OS X Lion tested with unreleased Intel Core i7 Ivy Bridge chip

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014


A modified version of OS X 10.7.3 has been tested with an unreleased Intel Core i7 Ivy Bridge chip, giving a first indication of how Apple's next-generation Macs will perform.



An anonymous tipster provided screenshots of benchmarks conducted with a Core i7-3770K processor to the blog of "tonymacx86." The Core i7 CPU is one of Intel's next-generation Ivy Bridge processors, and was tested at its stock speed of 3.5GHz.



The early test, which used a Z77 motherboard, found that OS X runs well on Intel's forthcoming Ivy Bridge processors. However, while the tests give an idea of how Ivy Bridge will perform with new Macs, the "Hackintosh" benchmarks do not represent any real Apple products.



The person testing the new Intel processor had to modify the boot kernel of OS X 10.7.3 Lion in order to get it to run on the chip. In addition, the Core i7-3770K is a high-end desktop chip that may never find its way into any of Apple's shipping products.



Still, the tests offer the first look at Apple's OS X operating system running on an Ivy Bridge chip. It's also the first glimpse at Intel's HD Graphics 4000, which previous tests running Windows 7 found is 55 percent faster than the 3000 series graphics integrated with the Sandy Bridge processors released by Intel last year.



The "Hackintosh" machine earned an overall Geekbench score of 13,453, led by a score of 20,250 for its processor floating point performance. The tests gauged the quad-core processor with 8 gigabytes of 2400MHz DDR3 RAM.











Apple's new Macs with Ivy Bridge processors are expected to begin debuting in the coming months, starting with new, slimmer 13- and 15-inch MacBook Pros that are rumored to already be in production. The new 15-inch model is expected to be offered in variations powered by Intel's mobile Core i5 and i7 Ivy Bridge CPUs.



AppleInsider reported in February that Apple will conduct a top-to-bottom revamp of its notebooks lineup throughout 2012 that will bring its MacBook Pro portables more in line with the MacBook Air designs. Intel's new Ivy Bridge processors will also feature support for 4K resolutions, allowing Apple to potentially build high-resolution Retina displays for its next-generation Macs.



[ View article on AppleInsider ]

«1

Comments

  • bigdaddypbigdaddyp Posts: 811member
    Kasper's slave. Why not throw in some benchmarks from a similar current system so that we can better understand the performance gains if any?



    As much as I would love to see the portables get a Retina display I really don't see that happening yet.
  • rokradrokrad Posts: 143member
    Man, I really want the new MacBooks to come out soon... Hopefully April, hopefully April....
  • macbook promacbook pro Posts: 1,605member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post


    Kasper's slave. Why not throw in some benchmarks from a similar current system so that we can better understand the performance gains if any?



    As much as I would love to see the portables get a Retina display I really don't see that happening yet.





    Here is a link to current MacBook Pro (early 2011) benchmarks.



    http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2011/...ks-early-2011/
  • backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    People yearning for an xMac will cry over this news.
  • patranuspatranus Posts: 366member
    So minimal (~6%) gains over the 27" fully loaded iMac which scored ~12,800.
  • archangel21xarchangel21x Posts: 88member
    I wish Apple would get away from Intel integrated graphics. Intel may know how to make good CPUs, but when it comes to graphics processors....
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    I love these Hackintosh stories. I wish I had time to fiddle around with that. I build lots of Linux boxes and always imagine installing OS X on them just because they would be so kick ass with all the high end parts we use. I've read about it. It is rather involved with bios flashing, boot kernels and all but sounds like a lot of fun.
  • backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ArchAngel21x View Post


    I wish Apple would get away from Intel integrated graphics. Intel may know how to make good CPUs, but when it comes to graphics processors....



    They make no sense for desktop machines. But for laptops they make sense. Especially machines like the MBA that don't have a lot of excess room and need to conserve on power. The new Intel IG aren't too bad. It isn't as good as the AMD stuff but at least now its OCL capable and the performance gains are pretty respectable.
  • rbonnerrbonner Posts: 598member
    We need to keep our computers busy, when they get board and are that fast, they will take over the world.



    At that speed, it's just sitting here, looking at me, saying 'Please just press a key, any key!'
  • rabbit_coachrabbit_coach Posts: 1,114member
    Huh, still no rumor about a new Mac Pro. 16 core base model extenable to 32 core.

    Just dreaming and sorry for beeing a little off topic. Had a glass (or so) of a particularly good portuguese wine.
  • rhyderhyde Posts: 294member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post


    Huh, still no rumor about a new Mac Pro. 16 core base model extenable to 32 core.

    Just dreaming and sorry for beeing a little off topic. Had a glass (or so) of a particularly good portuguese wine.



    I suspect that memory bandwidth limitations would negate any advantage of having more than 16 cores.
  • MarvinMarvin Posts: 13,728member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patranus View Post


    So minimal (~6%) gains over the 27" fully loaded iMac which scored ~12,800.



    All Ivy Bridge chips should be around 15% more CPU performance vs Sandy Bridge at best. Intel is going for faster GPU performance for mobile and lower power consumption for desktops.



    The 3770K is 77W vs 95W for the i7-2600 in the iMac. So when the iMac is maxed out, the fan should run less.



    Geekbench can vary quite a lot in score for the same machine - they really have to be clean-booted for accurate scores. Here is the current 27" scoring higher than the Ivy Bridge one:



    http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/588911



    There are Cinebench ratings for each here:



    http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/...hmarked-4.jpg/

    http://www.barefeats.com/imac11b.html



    The 3770K gets 7.52 and the current model i7-2600 gets 6.8 so a 10% increase. Quite a poor upgrade in terms of performance.



    This benchmarks the HD4000 GPU too. It gets 20.25fps. The 6630M in the Mini gets 22.5fps and the 6490M in the old MBP gets around the same. This will make the low-end machines much better for gaming. You would be able to play Battlefield 3 on the entry $500 Mini unlike now:



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76rV9XO6Ljo



    It should play more like this on the new ones:



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1AkRT80SXc



    I wonder if they'll use a dedicated GPU in the next Mini or just do:



    dual-core i5 IGP

    dual-core i7 IGP

    quad-core i7 IGP
  • wizard69wizard69 Posts: 11,714member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patranus View Post


    So minimal (~6%) gains over the 27" fully loaded iMac which scored ~12,800.



    Almost all the refactoring that went into the new chip went into the GPU. There will be some gains for CPU centric software for specific instructions. For the most part though it is all GPU. This has been a known reality for sometime now.
  • rabbit_coachrabbit_coach Posts: 1,114member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rhyde View Post


    I suspect that memory bandwidth limitations would negate any advantage of having more than 16 cores.



    It's certainly scratching the roof of my technical knoeledge, but I thought the capability of managing multiple threads is defined by the software, and the memory bandwith rather defines the RAM size that can be adressed.

    But as I said, I am no expert there and welcom any explanation.
  • wizard69wizard69 Posts: 11,714member
    One of the reasons I went with the MBP, in 2098, was the GPU. I'm convinced that it extends the life of a Mac to a significant degree. Especially as each Apple Mac OS release seems to leverage the GPU a little more.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    They make no sense for desktop machines. But for laptops they make sense. Especially machines like the MBA that don't have a lot of excess room and need to conserve on power. The new Intel IG aren't too bad. It isn't as good as the AMD stuff but at least now its OCL capable and the performance gains are pretty respectable.



    It really saddened me to see AMD mis the cut for the Mac Book AIR. For the average user that extra GPU performance would be more important than all out CPU performance.



    I'm hoping that Ivy Bridge is indeed respectable, but even the most optimistic tests don't show it catching up to AMD performance. Supposedly AMD will have Trinity out by mid year, at the rate they are going (intel & AMD) they might be competeing head to head. AMD still won't catch up to Intel with respect to CPU performance but the GPU is expected to be 50% faster.



    AMD is doing so well with Llano that is considered a very respectable laptop processor.
  • wizard69wizard69 Posts: 11,714member
    Think of memory bandwidth as a pipe and then thin of the water flow as data. If you are a fireman you might use a one inch line to put out a trash fire while you might use a much bigger line to out out a house fire.



    Now in a computer cores need to access memory. The greater the bandwidth the more data that can flow to the processors. When you hit a bandwidth limit you can't pour enough data into the chip to feed each core. The cores then stall and do nothing productive.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post


    It's certainly scratching the roof of my technical knoeledge, but I thought the capability of managing multiple threads is defined by the software, and the memory bandwith rather defines the RAM size that can be adressed.

    But as I said, I am no expert there and welcom any explanation.



    As a side note I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple give up on dual chip machines. Instead they will max out with a 6 core 12 thread machine. People won't like to hear that but still that would be an extremely powerful machine especially if the clock rate stay up near Max.
  • soundvisionsoundvision Posts: 148member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    I love these Hackintosh stories. I wish I had time to fiddle around with that. I build lots of Linux boxes and always imagine installing OS X on them just because they would be so kick ass with all the high end parts we use. I've read about it. It is rather involved with bios flashing, boot kernels and all but sounds like a lot of fun.



    It's really not that hard, especially if you're familiar with building a computer and all the hoops that come with setting up a Linux box.



    About 3-4 years ago I wanted a tower but couldn't afford a Mac Pro. I built a Hackintosh from the ground up with Mac OS X in mind, buying parts that were deemed the most compatible. It was a lot of fun and the computer still runs like a champ today. I'd never recommend it over a real Mac but it's a fun science project.



    Go over to tonyxmac and read about it. All the instructions are right there and if you have a computer to play with, you could knock it out in day.
  • smallwheelssmallwheels Posts: 584member
    Mostly I surf the web and watch movies and TV shows on my computer. Sometimes I edit a home movie. So I don't need the computer to be lightning fast at that. What I do like is for things to load quickly and play quickly. Slide shows and videos that take a long time to load or hesitate during playing really are annoying. Would having a middle of the road processor with a good quality graphics chip be better for me than a high speed processor with crappy integrated graphics?



    I use a 23" external monitor with my Mac Book. What part of the computer is more involved with making that work smoothly? Is it the graphics chip, the CPU, or the RAM? My computer is a 2008 and works OK. I do think that this year will be the year to replace it since video and graphic changes have been aplenty since 2008. I'm looking forward to seeing things load faster and not drag. When scrolling through images in a folder it will be nice to see the images right away instead of waiting for the image icons to change to the actual images.



    What should I shop for in my next laptop? Is the i7 really needed for me or is there another setup with better graphics that will do better? I know that quad cores are better than dual cores but can the dual cores do what I want with images? My 2.4 GHz Core2Duo seems limited.
  • asciiascii Posts: 5,363member
    If he got hold of one, they mustn't be too far from release.



    My ideal mid-2012 iMac would be:

    - Ivy Bridge 3.0GHz+

    - 8GB RAM

    - ATI video card (sorry Nvidia). Good enough to play 2012 games on.

    - 24" 3840 x 2160 Retina display (I know Apple has settled on 21" and 27" iMacs, but 24 was always my favourite)

    - (128GB or 256GB SSD) + 1TB HD inside

    - No optical drive

    - Thunderbolt port

    - Nice speakers

    - Thinner than 2011 model
  • misamisa Posts: 662member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I wonder if they'll use a dedicated GPU in the next Mini or just do:



    dual-core i5 IGP

    dual-core i7 IGP

    quad-core i7 IGP



    Oh god I hope not. I sat out the current Mini (still hoping for a Mac Pro) because they were only dual-core with the GPU, the quadcore was Intel onboard nonsense, and I'm not paying more for it. The next mini needs to be paired with a quadcore and dedicated GPU or it's a no-sale.



    And Apple rarely uses the desktop grade CPU's in their systems (apparently only in the largest iMac) they get more of a bulk discount more likely from using all laptop parts, and that's one of the justifications for wanting to axe the Mac Pro (not selling enough to have volume discounts maybe?)



    Hackintosh benchmarks are meaningless as Apple won't use those parts anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.