Apple Gets Nehalem Early, h264 and VMWare Performance Boosts

[Lesser Evets]

When I hear Apple talking about "speed improvement" for me that is a an amount of crap the size of jupiter.

I see all those benchmark showing "3 time faster than the previous processor", when the reality is that is barely noticiable.

I agree.

 

[lewchenko]

People are extremely put out by the fact that the new machine is >>> more expensive for the 'crippled' base mac pro model.

A massive wad of extra cash for the new 2.6Ghz Quad Core vs the old 8 core Harper town version.

I remain un convinced... money firmly staying in wallet.

As for the iMac updates... pitiful. They are the same machines as last year with different GPU names but massively more expensive.

Shocking.

 

[Evangelion]

Nothing terribly new since Nehalem has been out for some time just not on a Mac.

Desktop-processors yes, Xeons, no.

 

[the vj]

Some architectural changes make a bigger impact than others, and there are times when there are big jumps in performances between consecutive generations (think about the move from Pentium 4 to Core architecture in the PC world).

Some application benchmarks are impressive and should translate into real-world benefits (for instance the 60 to 80% improvements in 3D or Math applications). On the other hand, the 20% increase reported for other apps are not worth an upgrade, I agree.

I just got those numbers realistically when I change my quad G5 for the intel 2.8. When rendering it took me 8 hours with the G5, not it takes barely 2 the same animation, there is the real world 80% improvement.

I remember once I needed to do a quick render in After Effects, that was in 2004. I had my 12" powerbook 1.5 G4. and I bought the G5 of that year that had 2 2.5 processors. Well, it was probably 20% faster but we are talking about 1 powerbook with 1 1.5GHz processor against 2 2.5Ghz G5 processor.

I returned the G5 computer 2 days later claming: overrated. And I still have the 12" powerbook.

If you want to see a noticiable improvement hold a few years.

 

[Shark718]

So tell me, I have a 1st gen G5 1.8 power pc and was thinking of getting the basic 2499 new unit. So how much better will it be over my unit or should I just keep my powerpc G5 1.8 ...thanks

 

[Digital Skunk]

These all sound wonderful indeed.

I am still going to wait for the benchies to show me that the $2600 for the octo 2.9 is worth it.

I am looking for longevity in my next Mac tower purchase, and the news is pointing in that direction.

 

[OrganMusic]

What did those actually do? I was too young to actually remember using one of those for a period of time. Any why would someone choose to run a desktop is a slower, non-t

As I understand it the reason was that the speed of a lot of early games wasn't governed very well because they didn't think there were going to be far faster processors in the near future. So if you ran a game that was designed on a 4.77 mhz 8088 on a nice 16 mhz 386 it would be far too fast to play. Thus if you turn off the "turbo" it would slow the machine down to a reasonable speed.

This was all back in DOS days when you could only do one thing at a time anyway.

 

[Wiska]

So tell me, I have a 1st gen G5 1.8 power pc and was thinking of getting the basic 2499 new unit. So how much better will it be over my unit or should I just keep my powerpc G5 1.8 ...thanks

Single core? You should see about 18-22x speed increase on multi-core aware apps.

 

[Digital Skunk]

So tell me, I have a 1st gen G5 1.8 power pc and was thinking of getting the basic 2499 new unit. So how much better will it be over my unit or should I just keep my powerpc G5 1.8 ...thanks

A lot better. Seriously. We are talking about the 1.8GHz PPC machine compared to a quad core 2.66 Intel machine.

Not to mention the almost 6 year difference in technology.

 

[milo]

I don't doubt 2 x 2.93Hz Nehalem will beat 2 x 3.2GHz Harpertown.

The question is will 1 x 2.66GHz Nehalem, with only 4 cores, beat 2 x 2.80GHz Harpertown with 8 cores? In multithreaded applications or multitasking that can actually use 8 cores I doubt it. Which is why Apple doesn't should that comparison in it's benchmarks. Nehalem is fast, and HT maybe worth 20% increase on average, but it's hard to see it overcoming a 2 times core count advantage. I'd love to see the third-party benchmarks one way or another.

That's the million dollar question. In a nutshell, is the new base model an upgrade or a downgrade from the previous base model? And if the two are around the same price, which to buy?

 

[Digital Skunk]

I don't doubt 2 x 2.93Hz Nehalem will beat 2 x 3.2GHz Harpertown.

The question is will 1 x 2.66GHz Nehalem, with only 4 cores, beat 2 x 2.80GHz Harpertown with 8 cores? In multithreaded applications or multitasking that can actually use 8 cores I doubt it. Which is why Apple doesn't should that comparison in it's benchmarks. Nehalem is fast, and HT maybe worth 20% increase on average, but it's hard to see it overcoming a 2 times core count advantage. I'd love to see the third-party benchmarks one way or another.

Very true and why I want to see the 3rd party benchies for that as well. But IMHO the new base model is just a no go with an 8GB RAM cap. For me, the Mac Pro starts at $3300.

 

[randfee2]

the new 4core nehalem MacPro-basic can't beat the old 8core basic Hapertown in parallel (render, encoding) tasks, I highly doubt it. So the basic MacPro has become slower (!) for most of the tasks I would use it for...

I find that very confusing by Apple

 

[milo]

Other than accepting ECC RAM, has it been established how these extremely expensive Nehalem Xeon processors compare (in terms of both performance and features) to the much cheaper Nehalem Core i7 desktop processors? You know, the ones Apple should have put in the new iMacs and didn't.

In terms of features, they are pretty much identical to the xeon in the quad. Only difference is ECC and lower power consumption.

Again, this looks like Apple sacrificing function for form in the iMac.

 

[128k]

Another Lame Interim Upgrade

Just another formulaic, lame interim upgrade to suck in buyers until the next true generation update- The fractional, imperceptible performance gain and need to buy two graphics cards to support existing multiple cinema displays is non negotiable for existing customers. Mini Display adapters and glossy crappy displays are for imacs and laptops not desktops...

 

[RedTomato]

It's the first machine of a new architecture. I've noticed that the first releases are often slower than the final release of the old architecture.

eg: First Pentium4 processors were slower than the last P3 processors.

Same for P3 vs P2.

Same for Pentium 80mhz vs DX4 120mhz.

Same for DDR vs old PC133 RAM. Same for DDRII vs DDR.

Etc. The new model is still unpolished and has lots of room for speed improvement, whereas the final model of the old architecture is tweaked to the max, and is as fast as it'll ever be,

 

[iMacmatician]

Nehalem Core i7 desktop processors? You know, the ones Apple should have put in the new iMacs and didn't.

Core i7 is much too hot for the iMac.

Just another formulaic, lame interim upgrade to suck in buyers until the next true generation update- The fractional, imperceptible performance gain and need to buy two graphics cards to support existing multiple cinema displays is non negotiable for existing customers. Mini Display adapters and glossy crappy displays are for imacs and laptops not desktops...

We'll see 6 cores with Westmere and Westmere clocks have been said to be not too different from Nehalem ones.

 

[Umbongo]

It's the first machine of a new architecture. I've noticed that the first releases are often slower than the final release of the old architecture.

eg: First Pentium4 processors were slower than the last P3 processors.

Same for P3 vs P2.

Same for Pentium 80mhz vs DX4 120mhz.

Same for DDR vs old PC133 RAM. Same for DDRII vs DDR.

Etc. The new model is still unpolished and has lots of room for speed improvement, whereas the final model of the old architecture is tweaked to the max, and is as fast as it'll ever be,

Well since Intel moved to Core things have changed on their side of things. Although Penryn -> Nehalem is an odd one as somethings get huge boosts (memory intensive and multi-threaded applications) and others don't change (games).

 

[fleshman03]

Core i7 is much too hot for the iMac.

I pose a new question. lol.

Intel is saying Mobile Nehalem is slated for production 3Q 2009. Could we see an updated spec MacBook Pro @ WWDC / sometime after, but before the start of the 2009/2010 school year? It would open the door for a iMac update too, since they use the same crop of processors.

Or is my head in the clouds. Imagine, a 4-core MBP in 2009!

 

[gmcalpin]

The article has a typo in it:

While Apple's tests show large improvements in memory bandwidth and floating point performance, many customers have been bitching loudly, incessantly, and often without having their facts straight, but will probably quiet down after 3rd party benchmarks show that these processors are indeed a small but significant improvement over their Penryn predecessors, despite the marginally lower clock speeds.

Also: some of you guys have been joking about a turbo button, but have you noticed this? (from Apple's Mac Pro page)

Turbo Boost: a dynamic performance technology that automatically boosts the processor clock speed based on workload. If you’re using an application that doesn’t need every core, Turbo Boost shuts off the idle cores while simultaneously increasing the speed of the active ones, up to 3.33GHz on a 2.93GHz Mac Pro.

The turbo button is automagical.

Considering most applications don't (yet?) take advantage of multiple cores, on an eight-core Nehalem, this could make a big difference in performance.

ntel is saying Mobile Nehalem is slated for production 3Q 2009. Could we see an updated spec MacBook Pro @ WWDC / sometime after, but before the start of the 2009/2010 school year? It would open the door for a iMac update too, since they use the same crop of processors.

I think that's a relatively safe bet, actually.

 

[Umbongo]

I pose a new question. lol.

Intel is saying Mobile Nehalem is slated for production 3Q 2009. Could we see an updated spec MacBook Pro @ WWDC / sometime after, but before the start of the 2009/2010 school year? It would open the door for a iMac update too, since they use the same crop of processors.

Or is my head in the clouds. Imagine, a 4-core MBP in 2009!

Apple don't tend to push new hardware before the school year, they clear older stock with iPod promotions.

 

[dlewis23]

I pose a new question. lol.

Intel is saying Mobile Nehalem is slated for production 3Q 2009. Could we see an updated spec MacBook Pro @ WWDC / sometime after, but before the start of the 2009/2010 school year? It would open the door for a iMac update too, since they use the same crop of processors.

Or is my head in the clouds. Imagine, a 4-core MBP in 2009!

If it doesn't get delayed, I would say July/August for a update in the Macbook Pro.

 

[NoNameBrand]

I just got those numbers realistically when I change my quad G5 for the intel 2.8. When rendering it took me 8 hours with the G5, not it takes barely 2 the same animation, there is the real world 80% improvement.

Er, 8 hours to 2 hours? That's a 300% improvement, not an 80% improvement.

An 80% improvement on 8 hours would be 4.4 hours.

 

[Umbongo]

The turbo button is automagical.

I'm now disappointed that automagical is not being officially used in the branding of this feature.

 

[Wiska]

Actually, 400% would be the correct percentage.

 

[fleshman03]

Apple don't tend to push new hardware before the school year, they clear older stock with iPod promotions.

I just thought that time because of the processor being slated for Q3

If it doesn't get delayed, I would say July/August for a update in the Macbook Pro.

I hope not, but you never know... I've heard of laptop makers wanting it delayed so they can cash in on C2Ds. (Note: iMac.)