Core i7-Based 27" iMac Benchmarks Show Significant Improvements

[QCassidy352]

That was four years ago and times have really changed. You only have to use both operating systems to realise that Windows 7 now has the upper hand. I've been using the RC (and now the full version) since release and I was skeptical at first. However, I continue to be amazed by just how much of a turnaround this is for the series. Since installing it all those months ago I have had a single application crash - Street Fighter IV. Since then I haven't had any problems at all.

This is a stark contrast to my experience since installing Snow Leopard. Applications crash on me every single day and I have had to endure a "kernel panic" no less than five times, all when doing different things.

Something is horribly, horribly wrong with your mac or your SL installation. I've had it on my imac for a few months now and on my mini for a few weeks. Neither has ever had a kernel panic, and the iMac had an application (mail) crash exactly once.

 

[ditzy]

It took me about four hours to put together and was something which I really enjoyed doing. VAT is included in the price I quoted, as was a copy of Windows 7 Home Premium (£30 as he's a student).



But if it wasn't in the iMac, would anyone buy it? Who here really thinks that they need or can justify investing in a monitor of that size, especially when it's locked into a system which cannot be upgraded and will need to be replaced entirely at the end of its life?



I don't understand why everyone's so eager to buy an "all in one". He has plenty of space where he lives, and a little box under the desk isn't going to affect how he works or uses the computer at all. In fact, it's relieving to know that in a year or two when the graphics card is falling behind he can just swap it out for another one.

As for Apple "service and support", that's laughable. Every time I've tried to get them to do anything for me it has been a struggle. I either have to take the entire system to a store 100 miles away or I have to call up a customer care centre located somewhere in Asia (sorry, I don't know the specific location) and try to explain my issues to them. I'd imagine that would be particularly frustrating if a nonessential component was to fail. Can you imagine sending the entire system away just because an optical or hard drive failed?

He's not a video editor, so there really is no reason for him to run OS X. I've used the two extensively over the past few months and in terms of reliability and stability, Windows 7 is easily better than Snow Leopard. It has now been a long time since there was a valid reason for spending double the amount on a system just to get the other OS.

In my opinion value is a subjective thing rather than objective. I value that the iMac is already put together, I value that it runs OSX, I value that it can also run windows, I value that it is beautiful. These reasons mean that to me, it is worth far more than the computer that you built. I understand why you disagree, I don't think that you are wrong. I don't think I'm wrong either. But the truth of the matter is that a person can only really say that a person is good or bad value for money for themselves.

 

[KiraDouji]

This is a consumer machine - the 16:9 aspect ratio of the display leaves us with little doubt that it is designed for viewing content rather than creating it.

Okay?

I didn't join this forum to troll, nor do I believe that is what I am doing now. I've been very active in the "Buying Tips, Advice and Discussion" forum, where I have posted countless replies to questions about which systems to buy.

If you notice my join date, it's around the time when there really was a benefit to buying a Mac. In 2005/2006 OS X was massively better than Windows and the main reason for my "switching" (originally to an iMac, no less!) was because I couldn't bear the problems which Windows had.

I never did call you a troll, but thanks for answering the question either way.

That was four years ago and times have really changed. You only have to use both operating systems to realise that Windows 7 now has the upper hand. I've been using the RC (and now the full version) since release and I was skeptical at first. However, I continue to be amazed by just how much of a turnaround this is for the series. Since installing it all those months ago I have had a single application crash - Street Fighter IV. Since then I haven't had any problems at all.

This is a stark contrast to my experience since installing Snow Leopard. Applications crash on me every single day and I have had to endure a "kernel panic" no less than five times, all when doing different things.

I reiterate - there was a time when I believed that there was an argument for spending a significant amount of extra money on a Mac, but I don't think anyone can really think that this is the case today, especially when we are talking about paying double for a less powerful system.

I was quite excited by the new specs personally because they are getting closer to what I have in my enthusiast system. Running both Snow Leopard and Win 7 (since the Beta was released) I would say that the two Operating Systems seem quite equal in my experience. There are things I prefer in SL (expose's functions, spaces, spotlight over MS's search, quick view, etc...) and things I prefer in Windows (mainly the tweaking and performance increase over the previous versions).

That having been said, I still have a tower under my desk. I still put out enough heat to keep my room warm in winter when stressing the system. I have the joys of being my own tech support - not everyone has the time, money, or patience for this. The iMac still holds significant value for many people because of the all in one option and the support Apple offers. I would much rather hook a computer illiterate up with a Mac than anything - ANYTHING - else because I know they can get their questions answered. Likewise, Snow Leopard is going to require a lot less user maintenance over time than any version of Windows.

If you're having all those issues, it sounds like something happened during installation. A fresh install might solve it.

What is comes down to is the form factor matters, the support matters and parts comparisons need to include things like the brilliant screen if you want to make an accurate comparison. Sure there's things you can build for less, but it's not everyone's hobby and just because it's cheaper doesn't make it the solution for that person.

Too bad I don't live anywhere near the USA or Canada.

I suppose your mileage may very here, but in the US at least the APP pays for the shipping to and from if you're not close to a store. I've had to do this for my laptop twice due to unfortunate run in with my animals before they put a store here. Same deal - laptops are just smaller all in ones. Yeah, I probably could've found the drive myself, ordered it, replaced it and gone on my way, but that would take about as long as having it repaired under warranty for free. Also, when the speakers were the issue, I kind of didn't have access to those parts?

Then again, if I'm having issues, nine times out of ten I'm talking with someone in the States. Perhaps Apple hasn't expanded all of its call centers into the UK yet, in which case I would agree that it's annoying to try and speak with someone you can't understand.

 

[wolfneuralnet]

Thanks for this...

There is no doubt that both the core i5 and core i7 represent significant values. However, these are SYNTHETIC benchmarks that treat hyperthreading cores the same as the physical cores in the core i7 cpu. Thus, the 35% boost over the core i5 is not surprising. One should be aware, however, that in most real life situations, the additional computing power provided by hyperthreading is often only marginal, at best 5-7% beyond what can be achieved by the four physical cores, and this requires programs that operate in a highly parallel fashion, such as video encoding. For many applications, there is simply no difference and for some, there is actually degradation because the instructions provided by the application cannot be executed in parallel and result in the stalling of the physical cores. This is not a problem in PCs because hyperthreading can be turned off in the BIOS if one finds this effect or if the hyperthreading is causing the chip to overheat, which does happen. From what I have read so far, it would appear that there may not be any way to accomplish this in the iMac. Thus, one should consider carefully the type of software to be run before deciding. Bigger is not always better.

Also, do not be confused by Intel's naming protocols. The 2.8 GHZ core i7 on offer is NOT a Nehelem chip, but rather uses the same Lynnfield architecture of the 2.6 core i5 chip. Both use dual channel memory controllers (as opposed to the faster tri-channel memory for Nehelem chips), are capable of only half the video bandwidth of the Nehelem chip and also utilizes a higher latency, slower interconnect bus than the Nehelem core i7's. On the plus side, the energy efficiency of these Lynnfield chips is much better than the first generation Nehelem chips. They use much less electricity both on idle and at load than the Nehelem chips, which is probably why Apple waited for them to be released. Nevertheless, the 2.8 core i7 chip with hyperthreading will run significantly hotter and draw mopre power than the core i5. So if heat and/or power consumption are a concern, stick with the i5.

If you plan on purchasing the 27 inch iMac, avoid the entry level 3 GHZ core 2 duo model if your budget permits. Even though the clockspeed is as much as 20% greater than the i5, the core 2 duo chips are in fact much slower overall, both due to the fact that they have only two cpu 2 cores, and to the fact that the core i5/i7 architecture has been significantly optimized in its re-engineering. The real world difference is probably greater than the Geekbench bar graph would indicate. The extra $300 needed to move up to the core i5 can truly worth it in terms of both performance and energy efficiency.

Finally, there are numerous sites across the web that have benchmarked the two quad core chips currently on offer in the 27 inch iMac using real world software and parametrics. None of the ten or so reviews that I've seen shows any program or group of programs benefiting from a 35% increase in speed when using the 2.8 GHZ i7 Lynnfield versus the 2.6 GHZ i5 Lynnfield. In fact, the most I have seen runs 7 to 10%, with most programs showing only a negligible increase. It is likely that you will derive more oomph from your system by adding more RAM, particularly if you run Windows or Linux in a virtual machine or if you run many programs at once. Given current prices for RAM, you should be able to easily double the amount of RAM in your system to 8 GB for less than $100. The remaining $100 or so would go along way toward the purchase of Apple Care (not a bad idea given that this is a brand new machine design), a Time capsule, a 1.5 TB external hard drive or perhaps the purchase of an iPod or Apple TV.

I am very close to purchase, and on the fence about the i7 -- thanks so much for the unbiased comparison. I was amazed by the Geekbench numbers until I remembered about the hyperthreading!

 

[iSee]

The above poster is mistaken. Lynnfield chips use the Nehalem architecture. That said these benchmarks are certainly a bit misleading. Hyperthreading will not provide a real world 35% improvement.



Physical cores have multiple parts. Each instruction passes through each part as needed. For simplicities sake lets say there are two parts: load data from memory and process instruction (in reality there are 5-20 ish based on the architecture).

Say three instructions are scheduled to run on one core, one after the other. The first one hits the load data phase, the data is in the L2/L3 cache and comes back quickly and moves right on to the process stage. While it is processing instruction two moves into the load stage but gets a cache miss (has to load the data from memory/disk - the processor knows this will be slow) while the chip is waiting the ALU/processing stage is idle.

On a non-hyperthreaded system it is just stuck, stays idle. On a hyperthreaded system the core is logically split in half. Ie it can hold two threads at a time, even though it only has the processing resources of one core. If one of its threads becomes blocked like above, instead of idling the processing stages it switches to the other thread until the cache miss is resolved.

In workloads where the core will be running a pair of threads that will have a lot of these bubbles (cache misses, branch misprediction, data dependencies) and another thread already ready to go hyperthreading will perform well. Video encoding and geekbench are two examples However it only makes certain types of workflows more efficient, it doesn't actually make the processor "go faster"; the i7 iMac's higher clock speed does though. Given the recent push by Apple into better multithreaded code I would expect software will be able to better use this in the coming years.

Interesting, but I think he was asking for an explanation of when hyperthreading is less efficient than no hyperthreading.

I was curious myself and found this on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthreading#Inefficiencies

In 2006 hyper-threading was criticised for being energy-inefficient. For example, specialist low-power CPU design company ARM has stated SMT can use up to 46% more power than dual CPU designs. Furthermore, they claim SMT increases cache thrashing by 42%, whereas dual core results in a 37% decrease.[4] These considerations are claimed to be the reason Intel dropped SMT from the following microarchitecture.[by whom?]

Pretty weak stuff.

Of course, if the OS thread scheduler is unaware of hyperthreading, it would see all the virtual cores as equal and could schedule two threads to the same physical core while leaving another physical core unused. Presumably, this is not a problem for SL's scheduler.

So I'm still curious if there are cases where hyperthreading is slower than no hyperthreading.

 

[fobfob]

This is a stark contrast to my experience since installing Snow Leopard. Applications crash on me every single day and I have had to endure a "kernel panic" no less than five times, all when doing different things.

So we finally get to the real reason you are bagging the iMac, because you hate SL. The 27" iMac is NOT twice the price of a build it your self system even if your time is worthless, which yours apparently is. The reason is, for the person who is buying it, they are ONLY buying it if they want/need a 27" screen, and value the quality of an LED IPS panel. If that person were to go out and price up an i5/i7 system with similar specs, including a similar screen, the price is basically the same. Don't forget that your friend was able to get a special deal on Windows. Technically your new build Windows is not allowed to use the OEM Win7, that means you need to buy the full retail Professional which is probably around 200 of your currency (dunno how to write a pound sign).

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of people buying i7 iMacs just for the i7, and I agree with you that the value proposition for them isn't there, at least from your perspective. But the market is king. Who are you to argue? They can do what they like with their hard earned money. At least they bought a computer with some style, not one of your souped upLED 12" fan DIY monstrosities.

P.S. Anyone complaining about the downtime in repairing an all-in-one PC better not buy a notebook!!
P.P.S. When is anyone going to realise the ever expandable minitower is just a myth, and has been for..well.. ever. Don't you realise that even if your CPU is still reasonable, the next component will require a new power supply, or case, or socket, bus, etc etc. Before I went to Mac I used to build all my PCs and I almost never upgraded single parts other than hardrives or memory. By the time the next upgrade is due, something has magically gone obselete. Even if it seems to be the same technology, it's no longer compatible. eg. PCIE, ATX-12V, etc etc. So you end up replacing half of the system (or more) each time. No-one cares because we are all want latest and greatest. But to suggest that you'll still be using your current motherboard in 4 years is rubbish. What about USB3.0? Part makers are constantly planning the next system/bus/interface etc and they are almost never backwardly compatible (or if they are, you wouldn't want the old thing anyway because the new stuff is OMG!!111 amazing). Sure, I'll be buying a new Mac too, but my current one will hold value, unlike your no-name box that will be put on the tip. I had to practically pay someone to take away my 21" trinitron and dual core Athlon rig.

 

[discounteggroll]

Just install your own. It takes like 10 minutes and all you need is a suction cup and a Phillips screw driver.

I'd use a plunger (2 to evenly distribute the weight of the larger screen). Might need some torx bits if they kept the design/architecture the same. I haven't had a chance to look at the service source guides yet to see what they changed under the hood.

 

[LagunaSol]

Nonsense! I just built a computer for a friend for £600.

Bully for you! I just made my friend a tuna sandwich for a quarter. Delis are such a ripoff!

I guess you also get to provide free tech support for your friend and replace any components that prove defective. What a pal!

As for Windows 7, I too have been using it since RC. I find the incredible amount of hype to be amusing at best. Better than older versions of Windows? Sure. But still not close to OS X. You've been conned.

I guess Win 7 is reaping the benefits of low expectations.

 

[kepardue]

Wow, guess I should have waited for benchmarks like these before I ordered. I didn't really see a lot of difference in reviews (that mattered to me) between the i5 and i7, so I went with the i5. But heck, on a computer that expensive, what's $200 more. Should have sprung for the i7.

 

[al2o3cr]

The better the new iMac's are, from a computer/processing perspective -- the more frustrating it is for those of us who cannot buy one because it lacks a matte screen. If you read the reasons at the petition website http://macmatte.wordpress.com where there are over 750+ detailed petitions already, it's not just a matter of saying, get over it. Some people's eyes just are more susceptible to glare than others. I would dearly love to get a new iMac. So hearing all these reviews of how good the new iMac is merely adds to the frustration.

No, get over it. Did you own a machine before LCDs? Pretty much all CRT monitors were glossy. I seem to recall there was an equally noisy bunch of butthurt whiners about how LCDs looked funny.

And anyways, a matte screen film kit will run you <$60 from places like Photodon....

 

[zaphoyd]

Interesting, but I think he was asking for an explanation of when hyperthreading is less efficient than no hyperthreading.

I was curious myself and found this on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthreading#Inefficiencies

Pretty weak stuff.

Of course, if the OS thread scheduler is unaware of hyperthreading, it would see all the virtual cores as equal and could schedule two threads to the same physical core while leaving another physical core unused. Presumably, this is not a problem for SL's scheduler.

So I'm still curious if there are cases where hyperthreading is slower than no hyperthreading.

In theory, hyperthreading could cause worse performance in the circumstances described above. The netburst (Pentium 4) implementation was particularly weak and Intel subsequently pulled it from their architecture for a few years until they were able to get it right. Modern operating systems are smart enough to differentiate between physical and virtual cores. The nehalem implementation is also a bit different than the netburst one. They have added specific new silicon designed to address the negative performance issues, such as larger instruction caches and load/store buffers. See this article for more gorey details about the exact hardware changes they made to reduce the problems from the P4 era:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-i7-nehalem-cpu,2041-5.html

It probably still isn't perfect, and certainly depends on software developers to continue to think about the distinction between physical and virtual cores, but the benefit is almost always either flat or positive.

 

[cmvsm]

Nonsense! I just built a computer for a friend for £600. It has a Core i5 2.6GHz, 1GB ATi 5770 graphics card, 4GB RAM and a 500GB hard drive. Let's assume a decent monitor is another £200 on top (he had one already).

For the same level of performance from Apple, it costs me £1600. You end up paying double the price and get no better performance, an inability to upgrade, a significantly worse graphics card and in my opinion a worse operating system.

Remind me again why these systems are "very good value"?

You must be smoking something. You think that you can get a 27" monitor that is the same caliber, or anywhere close, for 200 pounds, which is roughly $380 US? You better think again. The monitor is where the value comes in. Even when looking at the Dell 27" garbage, you are going to spend a minimum of $800, and that monitor is only 1920x1200, no where near the resolution of the Apple.

As far as your luck with OSX, now I know you are trolling.

Consider yourself reminded. So scramble away with your friend's Frankenstein, square boxed, floor heater of a Hackintosh and think again.

 

[Scott6666]

There is no doubt that both the core i5 and core i7 represent significant values. However, these are SYNTHETIC benchmarks that treat hyperthreading cores the same as the physical cores in the core i7 cpu. Thus, the 35% boost over the core i5 is not surprising. One should be aware, however, that in most real life situations, the additional computing power provided by hyperthreading is often only marginal, at best 5-7% beyond what can be achieved by the four physical cores, and this requires programs that operate in a highly parallel fashion, such as video encoding. For many applications, there is simply no difference and for some, there is actually degradation because the instructions provided by the application cannot be executed in parallel and result in the stalling of the physical cores. This is not a problem in PCs because hyperthreading can be turned off in the BIOS if one finds this effect or if the hyperthreading is causing the chip to overheat, which does happen. From what I have read so far, it would appear that there may not be any way to accomplish this in the iMac. Thus, one should consider carefully the type of software to be run before deciding. Bigger is not always better.

Also, do not be confused by Intel's naming protocols. The 2.8 GHZ core i7 on offer is NOT a Nehelem chip, but rather uses the same Lynnfield architecture of the 2.6 core i5 chip. Both use dual channel memory controllers (as opposed to the faster tri-channel memory for Nehelem chips), are capable of only half the video bandwidth of the Nehelem chip and also utilizes a higher latency, slower interconnect bus than the Nehelem core i7's. On the plus side, the energy efficiency of these Lynnfield chips is much better than the first generation Nehelem chips. They use much less electricity both on idle and at load than the Nehelem chips, which is probably why Apple waited for them to be released. Nevertheless, the 2.8 core i7 chip with hyperthreading will run significantly hotter and draw mopre power than the core i5. So if heat and/or power consumption are a concern, stick with the i5.

If you plan on purchasing the 27 inch iMac, avoid the entry level 3 GHZ core 2 duo model if your budget permits. Even though the clockspeed is as much as 20% greater than the i5, the core 2 duo chips are in fact much slower overall, both due to the fact that they have only two cpu 2 cores, and to the fact that the core i5/i7 architecture has been significantly optimized in its re-engineering. The real world difference is probably greater than the Geekbench bar graph would indicate. The extra $300 needed to move up to the core i5 can truly worth it in terms of both performance and energy efficiency.

Finally, there are numerous sites across the web that have benchmarked the two quad core chips currently on offer in the 27 inch iMac using real world software and parametrics. None of the ten or so reviews that I've seen shows any program or group of programs benefiting from a 35% increase in speed when using the 2.8 GHZ i7 Lynnfield versus the 2.6 GHZ i5 Lynnfield. In fact, the most I have seen runs 7 to 10%, with most programs showing only a negligible increase. It is likely that you will derive more oomph from your system by adding more RAM, particularly if you run Windows or Linux in a virtual machine or if you run many programs at once. Given current prices for RAM, you should be able to easily double the amount of RAM in your system to 8 GB for less than $100. The remaining $100 or so would go along way toward the purchase of Apple Care (not a bad idea given that this is a brand new machine design), a Time capsule, a 1.5 TB external hard drive or perhaps the purchase of an iPod or Apple TV.

Thank you. Most helpful post of the day!

 

[akadmon]

I REALLY wanted the i7 model...but how to justify that when my 24" C2D iMac already works wonderfully? What to do with it? Any tips?

If you lay it on its back and fill it with water, it will make a good flounder aquarium.

 

[neiltc13]

You must be smoking something. You think that you can get a 27" monitor that is the same caliber, or anywhere close, for 200 pounds, which is roughly $380 US? You better think again. The monitor is where the value comes in. Even when looking at the Dell 27" garbage, you are going to spend a minimum of $800, and that monitor is only 1920x1200, no where near the resolution of the Apple.

So scramble away with your Frankenstein, square boxed, floor heater of a Hackintosh and think again.

I never said that. I said a decent monitor is £200. The only reason we're considering 27" monitors is because you cannot buy the i5 or i7 iMacs from Apple without one.

If you need a decent monitor for work then the likelihood is that you already have one, or will buy a decent one standalone.

 

[Bubba Satori]

The new iMacs represent very good value IMHO.

Indeed. Very impressive performance. Well done Apple.

I'm going to pick one up as soon as there is an ATI 5700 and matte screen option. Hopefully in the next few months.

 

[snberk103]

If you lay it on its back and fill it with water, it will make a good flounder aquarium.

Had to think about that one.... but I got it....
two thumbs up

 

[FlagellumDei]

I would happily change my 2.53GHz MBP for an Core i7 iMac

Imagine the 27" screen compared to a 15.4"...

 

[fobfob]

Thank you. Most helpful post of the day!

Not really, much of what that poster said has been debunked later in the thread. I recommend reviewing the whole thread (ignoring the trolls).

 

[wizard]

Which is why I try to impress on people that i7 is well worth the $200 extra!

looks like the people who ordered the i7 and have been waiting patiently will be justly rewarded with a large performance leap

Frankly I wish I was in a position to buy as the new iMacs are an excellent deal!!

In any event people need to realize that performance advantage is with todays software. As apps and the OS take greater advantage of GCD the results will just get better. At least for stuff that can be excellerated via parallel processing.

Dave

 

[fobfob]

The only reason we're considering 27" monitors is because you cannot buy the i5 or i7 iMacs from Apple without one.

Then your complaint should be that Apple doesn't make a non-pro quad core PC that doesn't require purchasing a 27" monitor. There is nothing wrong with the 27" iMac itself. The problem is that you want something else.
The problem is not a) SL sucks or b) you can build an i5 machine for much less than an 27" iMac or c) Apple service sucks so you should build it yourself or d) Windows 7 is better than SL now.

Please work out exactly what your problem is with Apple products. You seem to be firing in all directions hoping something will stick.

 

[queshy]

I want one...

 

[cmvsm]

I never said that. I said a decent monitor is £200. The only reason we're considering 27" monitors is because you cannot buy the i5 or i7 iMacs from Apple without one.

If you need a decent monitor for work then the likelihood is that you already have one, or will buy a decent one standalone.

You asked to be reminded of where the iMac value is. I did just that. You substituted a $380 monitor assumption for the 27" iMac monitor in a cost analysis which is ludicrous.

The iMac has quite a bit of value wrapped up in the design alone. To have such a small footprint & pleasing design, very few wires or mess, easily more power than most will ever use, and an incredible deal in such a large, high resolution monitor that is virtually untouchable, is a fantastic deal.

I used to build PC's myself, and got quite a lot of enjoyment out of doing so. These days, its really a lost art. You not only have to put the system together, but normally have to troubleshoot, load drivers, troubleshoot again ,and you are really only saving a couple hundred at best and lack any single manufacturer support. Instead if something goes wrong, YOU have to figure out what it is, and then deal with that particular manufacture...and that process sucks. God forbid if you are building one for someone and they happen to get a virus or some other system issue. They end up calling you all the time as its easiest to blame you as they have no 1-800 number to call. You do have the advantage of upgrading your system at will, and may have access to a few more quality parts, but at the end of the day, unless you are an extreme power user, very few stay with the same case/design when they upgrade, and prefer to reconstruct the entire system from scratch.

 

[FF_productions]

Jesus it's twice as fast as my Mac Pro!

It's ok, mine can take 4 hard drives and 32 gigs of ram

 

[fobfob]

To have such a small footprint & pleasing design, very few wires or mess

Yeah, there's a quality factor too. For example whenever I used to build my machines I always bought expensive aftermarket coolers with heatpipes and large slow fans to keep everything nice and quiet, expensive high efficiency power supplies that actually guaranteed their rating and were quiet, big cases with lots of drive bays and many slow fans etc again, for cooling etc. In the end I spent as much as a Mac and it looked real ugly. Despite paying so much for the case I found the side warped and dust got in and I had to do a strip down rebuild every 6 months anyway. I won't mention the many disasters I had with motherboard RAID systems and all the other gimmickry that you can get. And who ever thought than an LED and fan go together? Where's the synergy there?