iMac Core 2 Duo Benchmarks

[wizard]

http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom

Yeah it is interesting but in the context of a desktop machine you are not getting a lot for the wait. A new front side bus and a Merom to go with it. AND 64 Bit support which can be very important for some.

I guess what I'[m saying is that if you are willing to wait for this upgrade then you really don't need a new computer even with this rather significant update to the iMac. Maybe that is where our paths diverge as I see this as a significant upgrade. Sure it is a stop gap measure for 64 bit support but it does offer significant performance advantages and should adapt well to Apples move to 64 bit.

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.

That is what I thought but like I said I don't follow Intel deeply. I do know that with Core 2 Intel has the potential for significant upside on clock rates. It looks like we could see both a core race and a clock rate race again. As to AMD I'm not 100% on their quad either but I think it is a single chip implementation. Maybe a few moths slower in coming but the impression is a solid offering.

What I'm wondering is where the optimal number of cores is for the average desktop user. I know that dual has some pretty amazing results on the desktop so how far do we go for core wise. 4, 8, 12 or more? Especially on i86, it is to bad the PPC guys never got their acts together.

Dave

 

[Multimedia]

Activity Monitor Is Your Friend

I know this sounds silly but how do you monitor processor usage from a process via Activity Monitor? I have the Developer Tools installed too. I'm not a developer but well...my work requires me to have them installed anyways.

Yes that's right. I always have Activity Monitor on so I can see exactly what's going on with my four cores. I have the sort on the percentage column on the left followed by the application name and then I stick it in the lower right corner of my two screens. By keeping it open I can make sure nothing has crashed.

Both Toast and Handbrake occasionally crash during an encode or even while Toast is writing the image after an encode. Occasionally it's due to a bad original file MPEG2 glitch that will keep causing Toast to crash repeatedly. But ususally I can relaunch and re-run the process and it works fine the second time.

 

[Multimedia]

How Many Cores How Fast By 2008? My Guess-Hope Is 16 Cores Running Over 3GHz Each

Yeah it is interesting but in the context of a desktop machine you are not getting a lot for the wait. A new front side bus and a Merom to go with it. AND 64 Bit support which can be very important for some.

I guess what I'[m saying is that if you are willing to wait for this upgrade then you really don't need a new computer even with this rather significant update to the iMac. Maybe that is where our paths diverge as I see this as a significant upgrade. Sure it is a stop gap measure for 64 bit support but it does offer significant performance advantages and should adapt well to Apples move to 64 bit.

I do know that with Core 2 Intel has the potential for significant upside on clock rates. It looks like we could see both a core race and a clock rate race again.

What I'm wondering is where the optimal number of cores is for the average desktop user. I know that dual has some pretty amazing results on the desktop so how far do we go for core wise. 4, 8, 12 or more? Especially on i86, it is to bad the PPC guys never got their acts together.

Dave

Well I am 100% certian four is not enough. But I have read there may be diminishing returns beyond 16 perhaps even beyond 8 - I have no idea. But Clovertown can't come soon enough for me. Would be great if the speed will rise rapidly as well next year. Hope you're right. With both up a lot, what I am doing could be done in a few minutes insead of hours. That's my dream.

 

[Multimedia]

In Future, All Application Developers Let User Assign How Many Cores To Use Pref

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...

Exactly. A perfect example where one application topping out on only one core leaves the entire other one for other stuff. Probably a good thing to have that limit.

In fact, in future, I could see where application developers let the user in preferences tell the application how many cores to be allowed to use. Give the user a choice of how many cores he/she wants a particular process to use. That would be a way cool improvement in all application preferences. Would prevent any one applicaiton from hosing the computer due to core hogging.

 

[Eidorian]

Yes that's right. I always have Activity Monitor on so I can see exactly what's going on with my four cores. I have the sort on the percentage column on the left followed by the application name and then I stick it in the lower right corner of my two screens. By keeping it open I can make sure nothing has crashed.

It looks like Activity Monitor is the best approach then. Thanks though!

Well I am 100% certian four is not enough. But I have read there may be diminishing returns beyond 16 perhaps even beyond 8 - I have no idea.

We haven't hit that wall yet.

Exactly. A perfect example where one application topping out on only one core leaves the entire other one for other stuff. Probably a good thing to have that limit.

In fact, in future, I could see where application developers let the user in preferences tell the application how many cores to be allowed to use. Give the user a choice of how many cores he/she wants a particular process to use. That would be a way cool improvement in all application preferences.

I have to agree. Single or multi core affinity would let you pick and maximize your usage.

 

[flopticalcube]

In fact, in future, I could see where application developers let the user in preferences tell the application how many cores to be allowed to use. Give the user a choice of how many cores he/she wants a particular process to use. That would be a way cool improvement in all application preferences. Would prevent any one applicaiton from hosing the computer due to core hogging.

That would be an OS issue, would it not? It would be up to the OS to allocate cores to processes.

 

[Eidorian]

That would be an OS issue, would it not? It would be up to the OS to allocate cores to processes.

Yes an OS issue.

 

[Multimedia]

Application Core Affinity It's Called?

Yes an OS issue.

Wow so if that's in XP already it's gotta be a feature in Leopard.

You call that Application Core Affinity or what's the correct full termonology? And where in the OS do you choose the applications to assign x number of cores with that dialog box. Looks like they're ready for a lot of cores coming up?!?!

32. I'd say that's planning ahead.

Are we hijacking this thread? Don't mean to go so far Off Topic folks.

 

[Eidorian]

Wow so if that's in XP already it's gotta be a feature in Leopard.

You call that Application Core Affinity or what's the correct full termonology? And where in the OS do you choose the applications to assign x number of cores with that dialog box. Looks like they're ready for a lot of cores coming up?!?!

32. I'd say that's planning ahead.

I think it might be in Windows 2000 as well. It's found via Task Manager under Processes. Right click on a process in the list and you can assign its affinity. Some programs crash when the encounter hyper threading or multi core machines. So you have to assign the process to a single CPU/core. More then likely on a dual processor machine from back then a multi-core one.

 

[Multimedia]

Have The System Auto Add Core Number Choices To All Application General Pref Panes

I think it might be in Windows 2000 as well. It's found via Task Manager under Processes. Right click on a process in the list and you can assign its affinity. Some programs crash when the encounter hyper threading or multi core machines. So you have to assign the process to a single CPU/core. More then likely on a dual processor machine from back then a multi-core one.

Seems like the application developers could add a link to such a feature in their code so the user could just assign core volume in each application prefs that would tell the system what amount to assign to that process. Maybe even have the system do that automatically to all applicaiton preferences so the choice appears in all general preference panes of each application.

 

[Eidorian]

Seems like the application developers could add a link to such a feature in their code so the user could just assign core volume in each application prefs that would tell the system what amount to assign to that process. Maybe even have the system do that automatically to all applicaiton preferences so the choice appears in all general preference panes of each application.

I don't know if it's up to Apple or the program developers to allow CPU/core assignment.

Could you get on an IM? I'd like to talk about the Guide we were talking about.

 

[Half Glass]

Benchmarks look good...real good for a laptop chip! I wonder how the laptops will fare!

Loving the MacPro, and just like you guys waiting for some of the software to be seriously optimized for more than 2 cores. I've seen ~289% in spurts but not more from an app while encoding some video (I think the 289% was Handbrake). FCP seems to keep itself under 2 cores.

Bring on the truly optimized software and lets roll!

--Half Glass

 

[AidenShaw]

Wow so if that's in XP already it's gotta be a feature in Leopard.

You call that Application Core Affinity or what's the correct full termonology? And where in the OS do you choose the applications to assign x number of cores with that dialog box.

Yes, Windows has APIs to set affinity masks (a mask representing a set of one or more cores) at both the process and thread level. Thread affinity must be a subset of process affinity.

The task manager lets you set that from the GUI.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d.../en-us/dllproc/base/setthreadaffinitymask.asp

SetThreadAffinityMask

Sets a processor affinity mask for the specified thread.​

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d.../en-us/dllproc/base/setthreadaffinitymask.asp

SetProcessAffinityMask

Sets a processor affinity mask for the threads of the specified process.​

Looks like they're ready for a lot of cores coming up?!?!

32. I'd say that's planning ahead.

On 64-bit Windows, it can show up to 64 processors....

By the way, the image a few back showed an old version of Windows, the current version only shows the number of CPUs available on the current system (you only see 64 on a big box ).

 

[EagerDragon]

Well, wasn't the iMac G5 restricted to 2GB, yet it was a 64-bit processor? A 32-bit computer can take up to 4GB, but due to the hardware Apple was/is using, they can't even take this.

What i find odd is that it appears to allow 1 or 2GB in either slot, but no more than 3GB in total. That is obviously the maximum the board can take, but it would have made a little more sense to allow 2GB in each. This will not really effect it's ability to run 64-bit software, just restricts how much memory can be used. Remember that you have been able to get AMD systems with 64-bit processors for some time now. They won't take more than 4GB, but will allow you to run 64-bit OSes and Apps.

I'm hoping by the time I'm after an iMac, it will take at least 4GB, have Blu-Ray as an option, (although I may opt for standard Superdrive if it is an option and buy a Mac compatible external later), include bigger hard drives and stick to a similar price point to now.

I'm tempted by the 20" now, but am not buying yet and would want about 320-400GB in there for the same price, perhaps even 2GB RAM. I've got time to wait however.

I could be wrong but...I think Manic did hit it on the head. I think some of the hardware is still 32 bits. If the memory address leads are there for 3 Gigs then they are there to the max of 4 Gigs, above that is anyones guess. Yes it is very strange since either slot can take the 2 gig chip.

Obviously the Mac Pro does not have that issue.

 

[EagerDragon]

I like to see some benchmarks against G4 machines and see if they make me pull the credit card out.

 

[epitaphic]

I like to see some benchmarks against G4 machines and see if they make me pull the credit card out.

They've done that in this benchmark, tho only on the Speedmark test:

Speedmark 4.5 scores are relative to those of a 1.25GHz Mac mini, which is assigned a score of 100.

If you go by that, the new iMacs are about 2.5x faster.

 

[50548]

Seems like the application developers could add a link to such a feature in their code so the user could just assign core volume in each application prefs that would tell the system what amount to assign to that process. Maybe even have the system do that automatically to all applicaiton preferences so the choice appears in all general preference panes of each application.

Isn't that the same thing as assigning priorities to processes in OS X? Terminal or Developer Tools already do that, as well as several freeware apps...

 

[Eidorian]

Isn't that the same thing as assigning priorities to processes in OS X? Terminal or Developer Tools already do that, as well as several freeware apps...

I believe Multimedia wants something a bit simpler then that though.

Oh and explanation/links for those tools/freeware?

 

[freiheit]

Odd memory configurations on iMac

What i find odd is that it appears to allow 1 or 2GB in either slot, but no more than 3GB in total. That is obviously the maximum the board can take, but it would have made a little more sense to allow 2GB in each.

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm at a point (thanks to apps like Parallels) where I am ready to replace both my PC and my G5 PowerMac with a single system. I can't really justify the cost of the MacPro (even the low-end is over $2K) but if I'm to be running both Mac and Windows simultaneously, 4GB RAM capacity in the iMac would be very much appreciated. 3GB would do, but the cost difference between the 2GB and 3GB option right now is extremely high ($575 more to go from 2GB to 3GB, not $575 total for 3GB) which puts the 17" iMac right in the price range of the low-end MacPro.

Did anyone else also notice the verbage in the "how much RAM do I need" section on the iMac store page that says you can choose a "one SO-DIMM" option to keep 2 slots free? Why do I not see this as an option? There's 2x512MB, 2x1GB and 1x2GB+1x1GB.

 

[GreatOne08]

Those new iMac are looking better and better. Need to save up now.

 

[iGary]

Why does it say "MacCentral" when MacWorld did the benchmarks?

 

[mashinhead]

I want to see some unpacking pics of that 24inch model compared with the 20in. Soon enough I suppose.

yeah that 24 incher is a very tempting deal.

I have a Dual Core 2.0 G5 and a 20 inch monitor. I'm considering selling just the G5 and Getting a Low End Mac Pro. Or selling both and getting the iMac. I know that MacPro is better, but the price compared to what you get with the iMac is just too good. So torn.

But also looking at My 20 inch ACD right now, I can't help but think how F*#king huge that iMac must be. If they made an all black one thouth it would be over. I wish they made black ACD's and MacPro's too now that i think bout it.

 

[AidenShaw]

Isn't that the same thing as assigning priorities to processes in OS X? Terminal or Developer Tools already do that, as well as several freeware apps...

No, not at all.

An affinity mask sets the set of CPUs that can be scheduled. A job won't be run on another CPU, even if the assigned CPUs are at 100% and other idle CPUs are available.

And that, by the way, is why setting affinity is usually a bad idea. Let the system dynamically schedule across all available resources -- or you might have some CPUs very busy, and others idle.

Win2k3 also has "soft" affinity masks, which define a preferred set of CPUs. If all of the preferred CPUs are busy, and other CPUs are idle, then soft affinity allows the system to run the jobs on the idle CPUs - even though the idle CPUs aren't in the preferred affinity mask.

 

[firsttube]

minimum post requirements suck, if you've been lurking for years, but never post you still can't post in the marketplace. sorry this is OT

 

[Some_Big_Spoon]

I was credit card in hand when these were released, but I stopped myself. I'd like to wait a bit and see the 64 bit boost (if there is any), and Leopard in general.

I feel like these are speed demons, but I can't take advantage of a lot of it due to my heavy use of CS2 and the in-between feeling of Apple's apps/OS right now.

The second Leopard is out, I'm on the 24" iMac train.