption)

[johnnyfiive]

Are you trying to tell people NOT to get the i7 because its hotter and will therefore, wear out their Mac quicker?

No, not at all. I'm just saying, if you're going to buy an iMac, pick the one that suits your needs instead of thinking the "top dog" choice is the one to purchase. I don't know the current situations with 27" iMac running i7's, but if factual proof is coming out stating i7 powered iMac's are producing heat issues and screen defects, I'd certainly recommend staying away and getting the cooler running i5 offering.

Yes, we all know this. I'd like to see more test numbers that actually prove the i7 860s in the iMacs to consume more power and thus run hotter than the i5 750s though. Hellhammer's graph from 3d guru shows the two to consume the same amount of power when encoding in x264-- which is hyperthreaded. Hundert said it might be flawed due to differences in thermal paste, but does the application of thermal paste really affect power consumption? (we know it could affect heat, but does it affect power consumption)

Wrongly applying thermal paste won't increase power consumption, if anything it would decrease it because the CPU would throttle down its speed to keep itself from getting too hot. Both AMD and Intel have that killsafe feature would usually shuts the machine down if it gets TOO hot. So no, it won't increase power usage but it will definitely increase temperatures because of uneven contact with the heatsink.

Depending on what app was used, x264 encoding in that particular benchmark/app might have not been utilizing all 8 threads. This is where things get a little harry. When I do my reviews and when most sites do their reviews, each site has their own flavor of benchmarks. I use linpack based programs to stress the processor as much as possible. Either it be OCCT, LinX or Intel Burn Test, all do a great job of using calculations to completely peg every thread the CPU has. When I've personally done my reviews, a i7 920 with Hyper Threading enabled was about 8-10C hotter than when running the same CPU with Hyper Threading disabled. In comparison to an i5 750 at same clocks though, its at least a 10C difference.

Many AMD 1090T have wrongly calibrated heat sensor... For example, Phenom x4 965 have ~15c higher temps than x6 even though they are based on same architecture and both are 45nm. In power consumption, 965 uses several watts less too. It's very likely that the temps you have got aren't right. Lynnfields consume even less power than Phenom x4s.

Also, at TMraven said, you cannot compare 130W CPU to 95W

I know all this already, I've personally reviewed all those CPU's. I know about the temperature readings being off but I also use an infrared thermometer so I'm also still right with what I said about my temperature experiences.

Wattage has nothing to do with performance scaling, just compare 140W Phenom's to 130W i7's, clock for clock Intel's do more instructions per cycle, but thats all due to architecture. Still, AMD's perform well and are much cheaper, too bad Apple didn't dip into AMD products cause we'd all be paying less for Apple products if they did.

[Hellhammer]

I know all this already, I've personally reviewed all those CPU's. I know about the temperature readings being off but I also use an infrared thermometer so I'm also still right with what I said about my temperature experiences.

Temperature goes hand in hand with power consumption. AMD may have better cooler or it may spin faster then but the x6 isn't cooler than Lynnfields

Wattage has nothing to do with performance scaling, just compare 140W Phenom's to 130W i7's, clock for clock Intel's do more instructions per cycle, but thats all due to architecture. Still, AMD's perform well and are much cheaper, too bad Apple didn't dip into AMD products cause we'd all be paying less for Apple products if they did.

I never said about performance... iMac uses i7 860 which is 95W thus you cannot compare it to the 920 and say the i7 is at least 10c hotter.

[johnnyfiive]

Temperature goes hand in hand with power consumption. AMD may have better cooler or it may spin faster then but the x6 isn't cooler than Lynnfields

I never said about performance... iMac uses i7 860 which is 95W thus you cannot compare it to the 920 and say the i7 is at least 10c hotter.

X6's (Thuban) run much cooler than Lynnfields. I have a water cooled setup right now where I switched from my i5 750 @ 4.0 (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4338333592_461a967c16_o.png) to my X6 1090T at 4.0+ (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4044/4701673337_b3211def42_b.jpg) (currently 4.2) and it runs 15C cooler on average at full load. Again, personal experience.

You can compare a i7 860 to an i5 750 and you will still see a temperature difference, about 8-10C. I've seen it first hand. With air cooling especially, there is about a 8-10C difference between the i5 750 and i7 860 when fully loaded. When I say utilized, I'm referring to all 8 threads being used on the 860 and all four being used on the 750. Not all benchmarks can utilize 2+ threads (100%), yet alone 8. Encoding is why people by the i5 and i7 powered iMacs. Depending on the app, it will or will not use all available threads. When it does use ALL threads, you will see a 8-10C difference between the 860 and 750, again, this is just my personal experience.

[Hellhammer]

X6's (Thuban) run much cooler than Lynnfields. I have a water cooled setup right now where I switched from my i5 750 @ 4.0 to my X6 1090T at 4.0+ (currently 4.2) and it runs 15C cooler on average at full load. Again, first hand experience.

You can compare a i7 860 to an i5 750 and you will still see a temperature difference, about 8-10C. I've seen it first hand. With air cooling especially, there is about a 8-10C difference between the i5 750 and i7 860 when fully loaded. When I say utitlized, I'm referring to all 8 threads being used on the 860 and all four being used on the 750. Not all benchmarks can utilize 2+ threads (100%), yet alone 8. Encoding is why people by the i5 and i7 powered iMacs. Depending on the app, it will or will not use all available threads. When it does use ALL threads, you will see a 8-10C difference between the 860 and 750, its fact that I've seen first hand.

Dare to share some evidence then? If you review them, you must have a site with nice graphs to show? How about fan speeds then? Were they set to certain level? i7 should also have a blasting fan too if it runs hotter. Also, it doesn't run hotter if all threads aren't in use. I don't mind if it's little hotter if it provides 30% better performance when I need it. Idle temps should be the same because only one or two threads are in use

Have you tested Phenom 965? Its temps should be comparable to 1090T (same power consumption). No chance 1090T runs cooler than x4 965 under full load

[johnnyfiive]

Dare to share some evidence then? If you review them, you must have a site with nice graphs to show? How about fan speeds then? Were they set to certain level? i7 should also have a blasting fan too if it runs hotter. Also, it doesn't run hotter if all threads aren't in use. I don't mind if it's little hotter if it provides 30% better performance when I need it. Idle temps should be the same because only one or two threads are in use

Have you tested Phenom 965? Its temps should be comparable to 1090T (same power consumption). No chance 1090T runs cooler than x4 965 under full load

I have plenty of proof, I review remember? :cool:
BTW, I'm not posting just to annoy you, I'm posting because everything you're saying is confusing people, your not stating facts, just hear say, in my opinion.

Thuban (X6) at 4.0GHz (water cooled)
http://img.techpowerup.org/100616/Capture013.jpg

i5 750 at 4.0GHz (water cooled)
http://www.techpowerup.com/gallery/2472/__10.jpg

i7 920 at 4.2Ghz (best air cooler available (Noctua NH-D14), but it was 65F in the room at the time, temps were very generous)
http://www.techpowerup.com/gallery/2420/__4.jpg

And here is a link to reviews I've done:
http://bjorn3d.com/content.php?author=John+Armstrong&cat=9999&keyword=&Submit=Go&viewcat=1

So, look at the pics and look at the maximum temperatures. x6 in the 30-40's, i5 in the mid to high 60's, and i7 in the mid to high 70's. Even though the Phenom heat sensors are off 10c (thats the current agreement from what ive seen), then lets say my x6 is really in the 40's to 50's. Even if that were 100% true, it still runs 10-15c cooler than an i5 750. You mentioned X6's didn't run cooler than Lynnfields (i5/i7 8xx), they do run cooler. As for Phenom 965's, I wouldn't know I've never had a 965. I had a Phenom II 920 but that was long ago and won't really compare to these newer steppings/revisions.

Now, the i7 is in the 70's, same exact clock speed as the i5 750, and its still over 10C hotter. Now, I know the i5 was water cooled, but my water cooling loop cools the MOSFET's/VRM's, 5850 GPU, SouthBridge, and the CPU. So really, it only about 2-3c better than the i7 on air. There's your proof. :)

I forgot to mention that once overclocking is put into the picture, wattage ratings mean diddly squat. Once you push the CPU passed its native clock speed, voltages are increased and the TDP rating becomes null. This is why I know the i5's run an average of 8-10C cooler at similar clock speeds. This also relates down to default clocks and ratings, once a CPU is pegged it wills how its true temperatures.

[TMRaven]

I wanna see power consumption numbers of i7 860 when at full load compared to i5 750 at full load, both on the same system. Default clocks of course.

[johnnyfiive]

I wanna see power consumption numbers of i7 860 when at full load compared to i5 750 at full load, both on the same system. Default clocks of course.

I don't have power consumption numbers (on hand) unfortunately, just temperature results. I'll have to see if I can find any for ya.
Side note: We really should get this back to the original topic, we pissed all over the OP's question, sorry OP!

To the OP: Wait for a 5800 series powered iMac if its a possible future option!

[Hellhammer]

I have plenty of proof, I review remember? :cool:
BTW, I'm not posting just to annoy you, I'm posting because everything you're saying is confusing people, your not stating facts, just hear say, in my opinion.

So, look at the pics and look at the maximum temperatures. x6 in the 30-40's, i5 in the mid to high 60's, and i7 in the mid to high 70's. Even though the Phenom heat sensors are off 10c (thats the current agreement from what ive seen), then lets say my x6 is really in the 40's to 50's. Even if that were 100% true, it still runs 10-15c cooler than an i5 750. So again, I'm right bout that.

Now, the i7 is in the 70's, same exact clock speed as the i5 750, and its still over 10C hotter. Now, I know the i5 was water cooled, but my water cooling loop cools the MOSFET's/VRM's, 5850 GPU, SouthBridge, and the CPU. So really, it only about 2-3c better than the i7 on air. So again, I'm right, and there's your proof. :)

I forgot to mention that once overclocking is put into the picture, wattage ratings mean diddly squat. Once you push the CPU passed its native clock speed, voltages are increased and the TDP rating becomes null. This is why I know the i5's run an average of 8-10C cooler at similar clock speeds.

I never said you're wrong, it just fought against what I've read and seen ;) Maybe HT really adds ~8c more but that's only when it's under full load and I at least am okay with it if it provides noticeable better performance.

One thing you are still forgetting is that you have 920 which is 130W when @2.66GHz. It's already a whole different chip when compared to i7 860. You have also overclocked them all with different cooling systems so I wouldn't use them as so "water-proof" evidence. Someone with both iMac should do the testing, that's the only way to get very accurate results. In my link above, there is 750 vs 860, both running at pretty similar temps.

I think your 1090Ts and 920s are confusing even more because they aren't and cannot be used in iMacs (yet). They have nothing to do with 750 vs 860. You have overclocked etc so I wouldn't count them as good proofs.

I think this is pretty offtopic now. If HT adds few Celsius, so what? It's worth the performance gain. When idling, there shouldn't be any difference in temperature. If you're worried, you can always boost the fans a little bit

Side note: We really should get this back to the original topic, we pissed all over the OP's question, sorry OP!

You realize that this thread is over 3 months old?

If we get back to the original topic, how is 5850 significantly faster? Take a look at some of my post in first page, there are explanations why 5850 isn't much better, if at all. It's only worth it if you care about new techs such as OpenGL 4 and DirectX 11

[johnnyfiive]

I never said you're wrong, it just fought against what I've read and seen ;) Maybe HT really adds ~8c more but that's only when it's under full load and I at least am okay with it if it provides noticeable better performance.

One thing you are still forgetting is that you have 920 which is 130W when @2.66GHz. It's already a whole different chip when compared to i7 860. You have also overclocked them all with different cooling systems so I wouldn't use them as so "water-proof" evidence. Someone with both iMac should do the testing, that's the only way to get very accurate results. In my link above, there is 750 vs 860, both running at pretty similar temps.

I think your 1090Ts and 920s are confusing even more because they aren't and cannot be used in iMacs (yet). They have nothing to do with 750 vs 860. You have overclocked etc so I wouldn't count them as good proofs.

I think this is pretty offtopic now. If HT adds few Celsius, so what? It's worth the performance gain. When idling, there shouldn't be any difference in temperature. If you're worried, you can always boost the fans a little bit



You realize that this thread is over 3 months old?

If we get back to the original topic, how is 5850 significantly faster? Take a look at some of my post in first page, there are explanations why 5850 isn't much better, if at all. It's only worth it if you care about new techs such as OpenGL 4 and DirectX 11

Yeah, a lot of what we are both talking about is moot because the only way to get real proof is to have a person with both system configurations do tests for us. My test alone only confirm temp differences in my particular setups, so its moot to be blunt. We need real iMac temps, not PC overclocked crazed temps like I provided.

5850 though, for anyone interested in gaming in a Windows environment (BootCamp) would benefit greatly. I saw that Valve, Nvidia, and ATI are working together to make games run faster within OSX, I hope that means driver improvements for current cards and future possibilities for 58xx ATi implementation cause then I'd probably get an iMac for myself.

[Hellhammer]

5850 though, for anyone interested in gaming in a Windows environment (BootCamp) would benefit greatly. I saw that Valve, Nvidia, and ATI are working together to make games run faster within OSX, I hope that means driver improvements for current cards and future possibilities for 58xx ATi implementation.

In games that support DirectX 11, yes. Take a look at the links in in first page. Mobility 58xx is based on desktop 57xx (Juniper) and I think you already know that desktop 57xx is pretty similar to 48xx in terms of performance. Mobility 4850 is based on desktop 4850 though so the difference is unfortunately fairly small :( See the game benches in notebookcheck links, they give you an idea. I wouldn't talk about great benefit, it's pretty small. If GDDR5 is used, especially if there is more than 512MB, there will be more noticeable difference because iMacs enormous resolution needs a lot VRAM. 5850 runs a lot cooler though so it's again a good benefit and 5870 fits fine too, and it provides ~15% better performance than 4850.

Of course this is just speculation because the drivers Apple provides play a huge role, at least when under OS X. In PC side, there isn't much difference, other than 5850 fits fine in laptops while 4850 needs massive brick and cooling system that sounds like an airplane :D

In the end, we don't know before the iMac is actually out with good benchmarks. If Apple made it thicker and added dedicated cooler for GPU, they could fit desktop 5770 there, even 5830. And don't get me wrong, I'd love to see big improvements in iMacs' GPUs but mobility 5850 doesn't provide the more or less much needed and wanted increase in performance.

[iMacmatician]

But still barley beating 4850, it is rather underwhelming. So when is the 6xxx series coming out? :) I have high hopes for that one in the iMac.

j/kAccording to this (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=et&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.4gamer.net%2Fgames%2F110%2FG011065%2F20100526093%2F) there will be some future GPUs coming in H2 2010 and others coming in early 2011.

Southern Islands will focus on power efficiency but it doesn't guarantee better mobile GPUs. SI will unlikely introduce new cores thus unless ATI releases mobile Cypress, we won't see big increases in performance. Rumors some time ago pointed to slightly lower SP counts, increased tessellation performance, and a slightly bigger die size. Another change with the upcoming GPUs is (from the link) increased bus width for higher end GPUs, desktop and mobile.

http://www.4gamer.net/games/110/G011065/20100526093/SS/003.jpg

[DesmoPilot]

It makes no sense! Only difference is 130MHz i.e. a bigger multiplier plus Hyper-Threading. The chip is the same. With your logic, the i5 can also be a lot hotter, depending on your luck.

Hyperthreading has been known for a long time to add ~10C to temps. Ask any PC hardware enthusiast with a decent knowledge of Intel CPUs.

[TMRaven]

I found another (http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-Core-i5-and-i7-Processors-and-P55-Chipset/?page=17) comparison between the nehalem chips at their default clocks, an their power ratings under idle and loads. It shows an i7 870 consuming 20more points than i5 750 while under load. It also shows i7 920 consuming 60 more points than i5 750 while under load. I'll say the i7 860 would consume a tad less power than the i7 870 while under load, so I'll give it 15more points rather than 20. Since you said i7 920 got 10c hotter than i5 750 under load, and 15 points is a 4th of 60 points, we can only assume that the i7 860 would get 2-3c hotter than i5 750 in the iMac while under load.

I really hope apple doesn't choose the mobility 5850 for their iMac revision. Even with 1gb of GDDR5 ram and the best drivers it could get, I seriously doubt its upgrade over mobility 4850. As was already said, less heat and DX11 are about the biggest advantages it gets. Mobility 5870 needs to come into play-- at least as a high-end bto option.

[DesmoPilot]

I found Mobility 5870 needs to come into play-- at least as a high-end bto option.

High end graphics option in an iMac? Not gonna happen, this is Apple we're talking about.

[johnnyfiive]

In games that support DirectX 11, yes. Take a look at the links in in first page. Mobility 58xx is based on desktop 57xx (Juniper) and I think you already know that desktop 57xx is pretty similar to 48xx in terms of performance. Mobility 4850 is based on desktop 4850 though so the difference is unfortunately fairly small :( See the game benches in notebookcheck links, they give you an idea. I wouldn't talk about great benefit, it's pretty small. If GDDR5 is used, especially if there is more than 512MB, there will be more noticeable difference because iMacs enormous resolution needs a lot VRAM. 5850 runs a lot cooler though so it's again a good benefit and 5870 fits fine too, and it provides ~15% better performance than 4850.

Of course this is just speculation because the drivers Apple provides play a huge role, at least when under OS X. In PC side, there isn't much difference, other than 5850 fits fine in laptops while 4850 needs massive brick and cooling system that sounds like an airplane :D

In the end, we don't know before the iMac is actually out with good benchmarks. If Apple made it thicker and added dedicated cooler for GPU, they could fit desktop 5770 there, even 5830. And don't get me wrong, I'd love to see big improvements in iMacs' GPUs but mobility 5850 doesn't provide the more or less much needed and wanted increase in performance.

hellhammer, the 4850 is no where near the 5850 in performance. Bring it to the PC side, where drivers are written properly for gaming, and you see what I mean.

If you look at any recent review, look at where a 5850 performs its considered to be an enthusiast card, where the 5870 is tiered toward the hardcore enthusiast. The 5770 is mainstream, which means its affordable to the majority of consumers, which means its no where near the caliber of Cypress 58xx based cards. I really hope Valve, Apple, and ATi can make some awesome drivers for the current GPU line up and eventually bring 5800's to the iMac's and Mac Pro. The 5850 nearly doubles the 4850's results in every benchmark.

http://techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5770_PCS_Plus_Plus/10.html
http://techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5770_PCS_Plus_Plus/7.html
http://techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5770_PCS_Plus_Plus/22.html

Cypress brought a smaller die, more performance, less heat, less noise, DX11, tessellation, and pure awesomeness. Juniper is based off Cypress, not the other way around. Juniper is just a neutered Cypress configuration, which is why its so much cheaper. 5770's perform on par with 4870 which is what 5770's were aimed at replacing. 4800 series is no longer and why Apple is still using them in their high level products boggles my mind. The 5800's are SOOOO much better. I love my 5850, especially when its clocked at 1000MHz core /1300MHz memory. Gotta love water cooling. :)

5850 mobility is real and available now. Apple needs to adopt it into their iMac's and MacBook Pro's and get rid of that poor excuse of a laptop GPU which is the GTS 320M. For the price Apple is charging for the latest MacBooks (15"+), they need to add a much better GPU.

[Hellhammer]

According to this (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=et&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.4gamer.net%2Fgames%2F110%2FG011065%2F20100526093%2F) there will be some future GPUs coming in H2 2010 and others coming in early 2011.

Rumors some time ago pointed to slightly lower SP counts, increased tessellation performance, and a slightly bigger die size. Another change with the upcoming GPUs is (from the link) increased bus width for higher end GPUs, desktop and mobile.

http://www.4gamer.net/games/110/G011065/20100526093/SS/003.jpg

Memory bus width increase from 128bit to 256bit would already provide better performance. I doubt we'll see SI in next gen iMacs though, maybe along with Sandy Bridge

Hyperthreading has been known for a long time to add ~10C to temps. Ask any PC hardware enthusiast with a decent knowledge of Intel CPUs.

Well, people who have said that were not able to provide acceptable evidence. TMraven's post provides again more evidence that it does not increase temps by much.

High end graphics option in an iMac? Not gonna happen, this is Apple we're talking about.

ATI 5850 is high-end card as well...

[Hellhammer]

hellhammer, the 4850 is no where near the 5850 in performance. Bring it to the PC side, where drivers are written properly for gaming, and you see what I mean.

If you look at any recent review, look at where a 5850 performs its considered to be an enthusiast card, where the 5870 is tiered toward the hardcore enthusiast. The 5770 is mainstream, which means its affordable to the majority of consumers, which means its no where near the caliber of Cypress 58xx based cards. I really hope Valve, Apple, and ATi can make some awesome drivers for the current GPU line up and eventually bring 5800's to the iMac's and Mac Pro. The 5850 nearly doubles the 4850's results in every benchmark.

http://techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5770_PCS_Plus_Plus/10.html
http://techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5770_PCS_Plus_Plus/7.html
http://techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5770_PCS_Plus_Plus/22.html

Cypress brought a smaller die, more performance, less heat, less noise, DX11, tessellation, and pure awesomeness. Juniper is based off Cypress, not the other way around. Juniper is just a neutered Cypress configuration, which is why its so much cheaper. 5770's perform on par with 4870 which is what 5770's were aimed at replacing. 4800 series is no longer and why Apple is still using them in their high level products boggles my mind. The 5800's are SOOOO much better. I love my 5850, especially when its clocked at 1000MHz core /1300MHz memory. Gotta love water cooling. :)

That's for DESKTOPS! Yeah, that is the case in desktops but we are talking about mobile GPUs what iMacs use. That's why I said take a look at my links because they are for mobile GPUs. I know in desktop side the 58xx series is amazing, runs circles around 48xx but unfortunately, that's not the case for mobility versions. Best mobility chip is based on Juniper, not Cypress

[johnnyfiive]

That's for DESKTOPS! Yeah, that is the case in desktops but we are talking about mobile GPUs what iMacs use. That's why I said take a look at my links because they are for mobile GPUs. I know in desktop side the 58xx series is amazing, runs circles around 48xx but unfortunately, that's not the case for mobility versions. Best mobility chip is based on Juniper, not Cypress

ATi needs to bring Cypress to the iMac naooooooooo!

[Hellhammer]

****, it is based on Juniper (WHY?!?!?!??!!? ATi WHY!!?!?!?!?!)

Maybe Cypress is too expensive (or was) and needs too much power. It really is sad :( E.g. mobility 5850 has bus width of 128bit while mobility 4850 has 256bit

Please see these two links to do the comparing yourself ;)

ATI Mobility 4850 (http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-4850.13975.0.html)
ATI Mobility 5850 (http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-5850.23069.0.html)

[DesmoPilot]

Well, people who have said that were not able to provide acceptable evidence. TMraven's post provides again more evidence that it does not increase temps by much.


Well ~10C isn't much; the amount of heat added increases with OCing though. Hop over to any enthusiast forum and look for big i7 overclocking threads (which may buried now, but the 930/875K threads should still be viewable) the biggest dilemma for quite a few people is weather or not to keep HT on due to the heat increase.

[johnnyfiive]

Here ya go guys, found something relevant to the temperature debat.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/22151-intel-lynnfield-core-i5-750-core-i7-870-processor-review-20.html

Scroll down and look at the temps on the right (load temps with the MUX cooler). That shows the 8-10C difference I'm talking about. The stock Intel cooler has poor cooling which is why temps are similar, in other words, it lets the i5 750 get to the same temps as the 870 which means it sucks in simple terms.

[johnnyfiive]

All I know is, my i5 750 couldn't do this.

http://img.techpowerup.org/100616/Capture014615.jpg

http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/1246317.png (http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1246317)

I need to hackintosh this X6... :apple:

[TMRaven]

Here ya go guys, found something relevant to the temperature debat.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/22151-intel-lynnfield-core-i5-750-core-i7-870-processor-review-20.html

Scroll down and look at the temps on the right (load temps with the MUX cooler). That shows the 8-10C difference I'm talking about. The stock Intel cooler has poor cooling which is why temps are similar, in other words, it lets the i5 750 get to the same temps as the 870 which means it sucks in simple terms.

Ok, those numbers further back up my other post, where I said the i7 870 showed a power consumption increase over i5 750, but was only a marginal increase in comparison to the i7 920. With the ultra cooler, the temp differences between the i5 750 and i7 870 in those tests are 5-8c. Given i7 860 will run slightly cooler, and the presumably inferior cooler in the iMacs will make less of a difference, you're still left with around 2-6c in difference at most. Either way it's not that big of a dealbreaker for users who want to get the i7 860 over i5 750 in the current iMacs.

[Hellhammer]

Ok, those numbers further back up my other post, where I said the i7 870 showed a power consumption increase over i5 750, but was only a marginal increase in comparison to the i7 920. With the ultra cooler, the temp differences between the i5 750 and i7 870 in those tests are 5-8c. Given i7 860 will run slightly cooler, and the presumably inferior cooler in the iMacs will make less of a difference, you're still left with around 2-6c in difference at most. Either way it's not that big of a dealbreaker for users who want to get the i7 860 over i5 750 in the current iMacs.

Mmm. I think we just turned a mouse into a dinosaur :D If there is few Celsius difference when under load, so what? It's worth the performance gain. When HT is not in use, the temps should be fairly similar and most of the time HT is not used, unless you do video encoding day after day.

P.S. Sorry if some of my posts have been little unfriendly, I didn't mean it. Sometimes when I have to explain the same thing over and over again, it heats me up. I try to do my homework as best as I can and always include as many sources as possible. I feel I'm right until proven otherwise, just like everyone else ;) Also, please correct me if you think I'm wrong in something, I don't know everything. Just remember to show some backup for your statement. I admit that it seems to be that HT adds few Celsius depending on cooling system but the extra 130MHz also adds some heat.

[johnnyfiive]

Mmm. I think we just turned a mouse into a dinosaur :D If there is few Celsius difference when under load, so what? It's worth the performance gain. When HT is not in use, the temps should be fairly similar and most of the time HT is not used, unless you do video encoding day after day.

P.S. Sorry if some of my posts have been little unfriendly, I didn't mean it. Sometimes when I have to explain the same thing over and over again, it heats me up. I try to do my homework as best as I can and always include as many sources as possible. I feel I'm right until proven otherwise, just like everyone else ;) Also, please correct me if you think I'm wrong in something, I don't know everything. Just remember to show some backup for your statement. I admit that it seems to be that HT adds few Celsius depending on cooling system but the extra 130MHz also adds some heat.

No biggie hellhammer, debating is fun, learning is fun, its Friday and iPhone 4 is coming next week. It's all good. :apple: