Well, I want to buy a new iMac, so I hope it gets upgraded to Penry-class CPUs. C'mon Steve-O !!!
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.
Real Life Mobile Penryn vs Merom Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Kinda disappointed!!
OK; this may ruffle a few feathers as everybody is slapping Intel on the back in this thread but didn't anybody out there expect better thermal performance? Mostly because of all the hype Intel was giving their 45nm process, best thing in 40 years and all..
The goodness of SSE 4 is great and all, but the processor otherwise looks like a slight rehash of last years performance. If neither computational performance nor power usage has improved significantly then it seem that much of the 45 nm hype has been misplaced.
This is not to discount the idea that we may have never gotten to 45nm with out the process changes. But if there is no pay off why the hafnium.
Dave
OK; this may ruffle a few feathers as everybody is slapping Intel on the back in this thread but didn't anybody out there expect better thermal performance? Mostly because of all the hype Intel was giving their 45nm process, best thing in 40 years and all..
The goodness of SSE 4 is great and all, but the processor otherwise looks like a slight rehash of last years performance. If neither computational performance nor power usage has improved significantly then it seem that much of the 45 nm hype has been misplaced.
This is not to discount the idea that we may have never gotten to 45nm with out the process changes. But if there is no pay off why the hafnium.
Dave
Nothing right now. There are no Macs available yet with these processors (I guess the first reader receiving a MacPro will post here).
These things take time. SSE4 has two major components:
One is a more complete set of vector operations, which makes automatic vectorisation possible. What that means: Instead of the programmer having to write code specifically for the vector unit, he or she writes ordinary code and the compiler translates it into vector instructions. However, that fails when something that the code does is not available as a vector instruction. SSE4 is much more complete, so a lot more code can be translated automatically. That is something that applications like Photoshop would benefit from.
The other component is highly specialised instructions for video encoding. The most time consuming part of video encoding by far is "motion prediction", where the encoder takes a tiny bit of one frame and tries to find a similar image in a previous frame. For example, there is one instruction that does the following: Lets say you have four pixels abcd. And another eleven pixels ABCDEFGHIJK. This instructions calculates the difference between a and A, b and B, c and C, d and D and adds them up. Then it calculates the difference between a and B, b and C, c and D, d and E. Then between a and C, b and D, c and E, d and F and so on. The result is eight sums of four differences, and each of these 32 differences is the absolute value of the difference between two values. Without a vector unit, that would be 32 subtractions, 32 absolute values, and 24 additions - 88 operations in total. Probably a dozen vector instructions without SSE4. With SSE4 it is one instruction. That makes motion prediction a lot, lot faster.
You will benefit from this eventually, but not right now.
I don't know what you were expecting? You get a regular speed bump +5%. Power reduction of 10%, less heat creation (Big bonus for every guy/girl with a laptop) -40%- speed increase bonus for SSE4 stuff. And of course the advancement to a new 45nm standard opening up new possibilities for the future.
We are talking about a CPU here, I think its pretty decent :S
Keep in mind that this was the savings comparing two processors running at full speed. The Mobile Penryn runs about six percent faster, so you get about sixteen percent more work done until the batteries run out.
That's like comparing a dude who graduated from h.s. yesterday with one who just started college today and wondering why the college kid isn't a lot smarter. Expect the 45nm processors to get smaller and faster and cheaper in the next coming months. Also, the next gen of CPUs wouldn't even be possible without 45nm. Give the mfg process some time to mature.
this is what i was expecting on the penryn info. The slight battery upgrade won't affect me much and the SS instruction upgrade performance isn't anything that'll affect me much. There will have to be new upgrades to the pro apps to take these changes. Perhaps a new final cut upgrade or such. Got my 2.6 MBP with 4GB RAM, i'm a happy camper. It's more than speedy for my needs. I wasn't 100% sold on the penryn hype.
these speed bumps mesh with the comparo i read somewhere via google showing the 2.6 bto mbp (current) v. the 2.4 one, written in november 2007 i think. the 2.4-2.6 difference was said to be 5-8% in practice; here the 2.6-2.8 bump is about the same.
in light of the foregoing, all else being equal it would almost make sense to buy a clearance item of the current soon to be old-version 2.6 (or even 2.4) and save some dough, given the only mild speed improvement.
that said, i am more curious than ever what other improvements will accompany the change in CPU if there are indeed new MBP's coming next week. particularly, i'd welcome a change to led backlighting for the 17", as is already in the current 15" models, and whatever other new improvements they care to drop on us. they'll need to do something to justify paying full price for a new model, no?
in light of the foregoing, all else being equal it would almost make sense to buy a clearance item of the current soon to be old-version 2.6 (or even 2.4) and save some dough, given the only mild speed improvement.
that said, i am more curious than ever what other improvements will accompany the change in CPU if there are indeed new MBP's coming next week. particularly, i'd welcome a change to led backlighting for the 17", as is already in the current 15" models, and whatever other new improvements they care to drop on us. they'll need to do something to justify paying full price for a new model, no?
Well, yes and no, but for the most part no. They do offer a 64 bit edition, but for the most part the OEM stuff you get in your local store is usually 32 bit.
Here is a Microsoft link for more info
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/64bit.mspx
I think that battery life improvement is quite impressive. Lets face facts..the screen and the hard drive are the big power eaters.
You have to realize, a 5-10% OVERALL improvement means the processor is actually 20-40%? more efficient..as it is not the only thing using power in the system.
You have to realize, a 5-10% OVERALL improvement means the processor is actually 20-40%? more efficient..as it is not the only thing using power in the system.
I agree with this. A cpu change affecting the battery life that much on its own is pretty impressive, particularly when it does so while offering a performance increase.
Though I suppose it is possible that other hardware in the laptop also changed with the Penryn update, but it is a fine comparison.
Can't wait to see what Apple does next week.
i'm not really familiar with this...does anyone know what applications support this instruction set? do any of the major Apple apps?
I also agree. Imagine what the improvements are going to be when primary storage gets moved to solid state drives, LED backlights and other possible thermal improvements that can be made with a smaller chip size (better airflow because of smaller heat sink, perhaps?).
All those little things will add up once the box manufacturers get to do their part.
Do NOT expect 40% performance increases or you'll be very dissapointed with Penryn. There are currently little to no applications that have SSE4 support and there probably won't for quite some time. The reason is because the vast majority of machines out there do not support SSE4 because it's coming new with Penryn. Software usually lags behind hardware in terms of advancement. If you get a Penryn notebook, expect about 1-8% during normal usage, which honestly, for normal tasks, it's barely neglegible. For Intel, Penryn is nothing more than a "refresh" of the Core 2 line. If we see any serious breakthroughs it won't be until the end of the year or beginning of 2009 with Nehalem. Penryn's advantages come more from it's battery life.
Who cares about processors, it's all about custom chips anyway, MHz myth and race suck
What really suck in the MBP is that I got 128MB vram, which is ****ing retarded. The 1440x900 resolution is lame, TN-panel sucks ass, what is this bright spot which seems to be behind my pixels?!, bigger and 7200 rpm harddrive would be nice aswell.
256MB vram, IPS-panel and 1680x1050 would be nice, a faster CPU isn't.
Since Adobe is to lazy to even type the ****ing filenames right so CS 3 works on HFSX+ I wouldn't count on or hope on to much .. But it should be done.
SSE4 will in deed be nice where it makes a difference, thought we already have SSE, SSE2 and SSE3 and it's not like it makes a huge difference on average per generation.
I doubt that, I'm very confident they are 65nm.
Windows?
Probably
Yes, I think so.
Of course it is.
Yeah.
OS X whatever may be compiled with support for SSE4 instructions I guess. I don't know if one can compile with support for it without requiring it thought. I know compile stuff with GCC for a lowest common instruction set say i386 and then add optimizations for a higher one say i686 where available. I'm not sure the same can be done for SSE instructions. I guess it should be possible but if not this won't help much at all.
Whatever stuff will have use for the new SSE4 instructions =P, SSE are mostly used for graphics and gaming stuff and such, as someone have already said.
As always I guess.
Do you know if one can build binaries for whatever SSE generation instruction set but with additional optimizations for a higher generation one if availble with no extra work so to speak?
I get around 1 thanks to flash ****** performance on OS X. I always tens of tabs open in my browser and that makes my load around 100% since flash suck ass.
Well, doesn't that require new accelerate instructions in many cases? =P So same problem anyway
Some new instructions may be used by old functions I guess.
I can see use for the later part. Is that a part which is accelerated in GPU for H.264 or not? Because if it is I see no use for it, if it is it will probably make a huge difference. Thought I doubt the amount of instructions are dozens vs 1 since they said themself 40% when using SSE4. May be an average and not a best of SSE4 instructions thought.
Smaller? Why? Because they will use less transistors? Yeah right .. They will get smaller with next manufacturing advancement.
Faster? Yeah, if heat allows it, which it probably does. Say 2.8 and eventually 3 GHz.
Cheaper? Then the old series? Doubt so, cheaper than they are as new? Yes, of course, but Apple doesn't lower prices anyway.
During idle load yes... During full load I assume the CPU to take a much bigger chunk.
None now of course, if Apple haven't planed for it for Leopard or whatever. With time hopefully anything which can get an improvement from it.
Frankly I was expecting a larger power reduction, especially in the portable platform. The speed bump isn't all that much to talk about outside of SSE4.
SEE4 is very nice and all but their is a limitation to the usage of the technology. It is fair to say that many apps will never use that hardware. So great it is 40% faster but faster for whom.
As for laptops 10% is nothing especially with everything else getting hotter. Intel needs a 50% drop in power from its laptop platforms. Its more about battery life than heat though the two are directly related, I want long run times.
Dave
Yeah, why did I say smaller? Maybe my brain is smaller after waiting so long for Penryn. They say it shrinks with age.
What i meant to say is that as the mfg process ramps up Intel gets better yields and greater production capacity and is then able to introduce new speeds, cut prices, and bring out other products based on that manufacturing technology. We as Apple customers probably won't get an immediate price decrease when it happens - instead we get speed bumps, new products, etc. So 45nm will probably look better in 6 mos is what I really mean.
Not Compelling
These are not compelling performance numbers to me.
1 to 8%. I have seen these estimates before and this seems accurate.
This is not a noticeable performance increase.
Glad I bought the MBP 2.6 17" high res last month when I needed it.
I think MacWorld will be interesting, can't wait, but my gut tells me it will be interesting for many products besides the MBP update.
Just my gut. I could be wrong on this.
These are not compelling performance numbers to me.
1 to 8%. I have seen these estimates before and this seems accurate.
This is not a noticeable performance increase.
Glad I bought the MBP 2.6 17" high res last month when I needed it.
I think MacWorld will be interesting, can't wait, but my gut tells me it will be interesting for many products besides the MBP update.
Just my gut. I could be wrong on this.
True, when my hard drive failed and I replaced it with a WD Scorpio I got an extra half hour on the battery. Every little helps!
We'll probably see better power consumption when Montevina shows up, plus instant on/off capability (if, since it was designed for Vista, it works properly with OSX). Montevina's support for WiMax is a "so what" feature for me. I don't think we'll see real performance improvements until Nehalem, though it's looking less and less likely it will show up early in 2H08. December, maybe?
ceteris paribus ?
well, the article said the machines were identical with the only thing changing being the CPU. i.e same LCD and same hard drive. Wouldn't this mean that the overall improvement would be mostly due to the only thing that changed?
yes I think the CPU is more than 5-10% more efficient, but i think 20 - 40% is on the high side.
well, the article said the machines were identical with the only thing changing being the CPU. i.e same LCD and same hard drive. Wouldn't this mean that the overall improvement would be mostly due to the only thing that changed?
yes I think the CPU is more than 5-10% more efficient, but i think 20 - 40% is on the high side.
Not necessarily. It depends on what SSE4 actually adds.Well, doesn't that require new accelerate instructions in many cases? =P So same problem anyway
Any instructions that are completely new - meaning no similar SSE/2/3 or AltiVec instructions - would almost definitely require a new API or two in Accelerate. Other changes, however - like the number of registers or more efficient ways of performing existing operations - may very well be supported without any new APIs.