Yeah that's pretty hard core. I've been doing a bit of event photography on the side again and the 13" MBP does great with the RAW from my Canon dSLR, but then again they're not 90MB a shot either.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
More Quad-Core iMac Benchmarks Show Substantial Performance Gains
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah that's pretty hard core. I've been doing a bit of event photography on the side again and the 13" MBP does great with the RAW from my Canon dSLR, but then again they're not 90MB a shot either.
What's inaccurate about their statements on available RAM, usage, and multitasking performance?
There is no way that a single Quad Core i7 beats a Dual Quad Core i7 MacPro. I have a Quad Core i5 and the Dual Quad Core i7 spanks my Mac Pro. These results can't be true. I seriously doubt it. Obviously these results don't take full advantage of all the cores.
No such thing as a dual quad core i7.
Again, to inform your *supposed* research, below is the listing of *real world* tasks that make-up the composite Speedmark score. Please note that in each column below is the independent variable first and also note that in *every* single example (with the exception of Mathematica Mark 7 and COD4) the *dependent* measure is *time to completion* in either seconds or minutes.
The indexed scores are then used to form a composite Speedmark score for ease of comparison across the different machines tested - but the individual scores that make up the Speedmark score are all based on actual task performance. Please also note that one specific task is multi tasking using Parallels in a Windows environment (thus satisfying your multiple windows/programs constraint).
Do you enjoy being this wrong, or are you simply a glutton for punishment?
FINDER: ZIP 2GB FOLDER: TIME
FINDER: UNZIP 2GB ARCHIVE : TIME
iTUNES: AAC TO MP3 ENCODE: TIME
iPHOTO 09: IMPORT CAMERA ARCHIVE: TIME
iPHOTO 09: SHARE TO ITUNES MOBILE: TIME
CALL OF DUTY 4: FRAME RATE: RATE
iPHOTO 09: IMPORT 150 JPEGS: TIME
PHOTOSHOP CS4: SUITE: TIME
COMPRESSOR 3.04: ENCODE: TIME
HANDBRAKE 0.9.3: RIP DVD CHAPTER: TIME
CINEBENCH R10: MULTIPLE CPU TEST: TIME
MATHEMATICA MARK 7: SCORE
PARALLELS 5 WORKBENCH 6: MULTI TASK TEST WINDOWS: TIME
APERTURE 2.1.4: IMPORT: TIME
The indexed scores are then used to form a composite Speedmark score for ease of comparison across the different machines tested - but the individual scores that make up the Speedmark score are all based on actual task performance. Please also note that one specific task is multi tasking using Parallels in a Windows environment (thus satisfying your multiple windows/programs constraint).
Do you enjoy being this wrong, or are you simply a glutton for punishment?
FINDER: ZIP 2GB FOLDER: TIME
FINDER: UNZIP 2GB ARCHIVE : TIME
iTUNES: AAC TO MP3 ENCODE: TIME
iPHOTO 09: IMPORT CAMERA ARCHIVE: TIME
iPHOTO 09: SHARE TO ITUNES MOBILE: TIME
CALL OF DUTY 4: FRAME RATE: RATE
iPHOTO 09: IMPORT 150 JPEGS: TIME
PHOTOSHOP CS4: SUITE: TIME
COMPRESSOR 3.04: ENCODE: TIME
HANDBRAKE 0.9.3: RIP DVD CHAPTER: TIME
CINEBENCH R10: MULTIPLE CPU TEST: TIME
MATHEMATICA MARK 7: SCORE
PARALLELS 5 WORKBENCH 6: MULTI TASK TEST WINDOWS: TIME
APERTURE 2.1.4: IMPORT: TIME
Who is arguing that? What are you talking about? Please read the whole thread before posting to a single comment out of context.
It started back here.
Running a single component of a benchmark suite isn't reflecting what you encounter in the real world. Multitasking performance is what the majority of people are going to encounter unless they leave their computer alone 24/7 to run one task and dedicate 100% to that single task.
Like I mentioned before the aggressive Turbo Boost on Lynnfield is what's going to make it shine in Speedmark 6. In four core or two core operations Lynnfield is going to clock higher than Bloomfield. Even with the Xeon 2.26 DP in there you notice that it barely scales at all. It's a raw clock speed race and then it's limited by I/O.
Please *note* that the real world tests in the Speedmark score being referenced here include tests of MULTI-TASKING.
Please read the entire referenced article and carefully evaluate the actual tests that were being used before you come here and spout off.
So much misinformation because people don't take the time to understand what they are arguing.
Please read the entire referenced article and carefully evaluate the actual tests that were being used before you come here and spout off.
So much misinformation because people don't take the time to understand what they are arguing.
What components of the benchmark are run in parallel? I don't see a need to be insulting either.
Would you actually talk to someone like this in person? I think not. Either that, or you're probably asked to leave quite a bit.
The amount of internet tough guys on this forum is nothing short of amazing.
sounds like some people will only be happy if MacWorld reruns the test with the entire suite of apps run simultaneously. Which of course would prove nothing, but be quite hilarious to witness .
I'm not quite sure how much the GPU plays here for all the apps in the suite (OpenCL underpinnings etc.), but the test may have been a bit more fair to the MacPro if they used a video card more equivalent to the 4850 rather than the skanky base GT 120. If they did upgrade the card in the test, I missed it.
.I'm not quite sure how much the GPU plays here for all the apps in the suite (OpenCL underpinnings etc.), but the test may have been a bit more fair to the MacPro if they used a video card more equivalent to the 4850 rather than the skanky base GT 120. If they did upgrade the card in the test, I missed it.
Who's being insulting? I'm simply stating the obvious. I have referenced the article repeatedly and I don't feel the need to have to make your arguments for you; If you want to know which components are run in parallel then go read the article.
I'm sorry, but the replies I've gotten back from the person I am replying to wouldn't fly in person either, but I don't see you commenting on that. The obvious inequity in your statement renders it meaningless.
If someone was so blatantly misinformed and kept making the same lazy argument then I wouldn't have any problem calling them out in person or otherwise. So, then, what you are actually saying is you can't handle people being informed in their arguments in the forum?
Sounds about right...
If someone was so blatantly misinformed and kept making the same lazy argument then I wouldn't have any problem calling them out in person or otherwise. So, then, what you are actually saying is you can't handle people being informed in their arguments in the forum?
Sounds about right...
No, I can't handle people being arrogant, rude, and patronizing. Unfortunately that appears to be the norm here these days. Eidorian isn't being rude to you at all either, nor is Bafflefish.
Welcome to MR though; you'll fit right in!
I've read the article as well. I would appreciate if you'd be so kind to point out the multi-tasking benchmark where tasks are run in parallel.
There's no indication that the WorldBench 6 scripts in the virtual machine are clocked at the same time another task in OS X is going on. It's just a straight clock of the virtual machine's performance without another task going on like video editing, image editing, or file copying in Finder.
A multitasking benchmark would be something like multiple browser tabs alongside, Excel, and image/video editing. There are plenty of problems doing that as well since it ends up being a composite score. All around how much faster is this computer and doing multiple tasks when compared to another which is going to tax all of the subsystems if done properly.
The stock CPU heatsink for a Core i7 is huge. I had a chance to look at a 27" Imac over the weekend and the first thing that crossed my mind was how would they deal with the heat. Does anyone have a link to a pic of the Imac heatsink?
The second thing that crossed my mind was if these things spend a lot of time in a throttled state where thew CPU speed throttles down to lower temps.
I think putting a core i7 desktop cpu in such a small enclosure is a bad idea . The consequences wont be known until they have been in service for a while.
The second thing that crossed my mind was if these things spend a lot of time in a throttled state where thew CPU speed throttles down to lower temps.
I think putting a core i7 desktop cpu in such a small enclosure is a bad idea . The consequences wont be known until they have been in service for a while.
What do you mean?
I have got a 300GB Itunes library and over 500GB or HD movies and 10,000 photo's and OSX handles these easily what do you mean Macs can handle rudimentary things fine?
My Windows Machine in the house on the other hand has been running for 2 years no and is starting to slow down all i got is the basic Vista software and Office 2008 thats it with about 40GB music.
I have been working in IT support environment for 18 years PC and Mac and registered MCSE and Apple developer and have to say PC's have too many issues. yes Mac's have issues but these are easily resolvable compared with PC's
Oh regarding hackers at hack contests have you actucally gone to one? i have and you will be suprised how many hackers actually have a Mac why is this? could you advise if you know so much on this subject?
I have got a 300GB Itunes library and over 500GB or HD movies and 10,000 photo's and OSX handles these easily what do you mean Macs can handle rudimentary things fine?
My Windows Machine in the house on the other hand has been running for 2 years no and is starting to slow down all i got is the basic Vista software and Office 2008 thats it with about 40GB music.
I have been working in IT support environment for 18 years PC and Mac and registered MCSE and Apple developer and have to say PC's have too many issues. yes Mac's have issues but these are easily resolvable compared with PC's
Oh regarding hackers at hack contests have you actucally gone to one? i have and you will be suprised how many hackers actually have a Mac why is this? could you advise if you know so much on this subject?
Since you seem incapable of doing a google search on WorldBench and what it is, below is a description. If you search for the specifications of the multi-task test (aptly named, don't you think?) you will see the following bullet point:
PC World will soon be publishing WorldBench 6, the latest version of our PC benchmarking suite. What does that mean to you? WorldBench is the core set of applications that PC World uses to test all kinds of desktop PCs and laptop PCs. The results generated from this comprehensive suite of real-world test scenarios are a significant component of our reviews of the systems that pass through PC World's door. And because these tests all use actual programs and involve tasks that you might perform in real life, they're an excellent barometer for determining how PCs might perform outside of the lab and on your desk.
Modern-day computer benchmarks fall into two distinct camps: synthetic and nonsynthetic. Synthetic tests such as HDTach and 3DMark are programs that are specifically designed to run test patterns that don't necessarily reflect real-world use of a system. They often yield results that are abstract. Such scores are good for comparing results across a wide range of computers, but they tell you little about the individual performance of a PC doing the kinds of tasks you likely do every day.
Nonsynthetic, or real-world, benchmarks like WorldBench 6 measure a system's performance by using everyday programs to generate measurable results, be it the time it takes to compress files, to run a series of Photoshop commands, or to encode movies. The results help us rank systems based on performance--but they also give you an indication of what you might encounter when you use the PC yourself.
PC World has updated and condensed the 12 applications of the previous test platform, WorldBench 5, into a tighter subset of 8 applications. From Web browsing to file encoding to general use, the automated test scripts that run in these applications have been designed to deliver a tougher evaluation for some of the top computers of today. Even though multicore processors and larger amounts of RAM are appearing even in cheap PCs, it's important to have benchmarks that can accurately assess--and challenge--systems with a wide variety of configurations. To that end, PC World's testers run WorldBench 6 many times on each machine and then compare the results against a common reference system to derive a final score.
WorldBench 6 is designed to run on all editions of Windows 7, Windows Vista, and Windows XP. Since it's fully automated, the application suite can report errors in testing and automatically restart failed tests without user input. It then records the results, including the final WorldBench 6 score as well as the individual results of each application's workload, in both text and graphs. Since WorldBench 6 represents a whole new testing platform, scores from WorldBench 6 can't be compared to results from earlier versions of the benchmark.
- The multitasking test uses the unchanged Windows Media Encoder test and the updated Firefox 2.0 test.
PC World will soon be publishing WorldBench 6, the latest version of our PC benchmarking suite. What does that mean to you? WorldBench is the core set of applications that PC World uses to test all kinds of desktop PCs and laptop PCs. The results generated from this comprehensive suite of real-world test scenarios are a significant component of our reviews of the systems that pass through PC World's door. And because these tests all use actual programs and involve tasks that you might perform in real life, they're an excellent barometer for determining how PCs might perform outside of the lab and on your desk.
Modern-day computer benchmarks fall into two distinct camps: synthetic and nonsynthetic. Synthetic tests such as HDTach and 3DMark are programs that are specifically designed to run test patterns that don't necessarily reflect real-world use of a system. They often yield results that are abstract. Such scores are good for comparing results across a wide range of computers, but they tell you little about the individual performance of a PC doing the kinds of tasks you likely do every day.
Nonsynthetic, or real-world, benchmarks like WorldBench 6 measure a system's performance by using everyday programs to generate measurable results, be it the time it takes to compress files, to run a series of Photoshop commands, or to encode movies. The results help us rank systems based on performance--but they also give you an indication of what you might encounter when you use the PC yourself.
PC World has updated and condensed the 12 applications of the previous test platform, WorldBench 5, into a tighter subset of 8 applications. From Web browsing to file encoding to general use, the automated test scripts that run in these applications have been designed to deliver a tougher evaluation for some of the top computers of today. Even though multicore processors and larger amounts of RAM are appearing even in cheap PCs, it's important to have benchmarks that can accurately assess--and challenge--systems with a wide variety of configurations. To that end, PC World's testers run WorldBench 6 many times on each machine and then compare the results against a common reference system to derive a final score.
WorldBench 6 is designed to run on all editions of Windows 7, Windows Vista, and Windows XP. Since it's fully automated, the application suite can report errors in testing and automatically restart failed tests without user input. It then records the results, including the final WorldBench 6 score as well as the individual results of each application's workload, in both text and graphs. Since WorldBench 6 represents a whole new testing platform, scores from WorldBench 6 can't be compared to results from earlier versions of the benchmark.
If you think making a reasoned argument and supporting it with accurate information (instead of lazy half-reads of articles) is being rude, and arrogant then it's not worth my time arguing with you.
How is "you don't know what you are talking about" not a rude statement which was leveled at me?
Thanks for wasting my time.
How is "you don't know what you are talking about" not a rude statement which was leveled at me?
Thanks for wasting my time.
No, I can't handle people being arrogant, rude, and patronizing. Unfortunately that appears to be the norm here these days. Eidorian isn't being rude to you at all either, nor is Bafflefish.
Welcome to MR though; you'll fit right in!
Let me help you out a little, since you're having a rough time of it.
You said:
Surely you don't think that's a what an adult says to another adult, do you? Really?
Time to stop worrying about benchmarks and work on those social skills.
Oh, and I'm happy to have wasted your time. It's really no problem!
So - you post an example where I was blunt but completely ignore every other instance of others reciprocating that toward me, and this proves what exactly? That you are being selective to prove your overstated point.
That's just sad. I also find it dubious that you are attempting to indict my social skills by cutting a few, sufficiently tame, comments from earlier posts while choosing to ignore the typical brand of venom that is the norm around here. That only exposes your naiveté
Maybe you need to go back and read some other threads and reevaluate your so clearly thought out assertions. Oh, and welcome to the real world where adults actually engage in forthright discourse. Forgive me for momentarily bringing you out of your Peter Pan Neverland tinted existence.
That's just sad. I also find it dubious that you are attempting to indict my social skills by cutting a few, sufficiently tame, comments from earlier posts while choosing to ignore the typical brand of venom that is the norm around here. That only exposes your naiveté
Maybe you need to go back and read some other threads and reevaluate your so clearly thought out assertions. Oh, and welcome to the real world where adults actually engage in forthright discourse. Forgive me for momentarily bringing you out of your Peter Pan Neverland tinted existence.
Let me help you out a little, since you're having a rough time of it.
Surely you don't think that's a what an adult says to another adult, do you? Really?
Time to stop worrying about benchmarks and work on those social skills.
Oh, and I'm happy to have wasted your time. It's really no problem!
To Scroto:
Uhmm, I would change the nickname... (either you do not know what it sounds like in English and actually means in Italian, or ... you do, in which case you have chosen it for a reason and I won't argue).
Uhmm, I would change the nickname... (either you do not know what it sounds like in English and actually means in Italian, or ... you do, in which case you have chosen it for a reason and I won't argue).
Would you like me to go search for more, or can you be a big boy and do it yourself?
Asking someone if they enjoy being wrong is not sufficiently tame, if the goal is to act like a civilized adult. If it's to act like a typical juvenile troll, then mission accomplished.
Again, only a college student or younger would actually think your wording is actually acceptable in a real, adult world.
And by the way, the quote goes on top, not the bottom. Someone says something, you quote it, you respond to it. Make sense?
EDIT Here ya go.
You said:
You said:
Feel free to think that's normal adult conversation.
Ah, that's nicer. Blocked, and takes up less space too.
You are actually being serious here aren't you? What do you think you are doing below? Being rude and arrogant maybe? Are you not even bright enough to even realize your own posts here are making you into a hypocrite.
If you honestly think that asking someone to go and read the entirety of an article is being rude then you live in an alternate reality.
I'm finished wasting my time - happy cutting and pasting to you (clearly you are really good at it).
If you honestly think that asking someone to go and read the entirety of an article is being rude then you live in an alternate reality.
I'm finished wasting my time - happy cutting and pasting to you (clearly you are really good at it).