Mac Core 2 Duo tested . . .

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Pressure, Jul 22, 2006.

  1. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #1
    t-break has tested the Core 2 Duo under the Mac OSX environment against other Mac Core Duo products, MacBook Pro 2.13Ghz and Core Duo 1.66Ghz.

    Read the "preview" here

    Post your thoughts!

    Unfortunately these are not Apples to Apples tests . . . which skew the results
     
  2. dextertangocci macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    #2
    There's something weird about that system profiler window...

    It looks tampered with...
     
  3. AvSRoCkCO1067 macrumors 65816

    AvSRoCkCO1067

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Location:
    CO
    #3
    I think the most impressive statistics was photoshop running under 'Rosetta' - it was negligibly slower than Windows, running Photoshop natively.

    If these results are accurate - my computer's going to be obsolete in about 2 weeks. :D :(
     
  4. atad6 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    #4
    i don't really understand. they compared intel's new core 2 desktop processor (not merom) with a macbook pro? that doesn't make any sense, or did i read that wrong.
     
  5. Pressure thread starter macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #5
    Conroe/Woodcrest/Merom are the basically the same chip.

    The are showing the difference between the current MacBook Pro Core Duo processor and the new Core 2 Duo (Conroe).
     
  6. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #6
    ROFL- impressive statistics, especially when you see the difference between a Core Duo and Core 2 Duo at the same clockspeed. But wow- that last benchmark cracked me up. Windows outperforms Mac OS X by 3% on Photoshop...when the Mac is running Photoshop under Rosetta!
     
  7. bbrosemer macrumors 6502a

    bbrosemer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    #7
    No... the FSB is only supposed to be 800 not 1.07Ghz....!!!!
     
  8. ravenvii macrumors 604

    ravenvii

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Location:
    Melenkurion Skyweir
    #8
    Um... what Mac is a jMac? Yeah, thought so.

    And there's no @ next to the CPU name in the system profiler, nor are there any model names, only the name of the CPU line (which should have been Core 2 Duo, without anything else).

    And that's not to mention the CPU speed. 4 GHz? LOL

    The profiler definitely looks like a pile of *********..
     
  9. Pressure thread starter macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #9
    Aye, Conroe uses a 266Mhz FSB (1.066Ghz effective)while Merom has a 166Mhz FSB (667Mhz effective) until the Santa Rosa platform arrives (800Mhz effective). Other than that, they are the exact same chip.

    However it is widely known that Conroe is a good 15-30% faster(depending on the application) clock for clock compared to Yonah.
     
  10. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #10
    I was wondering the same thing, how could the difference between Mac OS X running Photoshop through Rosetta only be 3% slower than Windows running the same app natively? :confused:


    But regardless, the Core 2 Duo looks pretty darn impressive! :D
     
  11. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #11
    Uh, did you bother READING the article? They used a hacked version of OS X that runs on non-Apple hardware, and are using generic Intel Core 2 Duo motherboards, not Macs.
     
  12. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #12
    Because Macs run Photoshop that much better?
     
  13. slooksterPSV macrumors 68030

    slooksterPSV

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    Nowheresville
    #13
    It's fake, that image is a fake too - open DigitalColor Meter and compare fonts - the fonts are wrong - wrong size, and there's a lot of errors in that. The color's, compare regular fonts w/those on the image - they're wrong. I could make a decent - almost real - looking one bc I know what I'm doing. That guy can't make fake images worth crap.
     
  14. stunna macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    #14
    is rosetta a compatiblity layer or emulation?
     
  15. WillMak macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    #15
    wow...so the macbook's are already super obsolete...
     
  16. ravenvii macrumors 604

    ravenvii

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Location:
    Melenkurion Skyweir
    #16
    Yes, I did read the article.

    And I still believe that different hardware wouldn't make the syntax in System Profiler so radically different. It's like in Windows - all kinds of different hardware, but the way it's presented are all the same.
     
  17. Some_Big_Spoon macrumors 6502a

    Some_Big_Spoon

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #17
    Well, to be fair, I think these things actually have to be released before you can call my machine obsolete :-D

     
  18. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #18
    I don't think they used a hacked version of MacOS X, it looks more like a hacked screenshot of the System Profiler. If you have an Intel Macintosh, do "About This Mac" and click on "More Info", then compare with the screenshot in the article.

    The distance between categories and values is different. It displays "Number of cores", not "Number of CPUs". It shows the size of the L2 cache, which is missing. The processor name would be something like "Intel Core2 Duo", without any (Registered Trademark) and (Trademark) symbols. "4 GHz" CPU is nonsense. Complete fake.
     
  19. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #19
    Rosetta is a runtime binary translator. When you start a PowerPC application, Rosetta loads all the code, then translates it into instructions for the Core Duo processor.
     
  20. livingfortoday macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Location:
    The Msp
    #20
    Well, nobody's brought this up yet - but my biggest problem with this is that they used XBench as if it were a reliable benchmarking tool. From all the times I've run it, I've learned not to trust it. Maybe since they just took the CPU readings, it might be more reliable, but I don't know. I wish they had run a few different tests.
     

Share This Page