Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by jlyanks85, Feb 24, 2011.
Is it just as powerful, more powerful or less powerful?
less, even though imac use last gen intel chips
you cant compare mobile cpus to desktop cpus
It is more powerful.
Way more powerful. For the first time ever, the processor in Apples mobile line is within the top 20 of *all* processors (PC Desktop/laptop/server). Which is impressive.
It's nice having a processor in a mbp that is actually better than one could get from a gaming pc (i.e. alienware).
1) Its way more powerful, the new mobile chip wipes the face off just about every desktop processor out there except the enthusiast ones. Think "top 20" in the world.
2) The imac does not use desktop processors, it uses mobile processors. Always has (I'm a tech and I've looked inside them).
Geekbench scores are a bit higher I think. Not a definitive indicator of performance but still..
Joke of the day. You know how a fool you look, saying you are techie, and you dont even know the difference between a mobile cpu vs a desktop cpu. You know what tdp is right? Cache? stuff like that.
The imacs uses the i7-860 / i7-870 / i5-750 and so on, google them. They are desktop cpus
Joke of the day, copied for good measures.
And no, the mobile cpus arent better then desktop cpus. jesus guys, where do you learn stuff. haha
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2363510,00.asp (The system's Intel Core i7-860 processor is rated at 2.8GHz)
You want me to post more links
Arrogance is cute. So is stupidity. I laugh at both personally, here you go:
Take a close look at the link. Remarkable isn't it? A MOBILE chip beating many DESKTOP chips. If you don't like this chart I can bring up the SPEC international standards benchmarks for you... do you even know what those are?
I'd even be willing to bet that you have never taken apart a computer before, let alone built one or serviced them. Don't try to argue with someone beyond your level kid, you'll get stomped. Badly.
Dunno why you are posting mbp sandy bridge cpus when we were talking about imac, and the question if they were mobile / desktop cpus. You said that the imac had mobile cpus. No coming around that. Why did you say that?
But row, row row your boat.
The mobile cpu is not better then a desktop cpu, thats level 1 engineering. You can copy paste one test, 3d mark 06 and 11 is in favor of desktop cpus by far. I just cant believe a "tech" person like yourself can say something like this.
A mobile cpu beating a i7-2600k. hah. wow
And im around tech daily my friend, i have a 5 year degree in engineering. But hey, i dont see the point in arguing with you.
You think the imac has mobile cpus, so ye, your knowledge shines through
Holy smokes. you're not joking.
Can't wait to see how the 2.0Ghz stacks up. I'm guessing in the high six thousands...
Here I was thinking I should get a desktop for some math-heavy applications. Maybe I don't need to...
And the answer to the question is quite simple: The mbp processors are not the same as the imac processors. Thats the answer to the TC's question.
As to the processor type in the imac's, from what I've seen on the logic boards their quite imbedded. If they are desktop processors then I'm really surprised that they didn't keep the LGA 1166 socket.
I'm not trying to start a flame war and/or troll in any way. I'm just trying to present the facts given the recent events of today. I probably do make myself out to sound like I'm attacking people though, but I only present myself in that way when people try to argue false information or misleading. I want people to know!
Wrong again, lynnfield was used in the imac
which used socket 1156. You are digging your own grave here little man
dunno where you have socket 1166 from, but i see know you have knowledge your mistake, and come around that the imac doesnt use mobile cpus
And again, a desktop i7-2600k outpeforms a mobile cpu by a longshot, they turbo boost to 3.8 ghz to start width.
Thats a 1,0ghz more then a mobile sandy bridge. But i guess its still worse. Oh wait
Also the desktop version has 8mb cache, the mobile one has 6
Wow, Mr Super-Smart-Know-it-All-Tech-Guy just keeps digging deeper and deeper... They are socketed...
Its called a typo.
Also you recently mentioned that no mobile processor would ever beat a desktop processor. Okay buddy, so I'll take the new mobile chips in the mbp's and see how they fare against an old pentium 4, desktop of course
You mentioned engineering, but your facts are so misleading and incorrect. If you really want to know the reason why these chips are blowing away many of the closely related desktop variants you should read more up on your "datapath" and "architecture", that is if your actually enrolled in computer engineering or equivalent. Power isn't everything. Efficiency is. Try software for example (my specific area), take two programs, call them A and B. Pretend these "programs" have resemblance in efficiency to other entities. Assume that their tasks are to sort 1,000,000 numbers. One implements a low level form of bubble sort O(n^2) time complexity, while the other implements merge sort O(nlogn) time complexity. Doesn't matter if the first program (A) is on a machine with double the power, or even quadruple the power... it is no match for program B.
The same can be said of hardware. Efficiency, among other things, is everything. Hows that information overload?
Ye dude, now you are just rowing your boat away from the questions i asked. And yes dude, good comeback when we talked lynnfield and sandy bridge to bring in pentium 4, thats real clever.
First you said the imac used mobile cpus
then you said socket 1166
then you said they were imbedded
then you said the mobile cpu is better then any desktop
when the cache and speed of other cpus are clearly better.
That just facts. Im not stating anything. Im just laying facts on the table. If you think the facts are misleading, blame intel. But if you like rowing, ill let you do that.
I really dont have time to lecture you, allthough with all the "typos" you had the last 15 min, looks like you need it.
Sadly, with your *5 years of engineering* you really dont know what you are talking about. But dont worry, it seems many people dont know what they are talking about either.
Btw, Do you have a hard time looking at a chart? The fastest mobile chip is 2k points away in that chart from the 2600k.
I will repeat this only once, Passmark IS very dependent on Clock speed. Always has, always will. Thats why it is not a very reliable CPU benchmark tool.
Dhrystone, Whetstone, Queen, Cinebench, etc. There are also several more that are better that "passmark". The only reason the Mobile chips perform better on the passmark test is because of its vigorous turbo boost. The 2720QM has turbo boost up to 3.46ghz which puts it really high in the charts. Turn turbo boost off and the previous gen i7s(in the imac) will leave the mobile chips in the dust.
henrikrox is the only right person about not being able to compare mobile to desktop CPUs.
So OP, no, the mobile chips are not Faster than the Desktop ones.
Basing this stuff on synthetic benchmarks isn't going to get anywhere but arguing. Take a new MBP, transcode a video, then an iMac, do the same video, and see which is faster. A high bench score isn't necessarily the indication of a better CPU. Granted, the iMacs use Nehalem based chips, versus the new sandy bridge, so at this point the MBP could actually equal the performance of the iMac or possibly surpass it. Now, when the iMacs get sandy bridge they will smoke the MBPs.
I didn't want to start a argument with this thread lol. Obviously the imac is mid 2010 model, while the mbp is a 2011 just released today. So the mbp should be more powerful.
Someone like me though, wouldn't know the difference between the 2, since I wouldn't even be taking advantage of all the power. Since I use a computer for the most basic things. Only real work I put my imac through is handbraking a dvd.
you could have just compared the imac specs next to the mbp or compare benchmarks instead of making this thread.
Dunno what i did wrong, as you pretty much summarized what i said. Just in cleaner english (im not from the usa).
You say i dont know what im talking about, but you say im right at the end. Anyways. Thank you for clearing it up, that the imac will love the mobile sandy bridge in the dust
You have the wrong mindset. Why should something thats newer be better? Nvidia 320m is better in most cases compared to the intel 3000 hd. Even though its older. Should the intel 3000 hd just be better still, just because its newer? That doesnt make it any sense.
Also, you are comparing two different things. Compare a) a mobile cpu vs another mobile cpu
like compare lynnfield mobile cpus vs sandy bridge cpus
compare lynnfield desktop cpus vs desktop sandy bridge cpus
We can argue on about the technicalities of older desktop vs newer mobile cpus all day but in the end it is the results of benchmarks and real world tests that has the final say. So far the high end i7 Sandy Beach quad core Macbook Pros are doing very favorably against the entry level Mac Pros in synthetic benchmarks posted by some members of this forum. It will be interesting to see a comparison against the quad core iMacs.
Can't wait for the professional review sites to do some in-depth comparisons.
@henrikrox I see you have a recent 2010 iMac. Perhaps this is the reason why you are so strongly defending it? I can understand though, it would really suck to know that the Sandy Bridge Macbook Pro CPUs are faster then yours.
Already been mentioned that the bencmark tool shown is turbo friendly which makes the mobile cpus fly up.
take a physics test in 3d mark and you will se a different result. Or cinebench for that matter
and no jiten, i really dont go down to those levels. im more then happy with my system setup
Is PCMark a good measure?
Not not really as the mobile one gets alot of score for hyper threading
as you notice 8 threads