Unreleased 2012 MacBook Pro and iMac Models Showing Up in Benchmarks

[aliasfox]

People will always find a use for CPU Power, horsepower, and salt.

(I'm on an aluminum macbook and I'm noticing things on the web getting slow, even on a fresh OS install.)

Right - but how many cores/threads does Safari (or most any browser use?) I'm betting that number is more than 1, but less than 4, which means getting more threads probably won't do much to speed up your web browsing experience unless you're doing it while you're encoding or rendering something in the background at the same time.

In other words, a dual core machine that hits 6000 won't really feel much slower than a quad core machine that hits 12000 because most of your software probably won't use the incremental threads. OSX will throw your background tasks onto unused cores, but that might make your web experience 10-20% faster, not 100% faster like the benchmark would suggest.

Not against cores (I'm looking to get four more!), just want to point out that we might be reaching the point of diminishing returns right now.

 

[KnightWRX]

Aw geez. You know what the poster was saying. Why the need to be smug? Also I think it's a bridge too far to suggest a car is a computer. A car may have a computer in it to improve effeciency or allow certain features, but the concept of a car certainly does not require a CPU, like say a game console does.

Every car made in the last about 20 years has a ECM, which is a computer. I really doubt the modern car can be built without a CPU.

So no, I don't know what the poster was saying. Apple doesn't make computers for all fields in which they are required, only for a few select industries which are mobile communication devices, portable media players and PCs.

And frankly, you should be happy that's the only thing from that post I replied to. The notion that we're "disloyal" for owning a PC made by anything but Apple is just laughable to me, so feel relieved I didn't start a sub-thread about that.

 

[longofest]

I believe that HD is actually made by Seagate (Momentus XT) and can be installed into pretty much any modern laptop. I installed one for someone the other week and it does seem faster than the 7200RPM drive in my current MBP, although a pure SSD is still noticeably faster. Will probably get one for my next MBP, assuming Apple doesn't give you the option of having 2 HDs (an SSD and HD).

Click through to the article, and you will see that I'm referring to a better SSD caching than what Seagate provides. The Momentus XT only provides 8GB. HP provides 32GB. Also, the placement of the cache makes a difference I believe... The Momentus can only see block-level stuff and can't act too intelligently, whereas Smart Response is higher up and can act as a cache specifically for frequently used programs or for system files used during bootup.

 

[theSeb]

It's funny how this rumour has now made it around all of the usual Apple rumour websites and most of them don't clearly state that it originates from this site.

 

[Apple Gate]

I've been saving up for over a year for my next laptop and while I've been 100% Mac for a long time, I've decided to part ways with Apple for this next purchase. For one, I ran out of patience waiting for Ivy Bridge Laptops and I wanted one that is available now. Secondly, I have been getting more and more disgruntled with Apple's quality recently (as mentioned in the linked article). Thirdly, I wanted the size of a hard drive but the speed of an SSD, and HP provides Intel's Smart Response technology that gives an SSD cache that has been proven to work remarkedly well. Lastly and perhaps on the most significant note, I have a kid that I am saving for college for, and the over $1000 savings is just too much to ignore.

That being said... I'm not switching the entire household over... only my personal laptop. I'd dread having to play IT guy and disinfecting the family computers when they get viruses. Needless to say, the one feature that is actually appealing to me in Mountain Lion is Gatekeeper.

When did MacRumors go so far down hill?

 

[longofest]

Right - but how many cores/threads does Safari (or most any browser use?) I'm betting that number is more than 1, but less than 4, which means getting more threads probably won't do much to speed up your web browsing experience unless you're doing it while you're encoding or rendering something in the background at the same time.

In other words, a dual core machine that hits 6000 won't really feel much slower than a quad core machine that hits 12000 because most of your software probably won't use the incremental threads. OSX will throw your background tasks onto unused cores, but that might make your web experience 10-20% faster, not 100% faster like the benchmark would suggest.

Not against cores (I'm looking to get four more!), just want to point out that we might be reaching the point of diminishing returns right now.

With safari you're probably running into memory constraints before CPU constraints. Safari caches heavily, and that cache resides in memory/virtual memory. I've not been impressed with Mac OS X's virtual memory... If you have 4 GB of RAM, you will start paging once you get to 3GB even though you have over 1 GB left available. That's super annoying, as I'd like the high water mark to be much higher before the machine starts paging, and have been working through the XNU source to find ways to modify the behavior, though life with a 1 year old means I don't have tons of time.

----------

When did MacRumors go so far down hill?

If you're referring to me being an "editor" in my title, I was an editor a few years ago. I'm an editor emeritus now. Still... after this purchase I will own 3 Macs (iMac, MacBook, MacBook Pro), an iPad, 2 iPhones, and 1 PC. I still have plenty of vested interest in Apple, but rather than consider myself an Apple fanboy, I like to consider myself a more "technology" fanboy. Whoever makes the best technology gets my money. Hence, this

 

[aliasfox]

With safari you're probably running into memory constraints before CPU constraints. Safari caches heavily, and that cache resides in memory/virtual memory. I've not been impressed with Mac OS X's virtual memory... If you have 4 GB of RAM, you will start paging once you get to 3GB even though you have over 1 GB left available. That's super annoying, as I'd like the high water mark to be much higher before the machine starts paging, and have been working through the XNU source to find ways to modify the behavior, though life with a 1 year old means I don't have tons of time.

It's not just Safari - Firefox (at least had) memory leakage issues just as bad. Keeping a dozen tabs open for more than a couple of days is a great way to run out of RAM, no matter how much you have...

 

[Liddle]

iMac with i7-3770

4GB Ram

seriously ? I really want to use a Mac without a ram upgrade, just by it's default amount.

 

[Apple Gate]

If you're referring to me being an "editor" in my title, I was an editor a few years ago. I'm an editor emeritus now.

I am referring to the nonsense in your post.

There is absolutely no way you are a software engineer as claimed in your profile.

Quote: "I have been getting more and more disgruntled with Apple's quality recently (as mentioned in the linked article)."

Upon referring to the linked article I found the following:

"Many will argue that what makes a Mac truly valuable is the OS as well as the quality of the hardware. This certainly used to be true, however I am no longer certain that this is the case. I have not been impressed with Mac OS 10.7 “Lion” and I am not getting excited about any currently announced feature in OS 10.8 “Mountain Lion” with exception of perhaps Gatekeeper. In recent years Apple has gotten careless with its quality control, having released several extremely buggy software releases (1,2,3,4)."

You argue that you are no longer impressed by the quality of Apple's hardware then discuss the software as evidence? WTF?

Then you discuss that you have "noticed an increasing amount of innovation from Microsoft, and I’m looking forward to trying out Windows 8 when it comes out later this year."

Please discuss these "innovations."

 

[longofest]

It's not just Safari - Firefox (at least had) memory leakage issues just as bad. Keeping a dozen tabs open for more than a couple of days is a great way to run out of RAM, no matter how much you have...

yes... and hence my earlier comments that 8GB RAM is not so much a luxury than a requirement nowadays

 

[Apple Gate]

yes... and hence my earlier comments that 8GB RAM is not so much a luxury than a requirement nowadays

8 GB is only a requirement for most people if you are using an OS that has memory management and stack overflow issues due to poor coding.

 

[iamdavekennedy]

Monumentus!

I've been saving up for over a year for my next laptop and while I've been 100% Mac for a long time, I've decided to part ways with Apple for this next purchase. For one, I ran out of patience waiting for Ivy Bridge Laptops and I wanted one that is available now. Secondly, I have been getting more and more disgruntled with Apple's quality recently (as mentioned in the linked article). Thirdly, I wanted the size of a hard drive but the speed of an SSD, and HP provides Intel's Smart Response technology that gives an SSD cache that has been proven to work remarkedly well. Lastly and perhaps on the most significant note, I have a kid that I am saving for college for, and the over $1000 savings is just too much to ignore.

That being said... I'm not switching the entire household over... only my personal laptop. I'd dread having to play IT guy and disinfecting the family computers when they get viruses. Needless to say, the one feature that is actually appealing to me in Mountain Lion is Gatekeeper.

The Momentus *has* been proven to work remarkably well, but I will offer you a word of forewarning as I currently use one and have had programmer/developer friends look at it for me, the cache can't actually be manipulated, depending on what you use your system for it's supposed to cache the software you use 'most often' (for me this is Adobe Creative Suite)

The issue is that my momentus has never actually functioned correctly (at first I thought it was a fault so had a replacement that behaves in exactly the same way) it doesn't maintain the cache for the software I primarily invested in it for, instead shifting constantly and never really learning how they suggest it to in their sales pitch/synopsis.

My start up times and even run times for software I use every single day varies, yet bizarrely (I'm told) it seems to love retaining power for skype, which is already a problematic bandwidth hog, let alone one eating up something else!

I'm not saying don't get it, as far as reliability it's been a great hard drive and I actually have a second one in the mac mini we use for a media centre in our living room, however, if you want an actual reliable and noticeable difference just invest in an SSD, it won't be a waste of time!

FYI, if you do decide to get one, you can pick up brand new 500GB 7200 units for £68 or £38 for the 5400 version, they don't exactly break the bank at all, I've spent more having lunch!

Hope that helps in some way!

**EDIT; forgot the word varies**

 

[dokujaryu]

Toms has a good article on the CPU. I agree with the assessment they made on the Ivy Bridge desktop: If you have Sandy Bridge with a dedicated GPU already (like the 15" MacBook Pro range), this seems like a pretty minor upgrade.

However, if you have a 13"er, I think this is going to be tempting when you add up the minor CPU speed boost, the healthy GPU speed boost, and the overall lower power consumption. If the 13"er is quad core, slightly thinner, and comes with a higher dpi 1680x1050 screen: that's going to be one compelling package.

 

[3282868]

8 GB is only a requirement for most people if you are using an OS that has memory management and stack overflow issues due to poor coding.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."

 

[dokujaryu]

Right - but how many cores/threads does Safari (or most any browser use?) I'm betting that number is more than 1, but less than 4, which means getting more threads probably won't do much to speed up your web browsing experience unless you're doing it while you're encoding or rendering something in the background at the same time.

In other words, a dual core machine that hits 6000 won't really feel much slower than a quad core machine that hits 12000 because most of your software probably won't use the incremental threads. OSX will throw your background tasks onto unused cores, but that might make your web experience 10-20% faster, not 100% faster like the benchmark would suggest.

Not against cores (I'm looking to get four more!), just want to point out that we might be reaching the point of diminishing returns right now.

Are you taking into account Intel turbo boost?

 

[Rocketman]

We need higher res screens ASAP and GPU is now the limiting factor in machines.

TB solved the I/O problem. Intel integrated graphics 4000 will solve the multi-monitor issue for baseline users. I hope it also has integrated graphics, and possibly the capability to treat it as a GPU for encoding and such. I also hope all models have SSD+HD. Maybe even optional RAID SSD + HD! Apple is going to need dongles to offset the elimination of ports with a huge ecosystem of hardware out there. Apple always simply presumes you will update hardware such as TB drives and such, except the accessories often simply don't exist for many months after CPU product release!

People who post to a thread about MacBookPro and iMac benchmarks that they don't have a MacPro are sad.

Of course Apple and Intel are focusing on highest sales volume units first.

Rocketman

 

[3282868]

I just saw the latest demos of CS6 and how fast the Mercury engine speeds up workflow with Nvidia GPUs.
It's absolutely stunning how fast they are.
Ivy Bridge is going to give maybe a 10%-15% increase in performance.
CUDA is 100%-300% faster than non-CUDA GPUs.
That's huge for Photoshop, Premiere Pro and After Effects users.

Now, if only we can get some Macs with the full line of Quadro GPUs.
Please Apple.
Thank you.

Amen.

I have Adobe MC CS6 running on my 12-Core Pro with an ATI Radeon 5770, and Photoshop 6 is much faster than Photoshop 5.5. Imagine with CUDA.

Now, where are the Mac Pro update rumors?

EDIT: I stand corrected on PS6, my apologies for the stupid mistake on CUDA. I voted myself down (but still want Mac Pro news!)

 

[iamdavekennedy]

Click through to the article, and you will see that I'm referring to a better SSD caching than what Seagate provides. The Momentus XT only provides 8GB. HP provides 32GB. Also, the placement of the cache makes a difference I believe... The Momentus can only see block-level stuff and can't act too intelligently, whereas Smart Response is higher up and can act as a cache specifically for frequently used programs or for system files used during bootup.

Just seen this, ignore my first reply

 

[aliasfox]

Are you taking into account Intel turbo boost?

Not sure what you're getting at with that. Turbo Boost speeds up the processor when fewer cores are running - if one core is being used, a processor can scale from 2.5 GHz to 3.2 GHz, for example. When all four cores are being used, you're still looking at 2.5 GHz.

Doesn't really change the fact that when a program uses two cores (and the processor ramps up to, say, 2.8 GHz), the other two cores will still be sitting there twiddling their thumbs. So while a quad core, Turbo Boosted machine may benchmark with 2x the performance of a dual core machine of similar clock speed, real world performance won't be anywhere close to the 2x faster you see in specialized benchmarks unless you do a lot of heavily threaded work.

 

[akbarali.ch]

Retina

...screw the benchmark, give me Retina in iMac.

 

[Beezzy]

It is an increase of 17 percent. Imagine your current salary, and imagine your boss telling you starting tomorrow you will get 17 percent more. Wouldn't you jump for joy at the huge jump?

I never said the general score of a Mac, I said my mac. The only thing I've done was upgrade the RAM. Other Mac users might find it a big enough upgrade. But Im fine for right now.

This is my score I just took with Geekbench on the 64-Bit Test.

 

[kiiso]

Amen.

I have Adobe MC CS6 running on my 12-Core Pro with an ATI Radeon 5770, and Photoshop 6 is much faster than Photoshop 5.5. Imagine with CUDA.

Now, where are the Mac Pro update rumors?

You must be a real pro... Photoshop CS6 no more uses CUDA. It uses openGL and opneCL. (Premiere and After Effects still uses cuda, however it supports now openCL for Macbook Pro too)

 

[kiiso]

You must be a real pro... Photoshop CS6 no more uses CUDA. It uses openGL and opneCL. (Premiere and After Effects still uses cuda, however it supports now openCL for Macbook Pro too)

Ohh, and by the way since AMD 7xxx performs MUCH better in openCL applications, for photoshop CS6 users an AMD gpu would be better for the future Mac Pro than an Nvidia.

 

[3282868]

I never said the general score of a Mac, I said my mac. The only thing I've done was upgrade the RAM. Other Mac users might find it a big enough upgrade. But Im fine for right now.

This is my score I just took with Geekbench on the 64-Bit Test.

Wow. Impressive, for a MacBook Pro!

Question, why are my results for my Mac Pro not much better than yours? The Memory and Streaming sections are almost identical, what does that mean?

You must be a real pro... Photoshop CS6 no more uses CUDA. It uses openGL and opneCL. (Premiere and After Effects still uses cuda, however it supports now openCL for Macbook Pro too)

Whoops, my bad. Jumped the gun without checking facts.

My Geekbench results below.

System:
3.33GHz 6-Core Mac Pro
10GB RAM
256GB Mercury EXTREME Pro 6G SSD
4x2 TB SATA HDDs
ATI Radeon 5770
2x 24" ACD LED LCD's
LG Blu-Ray
USB 3.0/eSATA PCIe

 

[jonnysods]

I'm old school on MR. I like to hear about the iStuff, but Mac computer rumors excite me the most! This is cool news.