Imac 21.5inch QUAD CORE ? ?

[iamthedudeman]

Wrong. There is i5-680 which is 3.6GHz and 3.86GHz with Turbo. There is also i5-670 which is 3.46GHz and 3.73GHz with Turbo. Cache isn't that important when we are talking about raw performance, all i5s win C2Ds anyway.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci5-660-p2.html
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci5-660-p3.html

E8600 is faster in some tests which are more cache intensive but generally, i5 wins

It wins in more than a few tests. All the tests that did not stress more than two cores it won. Which is 90 percent of current mainstream computing.

So generally it doesn't win. Is it a more powerfull processor overall. Yes. it is for everyday computing. No. Not right now anyway.

As soon as older non-optimized applications become involved, it turns out that the Core 2 Duo E8000 series remains unconquered. Even the new architecture and Turbo Boost doesn't help, because 4MB of 2.13 GHz cache is not the same as 6MB of 3+ GHz cache. Besides, Hyper-Threading is a disadvantage under these conditions.

 

[Hellhammer]

It wins in more than a few tests. All the tests that did not stress more than two cores it won. Which is 90 percent of current mainstream computing.

So generally it doesn't win. Is it a more powerfull processor overall. Yes. it is for everyday computing. No. Not right now anyway.

As soon as older non-optimized applications become involved, it turns out that the Core 2 Duo E8000 series remains unconquered. Even the new architecture and Turbo Boost doesn't help, because 4MB of 2.13 GHz cache is not the same as 6MB of 3+ GHz cache. Besides, Hyper-Threading is a disadvantage under these conditions.

In everyday computing, even 1.5GHz C2D is sufficient. Software that really stresses the CPU is usually multi-threaded, like video encoding software unless it's horribly outdated. C2D doesn't win in every benchmark that is single-threaded, not at all. It is better in benches that are more cache intensive

Doesn't the cache always run at that same speed as the CPU? Where did you get that 2.13GHz? C2D isn't bad but i5 is better and cheaper. If C2D won, it didn't won by much anyway. So generally, i5 is better, and not by little. Will average Joe notice it? Of course not. Will advanced user do? Yes, if he isn't stuck with ancient software. Plus, people don't buy computers for couple of months, they are meant for years. More and more software is supporting multiple threads so if you even think about future, you would dump C2D right away.

 

[iamthedudeman]

In everyday computing, even 1.5GHz C2D is sufficient. Software that really stresses the CPU is usually multi-threaded, like video encoding software unless it's horribly outdated. C2D doesn't win in every benchmark that is single-threaded, not at all. It is better in benches that are more cache intensive

Doesn't the cache always run at that same speed as the CPU? Where did you get that 2.13GHz? C2D isn't bad but i5 is better and cheaper. If C2D won, it didn't won by much anyway. So generally, i5 is better, and not by little. Will average Joe notice it? Of course not. Will advanced user do? Yes, if he isn't stuck with ancient software. Plus, people don't buy computers for couple of months, they are meant for years. More and more software is supporting multiple threads so if you even think about future, you would dump C2D right away.

Yes it is only better by a little. The overall score was 99 to 108. That is not a large degree by any stretch. Comparing the i3 the E8600 would likely come out on top on most tests. Any way you look at it the E8600 is a impressive chip.

I agree with you for the most part but the C2D E8600 more than hold it's own with the i3 and i5's and since it is the only upgrade option as far as CPU's go with the 21.5 it isn't a bad option. Even for the future. The next update would likely have a i3 or low i5 or C2D 3.33 in the next update anyway so if you are looking for upgrading the 3.33 C2D is a good option for the future. But you are right the i5 is better but the 3.33 C2D isn't a bad option considering that is all that is offered right now.

Where did you get that 2.13GHz?

That is from the article. Not me.

 

[Hellhammer]

Yes it is only better by a little. The overall score was 99 to 108. That is not a large degree by any stretch. Comparing the i3 the E8600 would likely come out on top on most tests. Any way you look at it the E8600 is a impressive chip.

I agree with you for the most part but the C2D E8600 more than hold it's own with the i3 and i5's and since it is the only upgrade option as far as CPU's go with the 21.5 it isn't a bad option. Even for the future. The next update would likely have a i3 or low i5 or C2D 3.33 in the next update anyway so if you are looking for upgrading the 3.33 C2D is a good option for the future. But you are right the i5 is better but the 3.33 C2D isn't a bad option considering that is all that is offered right now.

Where did you get that 2.13GHz?

That is from the article. Not me.

Keep in mind that the E8600 cost more than the i5 in the high-end iMac... Price/performance ratio is a lot better in i3 and i5, that's why E8600 isn't that great chip

 

[Yinmay]

No, because quad cores are too hot and expensive for 21.5"

Says who? Based on what?

E7600: 74.1°C (current 3.06)
E8600: 72.4°C (current BTO 3.33)
i5-750: 72.7°C (quad-core)
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=42915

And for the record:
i7-9xx: 67.9°C (higher-end quad-core)
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37151

As for the price, E7600 and E8600 were extremely pricey when they were introduced in the iMac 8 months ago, why wouldn't Apple be able to introduce an equally pricey processor now anymore?

I see only two logical explanations:
- either Apple is a greedy lazy company that wants to keep milking customers by charging launch price for 8 month+ old components.
- or Apple technologically can and would like to offer the new processors but can't because Intel is unable to produce them in sufficient quantity.

I certainly hope it's the second hypothesis...


Edit to add: according to wikipedia, at launch E7600 was $133, E8600 $266 and i5-750 $196.
Assuming quad-cores in 21.5" would likely be BTO, if anything a quad-core BTO would actually be CHEAPER than the current E8600 BTO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#.22Wolfdale-3M.22_.2845_nm.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i5_microprocessors#.22Lynnfield.22_.2845_nm.29
And the cheapest i7 quad-core is $284 again well within BTO price range if October 2009's E8600 BTO is any indication of what an "acceptable" BTO is.

 

[iamthedudeman]

Keep in mind that the E8600 cost more than the i5 in the high-end iMac... Price/performance ratio is a lot better in i3 and i5, that's why E8600 isn't that great chip

I agree but that is all that is offered on the 21.5 as of now. What makes it worse is that Apple would be unlikely to go with the higher end i5's and that is with the higher level i5 661. Most likely the E8600 would do better against the lower i5 or higher i3's which is likely what the 21.5 would get if they get them.

 

[Hellhammer]

Says who? Based on what?

E7600: 74.1°C (current 3.06)
E8600: 72.4°C (current BTO 3.33)
i5-750: 72.7°C (quad-core)
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=42915

And for the record:
i7-9xx: 67.9°C (higher-end quad-core)
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37151

As for the price, E7600 and E8600 were extremely pricey when they were introduced in the iMac 8 months ago, why wouldn't Apple be able to introduce an equally pricey processor now anymore?

I see only two logical explanations:
- either Apple is a greedy lazy company that wants to keep milking customers by charging launch price for 8 month+ old components.
- or Apple technologically can and would like to offer the new processors but can't because Intel is unable to produce them in sufficient quantity.

I certainly hope it's the second hypothesis...


Edit to add: according to wikipedia, at launch E7600 was $133, E8600 $266 and i5-750 $196.
Assuming quad-cores in 21.5" would likely be BTO, if anything a quad-core BTO would actually be CHEAPER than the current E8600 BTO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#.22Wolfdale-3M.22_.2845_nm.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i5_microprocessors#.22Lynnfield.22_.2845_nm.29
And the cheapest i7 quad-core is $284 again well within BTO price range if October 2009's E8600 BTO is any indication of what an "acceptable" BTO is.

What do those temps have to do with anything? Just some Intel crap, provide some real world temps and keep in mind that iMac is AIO, not a full size tower with 1000 times more airflow... Quad core is hotter, you can't beat that.

I agree but that is all that is offered on the 21.5 as of now. What makes it worse is that Apple would be unlikely to go with the higher end i5's and that is with the higher level i5 661. Most likely the E8600 would do better against the lower i5 or higher i3's which is likely what the 21.5 would get if they get them.

i5 661 is the second slowest i5, 650 is 3.2GHz and that 130MHz isn't big difference anyway. i3 isn't that big upgrade but it does provide ~30% better performance in multithreaded apps like video encoding

 

[iamthedudeman]

What do those temps have to do with anything? Just some Intel crap, provide some real world temps and keep in mind that iMac is AIO, not a full size tower with 1000 times more airflow... Quad core is hotter, you can't beat that.



i5 661 is the second slowest i5, 650 is 3.2GHz and that 130MHz isn't big difference anyway. i3 isn't that big upgrade but it does provide ~30% better performance in multithreaded apps like video encoding

The 660/661 processors are the middle two processors.

the 650/655 processors share the bottom two slots.

With the 670/680 processors claiming the remaining top two spots.

The E8600 would compete very well with the 650/655 processors than it would against the 660/661 processors which it also did well against.



The i3 wouldn't be a upgrade at all since it doesn't provide turbo boost. The E8600 spanks the i3 on more than it's share of tests. So I wouldn't call the i3 a upgrade at all.

 

[Hellhammer]

The 660/661 processors are the middle two processors.

the 650/655 processors share the bottom two slots.

With the 670/680 processors claiming the remaining top two spots.

The E8600 would compete very well with the 650/655 processors than it would against the 660/661 processors which it also did well against.



The i3 wouldn't be a upgrade at all since it doesn't provide turbo boost. The E8600 spanks the i3 on more than it's share of tests. So I wouldn't call the i3 a upgrade at all.

Only difference between i5s is the clock speed which isn't much, like 5-10%. i3 wins E8600 in multi-threaded performance as it has Hyper-Threading. And it doesn't matter is it a little better or not because it's horribly overpriced chip. i3 fights a good fight against it, even wins in some tests and you can get two i3s for the price of E8600.

Price/performance ratio is the only thing that matter. Yes, we can say that the early dual cores are still capable (used in e.g. Mac Pro) but if they cost 800$ per chip while current chips are 100$, that's not good price/performance ratio.

In the end, most people won't notice anything anyway. See for example this, it has audio and video encoding benchmarks which are the two most common tasks an average Joe does. In those, i5 runs circles around E8600.

 

[silkod]

Would it be possible a 21,5" update with VideoInput?? What do you think??

This would be as interesting for me as processor update....

 

[iamthedudeman]

Only difference between i5s is the clock speed which isn't much, like 5-10%. i3 wins E8600 in multi-threaded performance as it has Hyper-Threading. And it doesn't matter is it a little better or not because it's horribly overpriced chip. i3 fights a good fight against it, even wins in some tests and you can get two i3s for the price of E8600.

Price/performance ratio is the only thing that matter. Yes, we can say that the early dual cores are still capable (used in e.g. Mac Pro) but if they cost 800$ per chip while current chips are 100$, that's not good price/performance ratio.

In the end, most people won't notice anything anyway. See for example this, it has audio and video encoding benchmarks which are the two most common tasks an average Joe does. In those, i5 runs circles around E8600.

Internet usage and word processing and data compression are the three most common tasks 99 percent of the population use on a day to day basis.

I can't remember the last time I manually had to encode a video or audio file. Most video editing software or audio software do this for you. Compress or Decompress yes ex Rar file Convert MP3 to MP4 or MPEG 3 to MPEG 4. When you are moving data from one place to another that is using data compression. Move a bunch of pictures or videos off your camera that is data compression.

Most files on the internet today can be played 'as is' or are already encoded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3

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

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/E/encoding.html

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/V/video_encoding.html

http://www.digitalfaq.com/guides/video/introduction-encode-convert.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/codecs.aspx

Most files that you find on the Internet are already compressed. You may not realize that those files are compressed because you can easily download and play the file with no additional actions. Your computer can play any compressed file, provided that the codec it was compressed with is available on the computer's hard disk. The computer uses the codec's instructions to decompress the file you want to play. If the codec is not on your computer, then a player such as Windows Media Player will try to download the codec so that it can understand how to decompress the file.

I would think data compression would be more important as you move music and video files back and fourth between devices. Such as phones, MP3's and cameras. That would come in third behind internet browsing and word processing.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci5-660-p2.html

The above three tasks the E8600 excels in those tasks. Which is every day computing. This sums it up very nicely.

"Many users thought that the Core i5-600 would be like Core 2 Duo, just better -- a very fast processor for single and dual-threaded tasks. Unfortunately, we have to disappoint them: multi-threading is meat and drink for these CPUs, they need it as much as higher-end processors do. As soon as older non-optimized applications become involved, it turns out that the Core 2 Duo E8000 series remains unconquered. Even the new architecture and Turbo Boost doesn't help, because 4MB of 2.13 GHz cache is not the same as 6MB of 3+ GHz cache. Besides, Hyper-Threading is a disadvantage under these conditions."

Until multi-threaded applications become the norm in web browsing and simple word processing, the E8600 remains a very attractive performing chip, regardless of price. Taking price into account it is not a very good chip. But like I said if you want a 21.5 that is the best you can choose from and it is not a bad choice.