Mini 1.5 Core Solo vs. Dell 2.8 GHz P4HT - WHAT?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by gkarris, Jul 10, 2006.

  1. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #1
    Hey, what's faster?

    At church for recording the sermons, we had a Dell 2.8 GHz with Cubase and a pro audio box. The machine is no longer under warranty and has started acting up. I took the opportunity to get a Mac Mini with OS X instead.

    We got a Mac mini with 1.5 Core Solo with 1 Gig RAM. I used it yesterday (Sunday) to record the sermon (usually about 40 minutes in length). I exported the audio mixdown and it took the Mac Mini less than 1/2 the time to export the AIFF file than the Dell.

    What's up? A machine with a 1.5 GHz processor takes less time than the 2.8 GHz one???
     
  2. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #2
    Shorter instruction pipelines and a more efficient processor in general. Any clue on which 2.8 GHz Pentium IV?
     
  3. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #3
    That's a good example of the megahertz myth. A Core Solo processor is a generation ahead of a Pentium, so can accomplish much more at lower clock speeds.
     
  4. gkarris thread starter macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #4
    The Dell's over 2 years old already, so whatever was out back then...
     
  5. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #5
    Sounds like a late Northwood or early Prescott then.

    Core Solo would slam Northwood. I'm not sure about Prescott though.
     
  6. 4God macrumors 68020

    4God

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Location:
    My Mac
    #6
    Yeah, and don't forget about bus speed. I'd bet that dell was running 333 or 533 Mhz front side bus as compared to the 667 on the mini. Memory speed may play a minor role in that as well.
     
  7. gkarris thread starter macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #7
    Here's the information from Dell's support site:

    1 C1431 PROCESSOR, 80532, 2.8G, 512K, 533, SOCKET N, DECISION ONE
     
  8. ricgnzlzcr macrumors 6502a

    ricgnzlzcr

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    #8
    I wish I understood more the difference between the processors. I had a 3.2 Ghz Pentium 4 Extreme and I'm sure a core solo 1.5 would be faster than it. I wonder why that is for the most part
     
  9. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #9
    Also don't forget hyperthreading. The 2.8 GHz P4 is most often seen by the OS as two 1.4 GHz cores. If the app isn't optimized to use both virtual cores, you won't see the beenfit. So unless you turn off hyperthreading, a single 1.5 GHz Core with a shorter pipeline will smoke the P4.

    B
     
  10. Makosuke macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Location:
    The Cool Part of CA, USA
    #10
    Mmm, in that case it would be close, but the edge would probably go to the P4. Now, put it up against a 2.16GHz dualcore and it would eat it for lunch.

    The sad fact is that in pushing the Megahertz Myth Intel hamstrung itself for years with a creaky processor design that was designed for clockspeed over actual speed. They finally realized the corner they had painted themselves into with marketing sometime around when their mobile architecture (on which the Core chips are based, if memory serves--I haven't followed Intel stuff very closely) started making everything else they made look like an overheated dinosaur.

    Heck, their server-only Itanium chips were speedy at something like 1/3 the clock of a P4.

    Bottom line is, after a long time of milking the P4 for MORE than it was worth, Intel finally has a decent foundation on which to build. The Core chips really do perform extrordinariy well, and at low power. Heck, a 2.16GHz Core Duo has been shown in real-world tests to be competitive with 3.75GHz P4EE chips. When your new "mobile" processor is FASTER than your top of the line desktop processor, you know you've been doing something wrong, and are doing something right now.
     
  11. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #11
    Well, pumping more megahertz into a CPU does work. It's just that with a Prescott core you hit 200 watt CPU's and crazy cooling for that. Intel hit the wall at 4 GHz and gave up at 3.8 GHz.
     
  12. ricgnzlzcr macrumors 6502a

    ricgnzlzcr

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    #12
    Wow, I guess these new merom chips are going to do wonders for macbooks and macbook pro's. I can't wait to see what's going to be out in 2008 when I can hopefully stop resist upgrading this G4 powerbook.
     
  13. andrewheard macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #13
    Where on earth did you hear that?
     
  14. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #14
    I'm just making it up. ;)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthreading

    Actually, I've benchmarked plenty of P4 systems with HT turned on at (clock speed)/2 for various floating point heavy single threaded apps. If a P4 system has HT turned on, it can easily be outpaced by a Pentium M of half the clock speed.

    EDIT: I'm attaching a screenshot from my own 2.8 GHz P4 system with HT and youcan clearly see two "virtual cores" one which is in heavy use, and the other not.

    B
     

    Attached Files:

  15. Killyp macrumors 68040

    Killyp

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    #15
    I can't wait for the Mac Pro so we can be completely sure we're wiping the floor with any Dell or Alienware machine in all aspects, ie, MHz, Number of processors etc....

    Then 'they'll' have no way of retaliating... :D :D :D :D
     
  16. Capt Underpants macrumors 68030

    Capt Underpants

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    #16
    They'll get the same processors Apple gets...
     
  17. andrewheard macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #17
    I was really hopeing that you were. That just seems so dumb. I just don't understand how it could be possible for games to run well with HT enabled if thats true. Any insight?
     
  18. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #18
    Same way they run well on Core Duo processors and the like. Multi-threading baby. Do more than one thing at the same time and HT of multiple cores will give you a benefit.

    B
     
  19. DannySmurf macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    #19
    Yes, but while HT does give some boost if the applications you run are written to be multithreaded, HT will not give you anywhere near the boost that two actual cores (or two actual processors) will. A HT processor can still only execute one instruction at a time (whereas a dual-core system can execute two simultaneously).

    And of course, the software has to be written to take advantage of that. Software that isn't doesn't get any speed boost from HT OR multiple cores.
     

Share This Page