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
I remember the days where US$1,499, or even less, could get you an upgradeable single socket Mac "professional" desktop.
Huh? You have a datapoint of one: a dead notebook. From that you extrapolate that any computer that doesn't contain huge cavernous empty space must be not good for professional work?! Again, huh?
A computer doesn't "spazz" out from "overwork". Sustained high temperatures can reduce the life span of the processor and other chips, but Apple design cooling systems to cater for that. Most modern chips and processors can handle a minimum of 85degC, and you'll find the temperatures inside the laptop are lower than that.
Why can't you trust miniaturised components? Better stick to your UNIVAC then. And what's any of that got to do with a "giant, glass-covered monitor"? Seems like that's what you really dislike.
I think you mean 40MB/s and 400MB/s. That's a HUUUGE speed increase, and easily enough to deal with uncompressed HD video in ANY format.
Lately Sony has pretty much written itself out of the desktop computer market. They have a few too many notebook models though.Sony offers no alternative either.
There's no other choice. It's no longer a laptop on a stick with LGA 775 but I'm glad to welcome them to 2008 when it comes to processors, video solutions, and even designing for a dead socket.
I suspect another bout of Core 2 will show up with the Core 2 Quad S series. Core 2 Quad has been made irrelevant since November 2008 though.
Holy
Schitte! My 6mo old Octo just got stompped by a 1.5" thin all-in-one. How was I supposed to know? I was desperate!
Schitte! My 6mo old Octo just got stompped by a 1.5" thin all-in-one. How was I supposed to know? I was desperate!
Sony offers no alternative either.
Yes, there are alternatives to Sony all-in-ones. There's Dell, Lenovo, Acer, HP, DIY, Gateway, ....
And, like Eidorian said, Sony has apparently decided not to offer anything in the minitower space.
Fine. And I decide not to include Sony is my list of potential purchases. That's free market in action.
NUMA issues on Mac OS X? I can't find a single reference to any NUMA issues specific to OS X. There are problems with NUMA itself, of course, but surely you weren't referring to those and trying to sneak in a baseless, cheap shot at Apple...
And those are all alternatives to a Mac as well. That's the free market in action. Apple gets to make what they want. You can choose to buy it or not.
No, it's easier to come here and criticize Apple endlessly for it instead. Line 6 doesn't make an all tube head. Ford doesn't make a two seat roadster. Adobe doesn't make Photoshop for Linux.
So let's whine about it. Or......we could just buy something that suits our needs, and shut up about it already.
I was thinking of going to the mac pro instead of this because of the option of having multiple matte displays.
Because the average user is going to buy 16 gb of ram. Duh. And why is it news the i5 and i7 kicks the core duo thoroughly? My 8year old knows that.....obviously a slow news day
Well, that's the point isn't it? Apple would love for the Mac Pro to die and for pro users to go away. They've been slow to update systems and software, and they've been slow to respond to pro users' needs. Casual users and making a percentage on apps they never have to lift a finger to produce, that's the future. The best engineers at Apple aren't working on the Mac Pro, and the best coders aren't working on Final Cut, Logic Pro, or Aperture. There was a time when Steve Jobs himself would unveil a Final Cut Pro update, now I doubt he even knows what's being done with it.
To tell the truth, there are many reasons not to buy an iMac for a real professional power user. We actually use those slots, we actually use internal RAID systems, and since the display is the first thing to go on a system, many really hate being tied to that glossy Apple abomination.
Here is the point of buying a Mac Pro:
Mac Pro (Early 2009)
Intel Xeon X5570 2.93 GHz (16 cores) Geek Bench Score: 15071
Intel Xeon W5580 @ 3.19 GHz (2 processors, 8 cores) : 18791
My 2.66 GHz Mac Mini (Late 2009) with 500 GB HDD: 3750
I don't think Apple would like to get rid of its pro customers as they need to keep up the image that Macs are what drive everything professional ;]
Mac Pros do need an update though or Apple needs to fix price discrepancies.
That's the one I'm holding out for. eSATA would be nice, but I'll take one with an ATI 5700 without looking back - performance for the 27" i7 is impressive.
Sony offers no alternative either.
Response:
HLdan clearly stated: "Sony offers no alternative..."
And what part of "if Sony doesn't offer what you want, check another supplier" don't you understand"?
That's key to the "other side". You can choose between many different vendors, and pick a system that meets your needs today.
I'm referring to your blatant disregard to the meaning of the original statement. What you state afterward does not change anything.
Sony offers no alternative either.
Response:
He clearly said Sony offers no alternative, and then you follow with a list of alternatives to Sony all-in-ones, which heedlessly distorts his point.
What part of your error in comprehension are you still oblivious to?
I think their test is a bit misleading in some ways... for example, the one game test they have is COD4 at 1024x768.
That's a really poor way to benchmark a game, unless you're strictly looking for CPU performance. They've already got a number of tests for the CPU, so you'd assume the game test would be the one meant to test the GPU.
At a low resolution like that, the GPU is not going to be worked hard, so the numbers you'll be seeing will only reflect how much data the CPU can push to the GPU, which will likely not be enough to fill the GPU's capacity.
The best way to determine GPU performance is to run a test at high resolution with high details.
The reason for this is- The demand on the CPU does not increase as resolution is cranked up... the CPU is running tasks such as AI and physics (even that's being offloaded to GPU sometimes these days). For the most part, these factors do not change as your resolution/graphic details scale up.
Also, all this aside, why would you run a game at 1024x768 on a modern Mac?
I'm surprised MacWorld doesn't understand these relatively simple benchmarking techniques...
That's a really poor way to benchmark a game, unless you're strictly looking for CPU performance. They've already got a number of tests for the CPU, so you'd assume the game test would be the one meant to test the GPU.
At a low resolution like that, the GPU is not going to be worked hard, so the numbers you'll be seeing will only reflect how much data the CPU can push to the GPU, which will likely not be enough to fill the GPU's capacity.
The best way to determine GPU performance is to run a test at high resolution with high details.
The reason for this is- The demand on the CPU does not increase as resolution is cranked up... the CPU is running tasks such as AI and physics (even that's being offloaded to GPU sometimes these days). For the most part, these factors do not change as your resolution/graphic details scale up.
Also, all this aside, why would you run a game at 1024x768 on a modern Mac?
I'm surprised MacWorld doesn't understand these relatively simple benchmarking techniques...
And my point is obviously that there are alternatives, but they're not from Sony....
You guys should actually get to the Apple Store, and take a look at that 27" screen. It's nothing that I have ever seen before. Its a really high quality IPS panel, i5 or i7 with up to 32Gb of ram. That's a pro machine in my book. And the best part, it's still cheaper than the cheapest Mac Pro on the market. You can't even build a hackintosh with that display/spec for that little money.
Good job Apple!
Good job Apple!