Hands-On Impressions and Other Tidbits From Today's Releases

[iSee]

I'd buy now if this is possible. Anybody?

There shouldn't be any reason you couldn'thave the iMac up and running while something else is using the monitor.

The monitor doesn't care where its signal comes from and the video card doesn't really care if it's being displayed. There just needs to be a little auto-switch that knows when something is plugged in and sending a signal to the displayport in and routes the display input appropriately.

Or even a manual input selector button on the iMac itself (not Apple's style though).

I guess we'll find out, but I've got to think that this will work fine.

 

[mmendoza27]

The iMac is going to normalize over time. There aren't any big upgrades from Nehalem/Westmere for some time. If you can afford it go for the Core i5/i7 machines.

They make nice TVs too.

I admit I was wrong. Did you expect them to go Core i5 and i7?

Everyone needs to remember, the Core i5 (which runs at 2.66 Ghz and is a Core i5 750 Lynnfield) does not have hyper-threading so it can only take advantage of 4 threads.

The Core i5 (which runs at 2.8 Ghz and is a Core i7 860) has a higher "uncore" speed (for things like integrated memory controller, PCIe controller, L3 cache) and it has hyper-threading. This makes it better for things like Grand Central Dispatch which breaks things into blocks.

Both has Turbo Boost. Core i5 goes to 3.2 Ghz while the Core i7 goes to 3.46 Ghz. This is when all 4 cores are not being used. If it's a single-threaded application, the clock speed will be higher.

I have a 8-core Mac Pro, so there isn't really reason for me to buy one. But boy, oh boy, these are nice. I don't see any reason to not go for the the Core i7.

 

[wizard]

Be careful with bench marks.

Tom's Hardware tested them both, and seemed to think that the Core i5 was the better deal.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5,2410-11.html

Apple's only charging $200 extra for the i7 though....

Some of the benchmarks floating about are not showing the i5 in its best light as early BIOSs had trouble with this processor. Of course that just means i5s numbers would be better.

There is also a problem with comparisons to the Intel i7 SMT processor as many apps simply don't know how to take advantage of the extra threads available on the i7. So you don't want to sell i7 short in the face of SL and technology there to deal directly with processors supporting a large number of hardware threads. This is actually highlighted by the fact that i5 isn't showing great gains over some older processors either. Both processors seem to be doing better as much as due to the increased efficiency of the processor as it is taking advantage of the additional cores.

In other words I don't really believe that the web sites have caught up with technology when it comes to benchmarking as to many sites use programs and operating systems that can't take advantage of the extra threads possible. What we really need is to see testing on a platform that is modern and frankly Snow Leopard is the best choice right now. Then you need to find a set of apps that are highly threaded and make use of the new technology in SL (GCD) or have been coded to use the higher level NSOperation features of Cocoa. The reality is you simply can't get a good picture right now of how much the SMT feature of i7 will enhance performance.

Another thing that bothers me and causes me to wonder about benchmarking credibility is the serial nature of how the bench marks are performed. It is nice for numbers but is far from what the average user does anymore. I mean how man people encode anything and sit there staring at the screen waiting for the encoding to finish. Not many I suspect. So a good crack at benchmarking a modern PC ought to have something happening in background while user actions are taking place in foreground. The question should be can a machine surf the net nicely while encoding a movie in background or what is the shortest time to completion of multiple parallel processes.

In any event, like you said, Apple is only charging $200 for the i7. There really isn't that many negatives associated with going to an i7, except that we need some people to test the processor against the i7.


Dave

 

[archer75]

The Core i5 750 has about 90% of the performance of the Core i7 920.

It's up the the user for what they want. I have a Core i7 750 and it's GREAT.

But we aren't talking about a 920. It's not in the imac. We are talking the 860 that is in the imac and benchmarks better than the 920. Which gives the 860 a greater advantage than the 920 over the Core i5.

But yes, it is up to the buyer to decide if it is worth it. All are great processors. I just think the 860 has enough of a boost for the things I care about over the i5 to make it worth it.

And it has hyperthreading which the i5 lacks. And with the future focusing on more cores and apple pushing that as well the i7 860 looks even more attractive. If you're already spending 2 grand what's another $200?

 

[edmundo]

OK, I am definitely tired after arriving from Copenhagen...please tell me, in brief terms, the difference between HT and Turbo Boost

They're entirely unrelated. HyperThreading is about virtual cores. Basically, when a (physical) core is under-utilized, the CPU can interleave data from another thread into the current one, milking a little more out of it. This gives the CPU 8 virtual cores (starting from 4 physical), when HT works correctly you can get about 20% more perfs out of your CPU, but it's pretty rare to have the perfect HT workload. Usually nothing to write home about.

Turbo Mode is a feature of the i* CPUs (i5, i7): when not all the cores are used and the CPU is cool enough, it can overclock itself dynamically. For the i5 750, this means that if you're using only 1 or 2 core your 2.66GHz quad-core can become a 3.2GHz dual-core. On i7 860 (2.8GHz), if you use 2 cores the CPU can go at 3.33GHz, and a single core can ramp up to 3.46GHz. It basically means your quad-core is much more flexible and works much better on single and dual-core loads.

and whether these are OS-neutral

They are

and of immediate benefit to uses such as Handbrake and so on.

Handbrake is highly threaded so turbo mode won't activate beyond level 0(*) (it should always be able to load all 4 cores at the same time). I don't know how Handbrake behaves under HT so I can't comment on that one.

*: if the cooling is good enough, turbo mode actually overclocks the CPU even when all 4 cores are loaded: the i5 750 will run at 2.8GHz rather than 2.66, and the i7 860 will run at 2.93GHz instead of 2.8.

 

[DISCOMUNICATION]

Hdcp

Nice, that way we should be able to use a external BR player, cable box or a game console.

Assuming it's HDCP compatible. The tech specs page doesn't say anything about HDCP. That would be awesome though. Get an up-converting receiver and hook up all my old game consoles. I've been using my Dell display like this for years. I have one of the first Intel iMacs (CoreDuo no 2) and thought I would go portable or mini when it came time to upgrade, but this is something to consider.

 

[YellowMac]

And again...

I'm excited I get to buy a new dongle.

 

[Stang]

not satisfied.

I'm not too happy with the updates. I mean the iMac is great but they put in this beautiful monitor with NO blu-ray support. Buying HD movies off iTunes is not the answer. HDMI support would have been nice, but Apple again makes you buy an adapter for it...

new MB is STUPID, everything is harder to get at and it only looks like there's one RAM slot. It's like the lobotomized version of the original, no firewire, and the price should be about 150 less. I'm still running on the debut MB and even after all the "trouble," I still love my baby better than this new version.

I'm gonna wait till the Pro's come out with USB 3.0...that isn't too far away.

 

[foshizzle]

I hope they sell a mini displayport -> mini displayport for this. I know you can get one from monoprice and some other places, but i hope apple doesnt expect people to have a DVI adapter on both ends with a DVI cable in between to connect a laptop to the iMac. I'd like a straight through cable, please. and some way to earn $2000 to get one of these new imacs.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

new MB is STUPID, everything is harder to get at and it only looks like there's one RAM slot.

What are you talking about? Read the configure page, it's obvious there are two RAM slots.

 

[Stang]

What are you talking about? Read the configure page, it's obvious there are two RAM slots.

OH jeez you're right. i just saw the pic on apple's site.

still, that doesn't take away from everything being almost IMPOSSIBLE to get to. I mean sure all of us could just pop off the screws, but another INTERNAL battery? just seems like when they have a good battery (like in the pro's) they go and try to make it different.

It's just not my cup of tea.

this is what i was going on, i guess they're on top of eachother? that could prove difficult for heating problems...like every other macbook. haha.

 

[Xanday]

New iMac Manual

http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/iMac_Late2009_UG.pdf

 

[z4n3]

Oh boy, Apple drops FireWire again.........

While FireWire 800 gear is still pretty rare and we've only seen one piece of FireWire 1600 kit, the IEEE is still pushing the standard forward -- it's just approved the 1394-2008 spec, which includes both FireWire 1600 and 3200. Interestingly, the spec is fully backwards compatible with both 400 and 800 ports, but it remains to be seen which connector gets used more prevalently. We'll find out in October, when the spec is made available to manufacturers -- looks like that controversial 2010 launch of USB 3.0 just got upstaged a little

USB 3.0 really threw down this September with a theoretical max throughput of 4Gbps, but it looks like FireWire isn't going down without a fight. The latest and greatest FireWire version, dubbed "S3200" by those creatives up in marketing, uses the same ports and cables as FireWire 800, but boosts speeds to 3.2Gbps, which should make it pretty competitive with USB in the real world -- though actual real-life speeds will probably depend on who's adding up the bits. According to the 1394 Trade Association: "The S3200 standard will sustain the position of IEEE 1394 as the absolute performance leader," but we hear they're biased. They are claiming that where current FireWire 800 hard drives can move 90MB per second, S3200 should be able to do 400MB. Speed concerns aside, the power delivery, peer to peer architecture, and handy networking capabilities of 1394 mean that FireWire should hopefully be around for a long time to come.

via Engadget

 

[0098386]

Oh boy, Apple drops FireWire again.........

Balls. Then my external drives wouldn't work.
I hate getting all lubed up and then getting let down by some little change that completely prevents me from getting one.

A little strange thing to point out. On the UK store if you change the ram to either 4x2gb or 4x4gb the price of the larger HDD goes up. Eh?!

 

[scottness]

There shouldn't be any reason you couldn'thave the iMac up and running while something else is using the monitor.

The monitor doesn't care where its signal comes from and the video card doesn't really care if it's being displayed. There just needs to be a little auto-switch that knows when something is plugged in and sending a signal to the displayport in and routes the display input appropriately.

Or even a manual input selector button on the iMac itself (not Apple's style though).

I guess we'll find out, but I've got to think that this will work fine.

Yea, I can't see any good reason why this option wouldn't work. It would be one more value adding feature for me.

 

[foshizzle]

manual doesn't have anything about target display mode. All it says is "Mac help for "Display port" or "target Display mode"".

Hopefully something will come up soon about it. I'm really interested.

 

[Shiner]

Here is what I am planning to buy. I would love to get some recommendations on any shortcomings to this configuration. Eg, is 2x4GB of RAM distinctly better than 4x2GB of RAM (that is, worth the extra dollars)?

Configure your iMac 27-inch:
- 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
- 8GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 4x2GB
- 2TB Serial ATA Drive
- ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB
- 8x double-layer SuperDrive
- Apple Magic Mouse
- Apple Wireless Keyboard and User's Guide
- Apple Remote
- AppleCare Protection Plan for iMac - Auto-enrol

Anything there I should change? Graphics OK?

In Australia this is coming out at AUD$ 3,822.02 - it's a business expense so that is well within budget.

Happy customer Apple - keep it up!!!

Well that depends. Apple doesn't let you modify the graphics and no they are not OK. That card is way underpowered. If the screen was not so large it would be fine for most things. Apple almost had a perfect iMac but they got cheap with the graphics card again.

 

[Stang]

i'm still looking at the stats, why no bluray? its like having a souped up motor in a car on blocks. why the stunning (really...STUNNING) hd screen with no real HD support?

 

[DaveGee]

The target display option is very cool, but it seems a bit gimmicky for Apple. I.e., what's the use case?

Here's one right off the top of my balding head...

College Kid:

- Lots of people fit into this category
- Are prime targets for computer salesmen everywhere!
- Are usually crammed into a room 2 sizes too small
- Have the desire to have what that had when they were home:

a: A Computer in their room
b: Cable TV in their room
c: An __insert_game_box_here__ in their room

Now going back to that dorm room thats 2 sizes too small something has gotta give and it ISN'T gonna be the computer... (poof!) Cable TV gone (poof!) game system gone!

End result: We now have a highly volatile and extremely unstable frosh with no friend and a bad fake ID!

Santa Steve to the rescue!

If you choose the new 1080P HD READY iMac with Intel processor that can boot into that sooopa smmmmmexy OS X that ALL the hip kids are turning on to (if you __know__ what I mean! ) or if that ass hat of a professor you got demands you need a computer that boots loser from south-Canada OS... Santa Stevey STILL has your back we can boot that too if the need arises!

Oh yea.. I got ONE MORE THING to tell ya...

PSssst, remember that kickass 27" 1080P HD display I was showing ya?!?! Well don't let mom know but that ISN'T just for use by the iMac! When you need some down time (if you know what I mean) you could actually plug a CABLE BOX or even a GAME CONSOLE into the back and party just like you were back home in a HUMAN sized room.

 

[scottness]

i'm still looking at the stats, why no bluray? its like having a souped up motor in a car on blocks. why the stunning (really...STUNNING) hd screen with no real HD support?

They had to put something out this week prior to Win7. BlueRay has to come out soon. Hold your breath.

 

[AidenShaw]

Hyper-threading can be slower than without !! YMMV...

Some of the benchmarks floating about are not showing the i5 in its best light as early BIOSs had trouble with this processor. Of course that just means i5s numbers would be better.

There is also a problem with comparisons to the Intel i7 SMT processor as many apps simply don't know how to take advantage of the extra threads available on the i7....

They're entirely unrelated. HyperThreading is about virtual cores. Basically, when a (physical) core is under-utilized, the CPU can interleave data from another thread into the current one, milking a little more out of it. This gives the CPU 8 virtual cores (starting from 4 physical), when HT works correctly you can get about 20% more perfs out of your CPU, but it's pretty rare to have the perfect HT workload. Usually nothing to write home about.

Note that an i7 will appear to have 8 logical CPUs, even though there are only 4 physical CPUs.

Pairs of the logical CPUs share a physical CPU. The 20% boost figure is a good rule of thumb for what a pair of logicals on one physical can do - the pair will get 120% of the performance of a single logical on a physical.

The problem arises when, for example, you have two active threads. If the OS scheduler runs them on two logical CPUs that are on different physical CPUs - you get 200%. If, by chance, the scheduler puts the two threads on logical CPUs that are on the same physical CPU, then you only get 120%.

It's a very, very hard problem for the scheduler to optimize, since the load varies millisecond by millisecond. What's optimum one millisecond could be the worst case a millisecond later. And what's worse, is that it isn't cheap to move threads between logical CPUs. If you try to optimize microsecond by microsecond, it will actually run much slower because of the overhead of moving things to maintain "perfect" balance.

I run my Core i7 desktop systems with HT disabled. Almost all of the time, that's better than enabled. Busy servers will have it enabled.

My rule of thumb is that if I typically have fewer computable threads than physical CPUs, then HT is off. If I usually have more computable threads than logical CPUs, then HT is on. If it's in-between, it's a judgement call as to whether to go for best response time under lighter loads or best throughput under heavy loads.

 

[Stang]

They had to put something out this week prior to Win7. BlueRay has to come out soon. Hold your breath.

*Inhaling*

no seriously though, I'm waiting for the MBP updates, maybe say around march-june? The MB is a joke, and the iMac looks nice (and will probably perform nice) but with no real HD support it won't be the best system it can be unless you lobotomize it and put in a bluray drive yourself (if you even can).

 

[scottness]

*Inhaling*

no seriously though, I'm waiting for the MBP updates, maybe say around march-june? The MB is a joke, and the iMac looks nice (and will probably perform nice) but with no real HD support it won't be the best system it can be unless you lobotomize it and put in a bluray drive yourself (if you even can).

I'm hoping you can hook up a blue-ray box to it using the new video input. Not ideal, but might work for now. We'll see.

 

[Eidorian]

Note that an i7 will appear to have 8 logical CPUs, even though there are only 4 physical CPUs.

Pairs of the logical CPUs share a physical CPU. The 20% boost figure is a good rule of thumb for what a pair of logicals on one physical can do - the pair will get 120% of the performance of a single logical on a physical.

The problem arises when, for example, you have two active threads. If the OS scheduler runs them on two logical CPUs that are on different physical CPUs - you get 200%. If, by chance, the scheduler puts the two threads on logical CPUs that are on the same physical CPU, then you only get 120%.

It's a very, very hard problem for the scheduler to optimize, since the load varies millisecond by millisecond. What's optimum one millisecond could be the worst case a millisecond later. And what's worse, is that it isn't cheap to move threads between logical CPUs. If you try to optimize microsecond by microsecond, it will actually run much slower because of the overhead of moving things to maintain "perfect" balance.

I run my Core i7 desktop systems with HT disabled. Almost all of the time, that's better than enabled. Busy servers will have it enabled.

My rule of thumb is that if I typically have fewer computable threads than physical CPUs, then HT is off. If I usually have more computable threads than logical CPUs, then HT is on. If it's in-between, it's a judgement call as to whether to go for best response time under lighter loads or best throughput under heavy loads.

I'll have to ask Beric to run Handbrake with HT and off again. I never got an answer to that awhile back.

I can't complain about my $158 Core i5 750 though.

 

[nicwalmsley]

Can you improve the graphics on the new i7 iMac?

Well that depends. Apple doesn't let you modify the graphics and no they are not OK. That card is way underpowered. If the screen was not so large it would be fine for most things. Apple almost had a perfect iMac but they got cheap with the graphics card again.

So is this something that should stop me from buying now? Are we talking "the graphics will be good, but they could have been great" or will I really notice things are not OK?

Are there realistic options for improving the graphics?

thanks

nic