iMac Core 2 Duo Benchmarks

[MacinDoc]

My point is that with the new processors and RAM upgrades, the iMac is headed towards more powerful use that could potentially switch over a PC gamer. If you wanted to do some serious gaming on the 24" iMac you could....if not for the poor video card options.

Throw a dog a bone here and at least give us a 512MB option.

I'm not a gaming expert, but from what I've read, 512MB is no faster than 256MB for most current gaming applications, it's the throughput of the GPU that counts. Do any gamers out there want to comment on this?

 

[levitynyc]

I'm not a gaming expert, but from what I've read, 512MB is no faster than 256MB for most current gaming applications, it's the throughput of the GPU that counts. Do any gamers out there want to comment on this?

I don't think that you could run Oblivion particularly well with only 256MB of Video Memory. Maybe you could, but you couldn't nearly max of the Graphics or else you would suffer some frame rate issues.

 

[Eidorian]

You may be right.

I couldn't find anything in the Intel technical documentation on the 945 to show a new revision or stepping of the chip - in fact most of the 945 docs at the Intel website don't mention the Core 2 at all....

That's what tipped me off as well. I've had to hit those tech pages to glean information off of them.

 

[wizard]

I'm a little skeptical about Napa64 as well. I did read the previous links and articles on it. Why make Merom backwards compatible with Yonah?

What is to be skeptical about? Seriously Intel continuously improves its hardware, they have to or end up getting trounced on by the competition. In fact recent history with respect to AMD demonstrates what happens when they don't take a serious look at their hardware.

The issue with Merom and this iterations backward computability is that it gets INTEL 64 bit hardware to market fast as frankly they weren't even competing in that realm. For Intel 64 bit is serious issue as they are behind the eight ball or this one. It is an example of Intel being asleep at the wheel as they focused on who needs 64 bit instructions when a good part of the market demand was for addressable ram.

Nice information there. I wanted a little heads up on Kentsfield. Still, isn't it dual Conroe's with separate cache and then over the front side bus?

Frankly I haven't followed Kentsfield that much, more of an AMD man, but what is interesting to me with respect to this thread, is that MEROM the platform has a long way to go yet. That is the iMac just released is more or less a first generation implementation of Merom. I'm left with the impression that Apple just slapped the new processor in the old socket and gave us all a surprise this week. But that is what backward computability is all about. Mind you I know nothing about the current logic boards but I'm sure that information will float across the web soon.

Dave

 

[Eidorian]

What is to be skeptical about? Seriously Intel continuously improves its hardware, they have to or end up getting trounced on by the competition. In fact recent history with respect to AMD demonstrates what happens when they don't take a serious look at their hardware.

The issue with Merom and this iterations backward computability is that it gets INTEL 64 bit hardware to market fast as frankly they weren't even competing in that realm. For Intel 64 bit is serious issue as they are behind the eight ball or this one. It is an example of Intel being asleep at the wheel as they focused on who needs 64 bit instructions when a good part of the market demand was for addressable ram.

I'm skeptical that Napa64 is a different chipset then the standard Intel 945 mobile series. Core 2 Duo works in the same socket as Yonah but somehow you need a Napa64 chipset to get full 64-bit addressing? They haven't changed a thing with the 945. Napa64 is just the 945 chipset with a Merom instead of a Yonah. We won't see any real change until we hit Santa Rosa.

Frankly I haven't followed Kentsfield that much, more of an AMD man, but what is interesting to me with respect to this thread, is that MEROM the platform has a long way to go yet.

Dave

Kentsfield is two Conroes on a single die. They don't share cache like the previous Pentium D chips. So they'll each have 4 MB of cache and then communicate over the front side bus.

 

[Multimedia]

Mac Pro Can Run Several Processes Much Faster SIMULTANEOUSLY

Looks like MacCentral forgot to mention the fact that no matter how few cores an application can use - even if it's only ONE, the fact that more can be run at full speed SIMULTANEOUSLY is the whole reason for wanting-having-needing more cores - not wiether or not what you normally run can use 2, 3 or even all 4 cores at this time. OS X automatically delegates work to however many cores are vacant or underused so the user gets immediate benefit from 4 cores they will never get from 2. And I am 100% certain that tthe benefit is radically more than 20-30%.

It's an old think I always do only one thing at a time mentality that overlooks this otherwise obvious reason - a new way of working and a new way of thinking about how to do work - for going with more cores if you can afford it.

 

[Eidorian]

Looks like MacCentral forgot to mention the fact that no matter how few cores an application can use - even if it's only ONE, the fact that more can be run at full speed SIMULTANEOUSLY is the whole reason for wanting-having-needing more cores - not wiether or not what you normally run can use 2, 3 or even all 4 cores at this time. The OS delegates to however many cores are vacant or underused so the user gets immediate benefit from 4 cores they will never get from 2. And I am 100% certain that tthe benefit is radically more than 20-30%.

It's an old think I always do one thing at a time mentality that overlooks this otherwise obvious reason for going with more cores if you can afford it.

Heh, that's pretty funny. I have quite a few applications that'll hit one core at 100%. (Q emulator is the best example) Luckily, even though it's not multi-threaded a have another core free to do my work while Q eats up 100% of one.

I run Windows 98 in Q for laughs. I liked Windows 98...

 

[flopticalcube]

Looks like MacCentral forgot to mention the fact that no matter how few cores an application can use - even if it's only ONE, the fact that more can be run at full speed SIMULTANEOUSLY is the whole reason for wanting-having-needing more cores - not wiether or not what you normally run can use 2, 3 or even all 4 cores at this time. OS X automatically delegates work to however many cores are vacant or underused so the user gets immediate benefit from 4 cores they will never get from 2. And I am 100% certain that tthe benefit is radically more than 20-30%.

It's an old think I always do only one thing at a time mentality that overlooks this otherwise obvious reason - a new way of working and a new way of thinking about how to do work - for going with more cores if you can afford it.

Maybe they should have run all their benchmarks at the same time!

 

[AidenShaw]

Two dies, one package

Kentsfield is two Conroes on a single die. They don't share cache like the previous Pentium D chips. So they'll each have 4 MB of cache and then communicate over the front side bus.

Minor terminology correction - the "die" is the silicon chip, the "package" is the carrier with the pins....

http://www.xbitlabs.com/web/2006-6-22.html

Kentsfield consists of two Conroe dies, each featuring two cores and 4MB of L2 cache.​

See http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_intel_processor_plans_uncovered/page4.html
(this shows a Pentium D image, but Kentsfield is doing the same trick.)

 

[Eidorian]

Maybe they should have run all their benchmarks at the same time!

It also depends if you can run multiple instances of that application. A little help here Multimedia? I know you've used multiple instances of Toast. Care to enlighten us on what other applications we can do the same? Maybe we should make a guide on it...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/web/2006-6-22.html

Kentsfield consists of two Conroe dies, each featuring two cores and 4MB of L2 cache.​

I thought so. We've beaten Core 2 Duo chips to death and their design.

 

[Multimedia]

Apple's Got To Get Kentsfirld Inside Next iMac Refresh • By Tigerton For Sure

We won't see any real change until we hit Santa Rosa.

Kentsfield is two Conroes on a single die. They don't share cache like the previous Pentium D chips. So they'll each have 4 MB of cache and then communicate over the front side bus.

This is why I think Apple has got to be thinking about how they can put Kentsfield and then Tigerton - or perhaps beginning with Tigerton if it's a lot cooler - into the next generation of iMacs. If they stick with Merom, they will not get to four mobile cores for another 1-2 years at the soonest - as I understand the roadmap.

Do we know Kentsfield pricing yet? Probably not.

I think a redesign of the iMac's cooling system is imperative so that they can keep Kentsfield/Tigerton cool inside the new design - at least in the 23" model + a 30" model next year. I like the perforated edge approach as a best possible solution depicted here in this 30" aluminum iMac mock-up (I have no idea who created this - sorry). I'm thinking the bottom and top edges would want to be perforated as well. In this mock-up, it's not clear they are.

Body could still be plastic. But Aluminum is a great heat conductor so the whole body would be air cooling the insides like non-fan aluminum hard drive cases do today.

 

[wizard]

I'm skeptical that Napa64 is a different chipset then the standard Intel 945 mobile series. Core 2 Duo works in the same socket as Yonah but somehow you need a Napa64 chipset to get full 64-bit addressing? They haven't changed a thing with the 945. Napa64 is just the 945 chipset with a Merom instead of a Yonah. We won't see any real change until we hit Santa Rosa.

Well if it gives you 64 bit memory addressing then it certainly is a newer chip I'm not sure what you where expecting an new front side bus maybe? Maybe the chip set (945) is a modest upgrade but in the case of he IMac if it were implemented would have resulted in a larger address space for the PC. That is a real change. It is interesting that Apple apparently didn't implement Napa64 in the new iMac, I do wonder why as the release dates almost coincide.

As for Santa Rosa what there is so important to you that you want to wait? Just curious as I'm far from being in a position to purchase a new PC at the moment so this discussion doesn't really matter. It is more of a technical interest than anything else.

Kentsfield is two Conroes on a single die. They don't share cache like the previous Pentium D chips. So they'll each have 4 MB of cache and then communicate over the front side bus.

That sounds like a description for the old D model but you are saying a single die. Frankly it sounds like a dead end processor to me. Communications between the two subsections should be via a separate communications path. I have this feeling that the manufactures are rushing to quad core a little to fast.

Dave

 

[bretm]

And I'm thinking... why?! 10 years ago BeOS had this down pat. The whole system was multi-threaded and multi-processor aware from the kernel all the way up through the user interface including the system services used by all native applications. It was amazingly responsive and was reported (in major publications) to gain as much as 60-70% performance by having a second CPU. I realize MacOS X is based on some old NeXTStep code which was not made for multiple processors, but come on! This is the 21st century and Apple's been selling dual processor machines for about 5 years now.

Anyway, this is great news. I'd been drooling over the new iMacs since they were announced and wondering how much I might gain by upgrading from my 2GHz G5 PowerMac. It's very enticing.

Well they were selling them back in 1996 so you might want to add 5 years to your 5 year statement. You could buy dual 604e in the 9500 and the 9600 too I think.

 

[Eidorian]

Well if it gives you 64 bit memory addressing then it certainly is a newer chip I'm not sure what you where expecting an new front side bus maybe? Maybe the chip set (945) is a modest upgrade but in the case of he IMac if it were implemented would have resulted in a larger address space for the PC. That is a real change. It is interesting that Apple apparently didn't implement Napa64 in the new iMac, I do wonder why as the release dates almost coincide.

As for Santa Rosa what there is so important to you that you want to wait? Just curious as I'm far from being in a position to purchase a new PC at the moment so this discussion doesn't really matter. It is more of a technical interest than anything else.

http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom

That sounds like a description for the old D model but you are saying a single die. Frankly it sounds like a dead end processor to me. Communications between the two subsections should be via a separate communications path. I have this feeling that the manufactures are rushing to quad core a little to fast.

Dave

You are correct it is a rushed quad core. At least we get more cores out a little faster. Though it's not the best implementation.

 

[AidenShaw]

big advantage is...

http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom

You are correct it is a rushed quad core. At least we get more cores out a little faster.

The biggest advantage is that you get quad cores without having to pay for Xeon chipsets and memory.

It's also big for the Windows/Linux side of the world. Much of the software is licensed per socket.

- XP Home - 1 socket
- XP Pro - 2 sockets
- Win2k3 Server - 4 sockets

With a quad core, you can run an 8 CPU XP Pro system without forking over the bucks for Windows Server. Add to that per-socket licensing for many software packages, and it's a huge cost savings.

Though it's not the best implementation.

Careful here - it's almost as good as the current Mac Pro quad configuration. There you have two dies communicating over the FSB and Northbridge...

 

[Eidorian]

The biggest advantage is that you get quad cores without having to pay for Xeon chipsets and memory.

It's also big for the Windows/Linux side of the world. Much of the software is licensed per socket.

- XP Home - 1 socket
- XP Pro - 2 sockets
- Win2k3 Server - 4 sockets

With a quad core, you can run an 8 CPU XP Pro system without forking over the bucks for Windows Server. Add to that per-socket licensing for many software packages, and it's a huge cost savings.


Careful here - it's almost as good as the current Mac Pro quad configuration. There you have two dies communicating over the FSB and Northbridge...

Oh yeah, I forgot about the Windows socket limitations. I know it'll be a great performer but a "better" chip will always come out later. Kentsfield appears to be an Extreme Edition chip until quad core trickles down to more normal desktops. Still, I can see some new Mac Pro running off a single Kentsfield.

 

[Multimedia]

Toast & Handbrake Let Me Run As Many Copies As I Like Simultaneously

It also depends if you can run multiple instances of that application. A little help here Multimedia? I know you've used multiple instances of Toast. Care to enlighten us on what other applications we can do the same? Maybe we should make a guide on it...

Preemble clarification: I use Toast in a highly unorthodox way - nothing to do with writing DVDs or CDs. I use it most of the time to write DVD IMAGES that Handbrake understands how to make priistine mp4 files from. I am able to reduce a 4.3GB original EyeTV HD broadcast recording down to 351MB using this method. The result is an excellent, albeit soft, version of the original that can go on an iPod or two on a CD and when played on an analog TV from the iPod looks just like a DVD. On a HD monitor it still looks great. Just a little soft. Sound quality is identical to the original.

I haven't explored what else we can run simultaneously beyond Toast and Handbrake. I can run as many instances of those as I like. But I run out of cores even just running both of them because they will each use more than two cores given the chance to run alone. Running them simultaneously even with a second Handbrake running third, still gets all the jobs done faster than waiting for two to run and then running the third. Handbrake will process up to about 150-160 fps when two copies are running while it will process only about 93-100 fps alone.

Handbrake FPS readings vary a lot between the analysis pass and the writing pass - much slower writing on the second pass than studying-planning the writing scheme on the first pass on both the Quad and the Mac Pro. On the Mac Pro, Toast will use almost all 4 cores given no competition. But so far I'm not convinced it is encoding EyeTV recordings for DVD images much faster than it does on teh Quad - yes 7.1 UB. I need to go back and exact time some encodes on the Mac Pro then compare that here on the Quad to tell.

Just tried to launch a second copy of EyeTV and it's a no go. Maybe if I have another liscense with another tuner like the new hybrid it will work with a second copy - don't know yet. Probably getting an EyeTV hybrid tuner soon so I can record two HD shows at once.

A Multi-Instance and Multi-Core Usage Guide would be a great help. Does someone with authorization want to start a thread on this subject? I am not authorized to create new threads. But I would be happy to contribute to it. If someone with new thread creation permission does it, please post a link to it here. Thank you.

 

[Multimedia]

Kentsfield Mac Pro Jr. With Clovertown Mac Pros Next Year

Oh yeah, I forgot about the Windows socket limitations. I know it'll be a great performer but a "better" chip will always come out later. Kentsfield appears to be an Extreme Edition chip until quad core trickles down to more normal desktops. Still, I can see some new Mac Pro running off a single Kentsfield.

Yeah that will be the Mac Pro Jr. while the rest of the Mac Pros will be running pairs of Clovertowns.

 

[50548]

Well they were selling them back in 1996 so you might want to add 5 years to your 5 year statement. You could buy dual 604e in the 9500 and the 9600 too I think.

You are right, but if I remember well the 9500 had 604s, not 604e...and actually the 9600 had the best-ever case for any Mac...you just had to pull down one of the panels to have full access to everything in the MOBO and drives...really beautiful...

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac/media/easytower_movie.html

 

[Evangelion]

Well if it gives you 64 bit memory addressing then it certainly is a newer chip

64bit addressing arrives with the new cpu. so the point is that napa64 isn't really new, it just uses merom instead of yonah.

 

[epitaphic]

Handbrake FPS readings vary a lot between the analysis pass and the writing pass - much slower writing on the second pass than studying-planning the writing scheme on the first pass on both the Quad and the Mac Pro.

That's because the second pass only uses one core.

 

[Eidorian]

Preemble clarification: I use Toast in a highly unorthodox way - nothing to do with writing DVDs or CDs. I use it most of the time to write DVD IMAGES that Handbrake understands how to make priistine mp4 files from. I am able to reduce a 4.3GB original EyeTV HD broadcast recording down to 351MB using this method. The result is an excellent, albeit soft, version of the original that can go on an iPod or two on a CD and when played on an analog TV looks like a DVD. On a HD monitor it still looks great. Just a little soft.

I haven't explored what else we can run simultaneously beyond Toast and Handbrake. I can run as many instances of those as I like. But I run out of cores even just running both of them because they will each use more than two cores given the chance to run alone. Running them simultaneously even with a second Handbrake running third, still gets all the jobs done faster than waiting for two to run and then running the third. Handbrake will process up to about 150-160 fps when two copies are running while it will process only about 93-100 fps alone.

Handbrake FPS readings vary a lot between the analysis pass and the writing pass - much slower writing on the second pass than studying-planning the writing scheme on the first pass on both the Quad and the Mac Pro. On the Mac Pro, Toast will use almost all 4 cores given no competition. But so far I'm not convinced it is encoding EyeTV recordings for DVD images much faster than it does on teh Quad - yes 7.1 UB. I need to go back and exact time some encodes on the Mac Pro then compare that here on the Quad to tell.

Just tried to launch a second copy of EyeTV and it's a no go. Maybe if I have another liscense with another tuner like the new hybrid it will work with a second copy - don't know yet. Probably getting a hybrid tuner yet so I can record two shows at once.

A Multi-Instance and Multi-Core Usage Guide would be a great help. Does someone with authorization want to start a thread on this subject? I am not authorized to create new threads. But I would be happy to contribute to it. If someone with new thread creation permission does it, please post a link to it here. Thank you.

Well anyone here can start a Guide on the wiki. Ask around if anyone else knows more on the subject. Otherwise I picked you from our previous ramblings on Core 2 Duo and quad-core machines.

Edit: Interesting usage of Toast/Handbrake there.

64bit addressing arrives with the new cpu. so the point is that napa64 isn't really new, it just uses merom instead of yonah.

I guess that resolves the Napa32/64 argument. If there ever was one...

Yeah that will be the Mac Pro Jr. while the rest of the Mac Pros will be running pairs of Clovertowns.

Cube? 24" iMac?

 

[Multimedia]

Second Pass Of Handbrake Is Still Using More Than One Core

That's because the second pass only uses one core.

No. it's still using more than one core. More likely because of the speed limitation of the hard drive writing the mp4 file.

 

[Eidorian]

No. it's still using more than one core. More likely because of the speed limitation of the hard drive writing the mp4 file.

I know this sounds silly but how do you monitor processor usage from a process via Activity Monitor? (I have the %CPU column up but is there a way to get more detailed information?) I have the Developer Tools installed too. I'm not a developer but well...my work requires me to have them installed anyways.

 

[50548]

Cube? 24" iMac?

Actually it's gonna the 30th Ann. Mac. Apple is not doing a mass-produced headless Mac.