Mac OS X Hacked Onto Intel's Sandy Bridge Platform

[Yamcha]

Maybe Steve will announce new Macs in a few weeks?



Wrong. Apple had some of the fastest Xeon for Mac Pro FIRST.

Apple had USB, Wifi, Firewire, and many other new technology first. (And Magsafe, a large trackpad that works well, etc. are exclusively Apple)

Mac Pro's weren't the first ones to use Xeon's, as you probably know Apple was using its G5 Processors for Mac Pro's.. I don't know what you mean by the rest.. Yes Magsafe, Large trackpad is something that came to Macs first..

But what I'm talking about is hardware, for example, Apple still hasn't adopted to USB 3, SATA 6GB, Apple is still using Core 2 Duo's which were first available in 2006. From what I know Macs cannot take advantage Multi-GPU technology like Crossfire & SLI, No 3D or Physx support on Mac OS.. Steve jobs still refuses to support Bluray.. Apple certainly wasn't the first to use DirectX 11 GPU's, they just recently did, but these were available on Sept 2009..

As far as I'm concerned Apple doesn't adopt new technologies quickly.. I do think as far as the OS goes Apple is ahead, but when it comes to Hardware Apple isn't quite there yet.. Hopefully this will change in the future.. New hardware comes really quickly, Apple just a while back started using HD5000 series, but now theres HD6000 series cards..

 

[0815]

yeah that was waaaaaaaay back when?

now they are missing

quad core i7s in laptops
12 core in work stations
DDR3 ram that runs at DDR3 speeds not DDR2 (1066 is not DDR3 speeds)
BD anything
USB 3
eSATA / eSATAp
SATA 6GB
HD video cams
bluetooth 3
WiDi
anything related to video performance, no 6xxx ati or 5xx nvidia video cards
and a bunch of others

Someone seems to have Featuritis ! Hope there is a cure for it

 

[Mr. Chewbacca]

Awesome! That does it, I dont need a laptop now so I am waiting for the new one. Gives me time to put aside some extra cash for upgrades.

Hopefully it wont cost to much more than the current units.

 

[gorjan]

Would your average user take advantage of any of that? Is their a necessity for i7 laptops? That's like saying all cars should come with v12 engines.

There are two sides to that argument. My C2D 2.4GHz MBP is great for my needs right now, but does that mean that Intel should stop R&D and we should all continue using C2D forever? Of course not. (though I do agree with other posters here that the processor isn't the bottleneck in everyday performance and that focus should to turned to HDD/SSDs.)

Or what about USB3? I don't understand why there's such a resistance against USB3 on these forums just because Jobs doesn't like it. I would always prefer faster to slower if you don't loose anything in the process.

 

[Yamcha]

Would your average user take advantage of any of that? Is their a necessity for i7 laptops? That's like saying all cars should come with v12 engines.

I think the average user could take advantage of USB3 & Sata 6GB/s.. It means much faster random reads and writes for external & internal hard drives. A professional could also take advantage of Crossfire and SLI technology, sometimes one GPU isn't enough, not to mention with a HD6000 series card you can use up to 4 displays, so these things I think any Mac user would be happy to have..

 

[0815]

Would your average user take advantage of any of that? Is their a necessity for i7 laptops? That's like saying all cars should come with v12 engines.

++

Most moderen processors are fast enough for most laptop uses (exceptions apply) --> I rather have a processor that is a bit slower but gives me way more battery time (and this slower processor will still be faster than what I need). The bottle neck these days is not the processor speed anymore - when I upgraded my MacBook with an 256GB SSD (and 8GB memory) I was amazed how 'fast' it became ('feels'). Typical laptop users wait most of the time for stuff being loaded from the harddrive (or web) -> no V12 engine needed for that. Improve performance where it makes sense - no need to show off unneeded 'features'.

 

[0815]

There are two sides to that argument. My C2D 2.4GHz MBP works great for me right now, but does that means that Intel should stop R&D and we should all continue using C2D forever? I think you agree that that wouldn't be a good solution? Or what abour USB3? I don't understand why there's such a resistance against USB3 on these forums just because Jobs doesn't like it. I would always prefer faster to slower.

R&D is needed and welcomed - as long as you don't expect that every little thing coming out of there is getting adopted right away by everyone out there. No need to upgrade well working tech for minor performance increase (realistic performance, not on paper) at a higher cost. Bring the next big new thing out of R&D and it will get used - but not everything tiny bit of improvement is worth getting used right away.

 

[pr5owner]

Would your average user take advantage of any of that? Is their a necessity for i7 laptops? That's like saying all cars should come with v12 engines.

no, its the current standard, also it would be morelike engines should all have GDI, variable valve timing and electronic lift

GDI - some cars have it
VVT - most cars have i
Lift - only honda porsche and 1 other i cant remember

engine size or power is like i3/i5/i7

++

Most moderen processors are fast enough for most laptop uses (exceptions apply) --> I rather have a processor that is a bit slower but gives me way more battery time (and this slower processor will still be faster than what I need). The bottle neck these days is not the processor speed anymore - when I upgraded my MacBook with an 256GB SSD (and 8GB memory) I was amazed how 'fast' it became ('feels'). Typical laptop users wait most of the time for stuff being loaded from the harddrive (or web) -> no V12 engine needed for that. Improve performance where it makes sense - no need to show off unneeded 'features'.

no, not what apple is charging, a core2duo laptop should be $300-$400 bux, not $1200

core2duo's are 100% perfect for email, surfing, general stuff most people use, but when charging 1000+ prices, its becomes wrong

 

[gorjan]

R&D is needed and welcomed - as long as you don't expect that every little thing coming out of there is getting adopted right away by everyone out there. No need to upgrade well working tech for minor performance increase (realistic performance, not on paper) at a higher cost. Bring the next big new thing out of R&D and it will get used - but not everything tiny bit of improvement is worth getting used right away.

I absolutely agree. But I don't see how implementing USB3 would hurt in any way, or BD for that matter. Both would be nice for fast backups i.e. I haven't tried the new Core i Macs, so I can't say if there's a great performance upgrade compared to the C2D.

 

[Hellhammer]

Mac Pro's weren't the first ones to use Xeon's, as you probably know Apple was using its G5 Processors for Mac Pro's.

Apple was the first one to use Nehalem Xeons. Apple got them on March 3rd while the release date for others was March 31st IIRC. However, non-Xeon Nehalems had been available for months so Apple was most likely the last OEM to use Nehalem CPUs in their products.

 

[lilo777]

yeah that was waaaaaaaay back when?

now they are missing

quad core i7s in laptops
12 core in work stations
DDR3 ram that runs at DDR3 speeds not DDR2 (1066 is not DDR3 speeds)
BD anything
USB 3
eSATA / eSATAp
SATA 6GB
HD video cams
bluetooth 3
WiDi
anything related to video performance, no 6xxx ati or 5xx nvidia video cards
and a bunch of others

You can add a few more features:

RGB backlit LCD panels
IPS panels for laptops
built-in GPS in laptops
built-in 3G in laptops
RAID SSDs in laptops
HDMI ports in laptops
real servers

 

[Mackilroy]

From the few people I know that tried Hackintoshes, they were not running as stable as on the Apple Hardware - And one of the reasons I use mac/apple is to have a stable system where I don't have to hunt around for drivers to make things work.

It depends on what you do. My hackintosh is as stable as my Mac Pro and MacBook – which is to say, extremely stable.

I read about this a couple days ago – looking forward to seeing SNB hardware from Apple.

 

[Yamcha]

R&D is needed and welcomed - as long as you don't expect that every little thing coming out of there is getting adopted right away by everyone out there. No need to upgrade well working tech for minor performance increase (realistic performance, not on paper) at a higher cost. Bring the next big new thing out of R&D and it will get used - but not everything tiny bit of improvement is worth getting used right away.

Sure I guess its not really required to always adopt to new technologies right away, but remember that Apple is still using Core 2 Duo's, these were released in 2006, Its about time to get rid of them on all Macs.. Also integrated GPU's on entry level iMacs were horrible, Apple has been using 9400M's for a long time, they just recently replaced them with a dedicated GPU, which is great but again the point I'm trying to make is that Apple does indeed take a long time to adopt new technologies.. And anyways things like USB3/Sata6GB and dedicated GPU's make a real impact, same goes for SSD's, which have also been around for a long time, and Apple has made a good step to start using them on Macbook Airs..

 

[shartypants]

I'm ready for the MBP upgrade!

 

[Ade-iMac-177]

Mac Pro's weren't the first ones to use Xeon's, as you probably know Apple was using its G5 Processors for Mac Pro's.

They were some of the first to use the "woodcrest" xeons, the latest xeon chips when the mac pro was released. Mac Pro's have never used G5, the older Power Mac G5 used them, they only look similar.

 

[Yamcha]

This will come soon to an official Apple Hardware near you ... until than I don't care. From the few people I know that tried Hackintoshes, they were not running as stable as on the Apple Hardware - And one of the reasons I use mac/apple is to have a stable system where I don't have to hunt around for drivers to make things work. Great news for people of have the time and fun to do that - I wait for the official support.

Not true, it depends on the hardware you use.. If you buy compatible hardware you get really good results & setting up is quite easy.. Especially these days.. And it is 100% stable, I've got a HD 5770, Core i3 & DDR3 Memory, you don't need drivers to make these work, they are included in 10.6.5 update, next step is just install Chameleon boot loader, which is what enables the drivers..

 

[White Dragon]

I agree, Apple is really beyond in adopting new hardware. Come on Apple get with the 21st century.

 

[0815]

Not true, it depends on the hardware you use..

sentences like "Not true, it depends ..." mean "YES TRUE"

Anyway: I don't argue that a stable hackintosh can be build. It depends on how much time one is willing to invest. I used to build my own PC's and tweaked them to get the last bit of performance. I am no longer willing to invest that time - I think my time is worth more that the potential savings and with having my kids around the time is better spend playing with them. But this is *my* opinion. Many people have fun and time doing that stuff (I used to have that many moons ago). But point is: if you are not careful the result will be unstable and looking at what is needed to get this working, chances are you will end up with an not so stable system.

 

[swarmster]

Since the OP didn't say it, and I wondered, I am posting this here. This is an amazing preliminary geekbench score. The list of recents for mac is at:

http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/

In short, this performance would be near the low-end of 4-core MacPros in terms of performance, and would rival the 27" imac. It would be far above (50%?) any existing Macbook pros.

The i5-2500K is a desktop processor that would potentially be used in the iMac, not a notebook.

Right, so in short, "new iMac chip rivals performance of old iMac chip."

Does anyone see what the big deal is here? Weird that the OP prominently displays a performance rating with absolutely no point of reference. Should we just assume it's a big number and get excited?

 

[technowizard]

...12 core in work stations
DDR3 ram that runs at DDR3 speeds not DDR2 (1066 is not DDR3 speeds)...

The Mac Pro (Workstation) is available in a 12 core (2x6) configuration.
The Current iMac ships with DDR3 1333mhz Ram.

All your other points were correct however no quad core i7 in laptop's is for heat and power consumption reasons.

 

[Mackilroy]

<FUD snip>

It doesn't take that long to get a stable system. As I said, mine is just as stable as my genuine Macs, and the only time I invested was installing the OS.

Also, the TonyMac guys have overclocked SNB to 6.31 GHz.

 

[Bregalad]

Will these new processors make it into the next MacBook Pro updates due March/April 2011? What do you think?

MacBook Pros are already overdue for a refresh. As soon as mobile Sandy Bridge is shipping in quantity they need to get new models out the door.

By March/April they need to get Sandy Bridge into every model for which Intel is shipping a processor (everything except the Mac Pro and MBAir).

I know some would argue "need" is the wrong word and I'm willing to forgive Apple for being a few months behind the bleeding edge, but Sandy Bridge is a huge leap forward in the performance per dollar equation. Apple is a premium priced brand and some of their products have major components that are two years old. I expect that in a $400 Dell, not a $1000 Apple.

 

[Bregalad]

Right, so in short, "new iMac chip rivals performance of old iMac chip."

New $184 iMac chip blows old $384 iMac chip out of the water is more accurate.

Apple applies roughly a 100% markup so you should be able to get better performance and save $400 at the same time. I'd say that's cause for anticipation.

 

[gorjan]

built-in 3G in laptops

Yes!

 

[Yamcha]

sentences like "Not true, it depends ..." mean "YES TRUE"

Anyway: I don't argue that a stable hackintosh can be build. It depends on how much time one is willing to invest. I used to build my own PC's and tweaked them to get the last bit of performance. I am no longer willing to invest that time - I think my time is worth more that the potential savings and with having my kids around the time is better spend playing with them. But this is *my* opinion. Many people have fun and time doing that stuff (I used to have that many moons ago). But point is: if you are not careful the result will be unstable and looking at what is needed to get this working, chances are you will end up with an not so stable system.

Lol , well what I meant is it depends if your going to get an AMD setup or not.. If you've got a Core 2 Duo, Core i3/i5/i7 (LGA1156) and a supported GPU then your good to go..

I've built a hackintosh a few times with no stability issues.. Fact is Apple uses the same hardware thats available on PC's, same hard drive, memory, processor, chipset & gpu's..

So yeah its no secret that i'll work correctly.. You won't have any stability issues.. I had an iMac before, there is no way I'd go back to a Hackintosh if it wasn't stable..

I know a lot of Mac users don't look favourably towards Hackintoshes , but it being unstable is not true.. After all you do install it with a retail Snow Leopard disc.. And its become so easy to install OSX now..