or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel's new Sandy Bridge processors hacked to run Apple's Mac OS X
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel's new Sandy Bridge processors hacked to run Apple's Mac OS X

post #1 of 70
Thread Starter 
Before Intel formally unveils its next-generation of processors, likely to officially find their way into Apple's line of Macs in the future, hackers have managed to run Apple's Mac OSX on the new Sandy Bridge CPU hardware.

The Consumer Electronics Show this week marks the official introduction of Intel's newly redesigned processors, which are the first to combine visual and 3D graphics technology along with microprocessors on the same chip. The product line, codenamed "Sandy Bridge," features newly architected Intel HD Graphics on each 32nm die for significant performance improvements over previous generation graphics.

While Intel's latest family of chips, featuring a major redesign, will inevitably arrive in future Macs from Apple, hackers this week wasted no time to install Mac OS X on a Sandy Bridge processor. As noted by Engadget, Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard was installed onto a "Hackintosh" machine running the Intel Core i5-2500K CPU, with a clock speed of 3.30GHz.

The system, running Snow Leopard, achieved a Geekbench Score of 8874 and an Xbench score of 282.40, boosted in part by 6MB of L3 cache in the Sandy Bridge chip. The feat was achieved by utilizing a patched kernel, and the process was detailed by the blog tonymacx86 after Intel lifted their non-disclosure agreement for those with early access to the new processors.

"Until Apple uses these CPUs, it's a bit of a science experiment, as you'll need to use a 'patched' non-standard Darwin kernel in order to boot the system," the blog reads.



While Intel is prepared to officially unveil its second-generation Core processor family during CES Press Day on Wednesday, the company did issue a press release earlier this week touting some of the features of its newly redesigned line of chips. The chipmaker said more than 500 desktop and laptop PCs are expected from all major computer manufacturers throughout 2011.

"The new 2nd Generation Intel Core processors represent the biggest advance in computing performance and capabilities over any other previous generation," said Mooly Eden, vice president and general manager, PC Client Group, Intel. "The built-in visual capabilities enabled by these new processors are stunning. This combined with improved adaptive performance will revolutionize the PC experience in a way that is obvious for every user to see and appreciate visibly smarter performance."

New features include Intel Insider, Intel Quick Sync Video, and a new version of the company's award-winning Intel Wireless Display (WiDi), which now adds 1080p HD and content protection for those wishing to beam premium HD content from their laptop screen to their TV. The company also revealed arrangements with CinemaNow, Dixons Retail plc, Hungama Digital Media Entertainment, Image Entertainment, Sonic Solutions, and Warner Bros. Digital Distribution.

In December, a rumor claimed that Apple would release new MacBooks in 2011 that will rely on Intel's Sandy Bridge processor family, which could mean that Nvidia graphics solutions will not be included in at least some models 13 inches and under. It has been suggested that MacBook models with screen sizes 13 inches and under will have Intel Sandy Bridge-only graphics, while Apple's larger, higher-end MacBooks with screen sizes of 15 and 17 inches will allegedly rely on GPUs from AMD.

Starting in 2010 with its Arrandale processors, Intel began building in the major northbridge chipset memory controller components to its chips. The architectural changes in Arrandale, along with a lawsuit, forced Nvidia to halt the development of future chipsets.
post #2 of 70
I think Intel changed their plans and officially released them early, 2 days ago. I can even buy them in the shops as of today (the 2300, 2400 and 2600 only).

These chips are surely destined for the MBP very soon.
post #3 of 70
I would love to replace my desk work machine, a 3 year old 17" Mac Book Pro 2.5 GHz C2D, (pre-unibody) with a new 27" iMac running one of these new i7s and SSD.

Now that there are very capable small portable machines available, I could use a much faster, and a much larger-screened, workstation on my desk which can be stationary, attractive, and cleaner than having a big PC, or cleaner than a Laptop + Monitor combo that takes up more room and never needs to move.
post #4 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixmdude View Post

I would love to replace my desk work machine, a 3 year old 17" Mac Book Pro 2.5 GHz C2D, (pre-unibody) with a new 27" iMac running one of these new i7s and SSD.

Now that there are very capable small portable machines available, I could use a much faster, and a much larger-screened, workstation on my desk which can be stationary, attractive, and cleaner than having a big PC, and cleaner than a Laptop + Monitor combo that takes up more room and never needs to move.

thats what i used to think. let's see, my 17" mbp with 4gig ram and 2.66 c2d cost over 4 thousand. divide by 3 and get my cost per year. uggh.
and my 24" imac. cost 3 thousand all said. runs like sh*t with 10.5.6 compared to my dell with ubuntu.
os x is the new windows. bloated and a pain. even itunes and safari updates are requiring a reboot now. stupid.
post #5 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

thats what i used to think. let's see, my 17" mbp with 4gig ram and 2.66 c2d cost over 4 thousand. divide by 3 and get my cost per year. uggh.
and my 24" imac. cost 3 thousand all said. runs like sh*t with 10.5.6 compared to my dell with ubuntu.
os x is the new windows. bloated and a pain. even itunes and safari updates are requiring a reboot now. stupid.

I agree with your OS evaluation, I am only commenting on the nice hardware. I actually run Bootcamp Windows on my Mac hardware because I need Windows to support work software. The Mac hardware is the nicest option now that SSD is available. I built a PC last year because I needed SSD and fast i7, and it was much faster than the iMac at the time, but unreliable, and bulky compared to the new iMac that now finally has faster i7 and SSD.
post #6 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

thats what i used to think. let's see, my 17" mbp with 4gig ram and 2.66 c2d cost over 4 thousand. divide by 3 and get my cost per year. uggh.
and my 24" imac. cost 3 thousand all said. runs like sh*t with 10.5.6 compared to my dell with ubuntu.
os x is the new windows. bloated and a pain. even itunes and safari updates are requiring a reboot now. stupid.

Not sure where you're buying from, but you're getting ripped off, even if those figures were in pounds they're expensive. I'm running an i7 27" iMac with 8 Gigs of ram for a grand less than the figure you've quoted above, and my 24" was less than 1700 similarly 'top spec' at the time. These figures in pounds, including VAT. And a 17" macbook pro has never cost that much - 4000 - are you crazy?!

OSX runs incredible quickly and is very stable - check your machine for issues.

Safari uses webkit, which is at the core of the operating system, Safari updates have always required a restart. I suspect you don't understand as much about computing as your rant would have us believe. My 24" iMacs are running snow leopard, and are performing incredibly well - best check your system and see what you've done to mess it up.
post #7 of 70
I never understand how these people manage to do this without the source code.
post #8 of 70
The Geekbench score of 8874 means absolutely nothing to me without a reference point.

I guess I could quit being lazy and just mosey on over to Geekbench, huh? \
post #9 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

Not sure where you're buying from, but you're getting ripped off, even if those figures were in pounds they're expensive. I'm running an i7 27" iMac with 8 Gigs of ram for a grand less than the figure you've quoted above, and my 24" was less than 1700 similarly 'top spec' at the time. These figures in pounds, including VAT. And a 17" macbook pro has never cost that much - 4000 - are you crazy?!

OSX runs incredible quickly and is very stable - check your machine for issues.

Safari uses webkit, which is at the core of the operating system, Safari updates have always required a restart. I suspect you don't understand as much about computing as your rant would have us believe. My 24" iMacs are running snow leopard, and are performing incredibly well - best check your system and see what you've done to mess it up.

of course yours runs perfect! i must have done something wrong!
here is the price of a 17" mbp that isn't even top end. it has 8 gig of ram (4 gig of ram was absolute top when i bought mine) and the mid priced processor (mine was the fastest they sold at the time)
$3,317.00 with apple care
and now add the tax.
so shove it you know nothing.

and the absolute top end 17" mbp with sd costs: $4,817.00 plus tax
so i guess your ' a 17" macbook pro has never cost that much' shows that YOU don't know what you are talking about.
post #10 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

of course yours runs perfect! i must have done something wrong!
here is the price of a 17" mbp that isn't even top end. it has 8 gig of ram (4 gig of ram was absolute top when i bought mine) and the mid priced processor (mine was the fastest they sold at the time)
$3,317.00 with apple care
and now add the tax.
so shove it you know nothing.

and the absolute top end 17" mbp with sd costs: $4,817.00 plus tax
so i guess your ' a 17" macbook pro has never cost that much' shows that YOU don't know what you are talking about.

The troll is strong in this one.
post #11 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post

The Geekbench score of 8874 means absolutely nothing to me without a reference point.

I guess I could quit being lazy and just mosey on over to Geekbench, huh? \


My Mac Book Pro 2.5 GHz C2D running windows gets 3400, but the slow hard drive is what makes it crawl.
My home-built PC with 6-core i7 Extreme 3.4 GHz gets over 12,000, but cost $3400 in parts (with SSD) and is bulky and has an unreliable brandname top of the line ASUS motherboard that locks up if you touch a key or the mouse while its in the process of being put to sleep. Replacing the M/B and OS made no difference. (And it doesn't have the nice 27" screen.)
post #12 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

The troll is strong in this one.

no, just someone who has gotten out of the 'reality distortion field'.

and to continue, not only do you pay more for the new imac's but they don't even have the top end chipset that supports tri-channel ram. you pay premium price for second place dual channel.
post #13 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

It has been suggested that MacBook models with screen sizes 13 inches and under will have Intel Sandy Bridge-only graphics, while Apple's larger, higher-end MacBooks with screen sizes of 15 and 17 inches will allegedly rely on GPUs from AMD.

That would be awesome! As long as they move on from Core 2 I think I will be happy.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #14 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by akf2000 View Post

I never understand how these people manage to do this without the source code.

A poopton of trial and error? Maybe an emulator of some sort? I'm not strong in coding, but that is how it is generally done in science if you don't know how the whole works, but know how some parts of it work.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #15 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixmdude View Post

My Mac Book Pro 2.5 GHz C2D running windows gets 3400, but the slow hard drive is what makes it crawl.
my home-built PC with 6-core i7 Extreme 3.4 GHz gets over 12,000, but cost $3400 in parts (with SSD) and is bulky and has an unreliable brandname top of the line ASUS motherboard that locks up if you touch a key or the mouse while its in the process of being put to sleep. Replacing the M/B made no difference. (And it doesn't have the nice 27" screen.)

you can't beat the 27" led display from apple. no one that i can find makes a glossy 27" and the only 27" that handles the high resolution is the 27" LCD from Dell which costs more!?
i have to give apple props on that one.

ASUS has traditionally been the top MB maker for diy. if you got a bad one update the bios or send it back?
sorry, just saw you said replacing made no difference. very strange. diy isn't for everyone.
post #16 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

The troll is strong in this one.

Yes, screamingfist is one of the shriller trolls on AI.
post #17 of 70
Slightly off topic but I wonder if the next generation MBPs will have 1 and 2 TB drives as a BTO or even as a post sale upgrade? I really need more than the .5 TB that is standard in my MBP i7 but Apple politely told me that if I upgrade myself using a 3rd party larger drive I will invalidate my warranty as the late 2010 models are NOT user upgradeable where HDs are concerned unlike earlier MBPs (and I assume I'd screw the extended warranty too). Meanwhile Apple I am told have nothing larger than a .5 TB drive! Anyone know a way around this please tell me.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #18 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Slightly off topic but I wonder if the next generation MBPs will have 1 and 2 TB drives as a BTO or even as a post sale upgrade? I really need more than the .5 TB that is standard in my MBP i7 but Apple politely told me that if I upgrade myself using a 3rd party larger drive I will invalidate my warranty as the late 2010 models are NOT user upgradeable where HDs are concerned unlike earlier MBPs (and I assume I'd screw the extended warranty too). Meanwhile Apple I am told have nothing larger than a .5 TB drive! Anyone know a way around this please tell me.

Interesting. Do you need that much space and at full speed, or do you just need long-term storage space somewhere which is accessible from the laptop? I use a ReadyNas for network storage at home so I can use small fast SSD in my machine. http://www.buy.com/prod/netgear-rnd2...210477414.html

It can also be configured to be accessible over the Internet when you are out. That is the 2 bay version which can do RAID 0 or 1.
I use the 4-bay version with RAID5 so my files are always backed up reliably compared to only being on one machine's single hard drive.
post #19 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

no, just someone who has gotten out of the 'reality distortion field'.

and to continue, not only do you pay more for the new imac's but they don't even have the top end chipset that supports tri-channel ram. you pay premium price for second place dual channel.

Then what AIO would you say is a better machine if not the iMac? And dont say that consumers dont have to buy an AIO, they know that, but they are choosing AIOs for a reason so that is a moot point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

That would be awesome! As long as they move on from Core 2 I think I will be happy.

It looks like it might be time for Apple to move to Sandy Bridge for their 13 machines. The only issue I see is the lack of OpenCL.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #20 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

but they don't even have the top end chipset that supports tri-channel ram. you pay premium price for second place dual channel.

I'm so fucked.

Do you even understand the shit you type?
post #21 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixmdude View Post

Interesting. Do you need that much space and at full speed, or do you just need long-term storage space somewhere which is accessible from the laptop? I use a ReadyNas for network storage at home so I can use small fast SSD in my machine. http://www.buy.com/prod/netgear-rnd2...210477414.html

It can also be configured to me accessible over the Internet when you are out. That is the 2 bay version, I use the 4-bay version. This method also allows my files to be reliably backed up at all times since my 4-bay ReadyNas is set to RAID5 mode.

When at home office I have many TBs of externals available and a MacPro with all bays full of 2TBs so I guess I am used to having elbow room . I find just having my current Aperture library, iLife and iTunes plus all my apps (as in those I use a lot) which includes FCPro Studio take up 80% of the .5TB so I would love to have at least a 1TB of internal standard storage. I don't need SSD speeds for my MBP. I simply had not realized there was no 1TB or higher internal for the MBP till I strolled into an Apple Store in Boston a few days ago.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #22 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Slightly off topic but I wonder if the next generation MBPs will have 1 and 2 TB drives as a BTO or even as a post sale upgrade? I really need more than the .5 TB that is standard in my MBP i7 but Apple politely told me that if I upgrade myself using a 3rd party larger drive I will invalidate my warranty as the late 2010 models are NOT user upgradeable where HDs are concerned unlike earlier MBPs (and I assume I'd screw the extended warranty too). Meanwhile Apple I am told have nothing larger than a .5 TB drive! Anyone know a way around this please tell me.

my guess no

the reviews i've read have cheapo SB laptops with 17" screens meeting or beating the 13"MBP in terms of battery life. even with Flash. battery life is one of SJ's fetishes along with thin.

if i had to guess, then every Apple laptop going forward will only have SSD's. it will keep apple on top in terms of battery life. they can make thinner laptops. and SSD's are expensive which means they can keep the same price points.
post #23 of 70
Hmm, putting the 15-month old Core2Duo on eBay looks tempting.
post #24 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

When at home office I have many TBs of externals available and a MacPro with all bays full of 2TBs so I guess I am used to having elbow room . I find just having my current Aperture library, iLife and iTunes plus all my apps (as in those I use a lot) which includes FCPro Studio take up 80% of the .5TB so I would love to have at least a 1TB of internal standard storage. I don't need SSD speeds for my MBP. I simply had not realized there was no 1TB or higher internal for the MBP till I strolled into an Apple Store in Boston a few days ago.

The HDD is one of the few things you can replace on your own without voiding the warranty. Apple wars that if you damage something whilst changing it it could void your warranty, but thats par for the course. They even offer PDF instructions on their support pages.
http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/..._Drive_DIY.pdf
PS: 12.5mm HDDs will fit in the unibody MBP chassis, just make sure the drive themselves are supported in SW. There were some firmware issues that made at least one 1TB drive not perform correctly.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #25 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The HDD is one of the few things you can replace on your own without voiding the warranty. Apple wars that if you damage something whilst changing it it could void your warranty, but that’s par for the course. They even offer PDF instructions on their support pages.

http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/..._Drive_DIY.pdf
PS: 12.5mm HDDs will fit in the unibody MBP chassis, just make sure the drive themselves are supported in SW. There were some firmware issues that made at least one 1TB drive not perform correctly.

Unfortunately in the very latest MBPs the case if the unibody has changed dramatically. There is no longer a trap door for access to the battery and HD you have to remove the entire base and only the battery and RAM are user replaceable items, not the HD now. I was of the same understanding as you and was quite taken aback over this change which I had totally missed prior to purchasing. Unless of course the genius in the Apple store was totally wrong which isn't without possibility I guess! I will call Apple to verify ... thanks for the life line

edit: I see that that was the PDF for the newest version! Looks like it is a user job! Awesome.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #26 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by akf2000 View Post

I never understand how these people manage to do this without the source code.

As a whole, OS X is very easy to hack: it is pretty tolerant with modifications, very modular and ready to run kexts that were compiled out of linux drivers. There is really not that much to it if you have the right kexts for the right hardware.
post #27 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Unfortunately in the very latest MBPs the case if the unibody has changed dramatically. There is no longer a trap door for access to the battery and HD you have to remove the entire base and only the battery and RAM are user replaceable items, not the HD now. I was of the same understanding as you and was quite taken aback over this change which I had totally missed prior to purchasing. Unless of course the genius in the Apple store was totally wrong which isn't without possibility I guess! I will call Apple to verify ... thanks for the life line

That manual I linked to from Apple on how to replace the HDD is from a mid-2010 MBP. They walk you through removing the bottom cover of you MBP, what tools youll need, etc.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #28 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

the reviews i've read have cheapo SB laptops with 17" screens meeting or beating the 13"MBP in terms of battery life. even with Flash. battery life is one of SJ's fetishes along with thin.

if i had to guess, then every Apple laptop going forward will only have SSD's. it will keep apple on top in terms of battery life. they can make thinner laptops. and SSD's are expensive which means they can keep the same price points.

I'd wager that if we take a look at how the c2d MBP was stacking up against similar WIndows systems running the same chips, we'll see a simlar jump in battery life. OS X has proven itself more power efficient than Windows time and again, so we'll most likely see new MBPs w/even better battery life.

Switching the entire MBP lineup to SSD and possibly removing the optical drive as well will mean that much more space for battery and/or discrete video card for their Optimus-esque switching technology. My guess would be that the top end 15" and all 17" MBPs would have the discrete card and switching tech. 13" would be just SB APUs, the lowend 15" would be SB only as well.
post #29 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by akf2000 View Post

I never understand how these people manage to do this without the source code.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

A poopton of trial and error? Maybe an emulator of some sort? I'm not strong in coding, but that is how it is generally done in science if you don't know how the whole works, but know how some parts of it work.

They DO have the source code. The Darwin layer is open source. One you have that running the rest of OS X pretty much just sits on top. Drivers can complicate that a bit, but for the most part the heavy work is all in the open sourced part.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #30 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That manual I linked to from Apple on how to replace the HDD is from a mid-2010 MBP. They walk you through removing the bottom cover of you MBP, what tools you’ll need, etc.

Yep realized that after a while

Now I just need to source a 1 or 2 TB drive ...

update: Apple confirm it is OK to add a 3rd party HD and the genius was in fact not OK LOL My guess he was confused by egg nog and thinking of the battery which is NOT a useable upgrade believe it or not.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #31 of 70
Interesting thread, thanks for the replies to my question earlier.
post #32 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by akf2000 View Post

I never understand how these people manage to do this without the source code.

I wonder why they even bother but I guess it's fun to try

Humble apologies for off track thread.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #33 of 70

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 12:50pm
post #34 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

thats what i used to think. let's see, my 17" mbp with 4gig ram and 2.66 c2d cost over 4 thousand. divide by 3 and get my cost per year.

I paid $2k for my ancient dual G5 in early 2004. I'm still using it - it runs rather well. Divide $2k by 7, and life is pretty good on my end, even if I added on the $130 or so I paid for the 10.5 upgrade disks.

(...aren't anecdotes fun? Mine happens to be true, BTW.)
post #35 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

update: Apple confirm it is OK to add a 3rd party HD and the genius was in fact not OK LOL My guess he was confused by egg nog and thinking of the battery which is NOT a useable upgrade believe it or not.

I find that internet forums are much better at answering such questions. MacOSXHints.com is great for troubleshooting and DIYer questions.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #36 of 70
8870 in GB? I just got an 11710 in my machine from my sig...QC Xeons are very underrated!

"Platform: Mac OS X x86 (64-bit)
Compiler: GCC 4.0.1 (Apple Inc. build 5490)
Operating System: Mac OS X 10.6.5 (Build 10H574)
Model: Empire1,1
Motherboard: Apple Computer, Inc. Mac-F4208DC8 PCB Version
Processor: Genuine Intel(R) CPU @ 2.66GHz
Processor ID: GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 5
Logical Processors: 8
Physical Processors: 2
Processor Frequency: 3.09 GHz
L1 Instruction Cache: 32.0 KB
L1 Data Cache: 32.0 KB
L2 Cache: 4.00 MB
L3 Cache: 0.00 B
Bus Frequency: 1.33 GHz
Memory: 12.0 GB
Memory Type: 667 MHz DDR2 FB-DIMM
SIMD: 1
BIOS: Apple Computer, Inc. EE16.003C.B15
Processor Model: Intel
Processor Cores: 8

Integer (Score: 12006)
Blowfish single-threaded scalar -- 1956, , 85.9 MB/sec
Blowfish multi-threaded scalar -- 16602, , 680.3 MB/sec
Text Compress single-threaded scalar -- 2685, , 8.59 MB/sec
Text Compress multi-threaded scalar -- 19836, , 65.1 MB/sec
Text Decompress single-threaded scalar -- 2351, , 9.66 MB/sec
Text Decompress multi-threaded scalar -- 18940, , 75.5 MB/sec
Image Compress single-threaded scalar -- 2566, , 21.2 Mpixels/sec
Image Compress multi-threaded scalar -- 20059, , 168.8 Mpixels/sec
Image Decompress single-threaded scalar -- 2477, , 41.6 Mpixels/sec
Image Decompress multi-threaded scalar -- 16497, , 269.2 Mpixels/sec
Lua single-threaded scalar -- 4475, , 1.72 Mnodes/sec
Lua multi-threaded scalar -- 35632, , 13.7 Mnodes/sec

Floating Point (Score: 19586)
Mandelbrot single-threaded scalar -- 2238, , 1.49 Gflops
Mandelbrot multi-threaded scalar -- 18072, , 11.8 Gflops
Dot Product single-threaded scalar -- 4056, , 1.96 Gflops
Dot Product multi-threaded scalar -- 34074, , 15.5 Gflops
Dot Product single-threaded vector -- 3151, , 3.78 Gflops
Dot Product multi-threaded vector -- 28989, , 30.1 Gflops
LU Decomposition single-threaded scalar -- 1512, , 1.35 Gflops
LU Decomposition multi-threaded scalar -- 15777, , 13.8 Gflops
Primality Test single-threaded scalar -- 5583, , 833.9 Mflops
Primality Test multi-threaded scalar -- 33585, , 6.23 Gflops
Sharpen Image single-threaded scalar -- 6371, , 14.9 Mpixels/sec
Sharpen Image multi-threaded scalar -- 50864, , 117.2 Mpixels/sec
Blur Image single-threaded scalar -- 7855, , 6.22 Mpixels/sec
Blur Image multi-threaded scalar -- 62084, , 48.8 Mpixels/sec

Memory (Score: 2281)
Read Sequential single-threaded scalar -- 2468, , 3.02 GB/sec
Write Sequential single-threaded scalar -- 2944, , 2.01 GB/sec
Stdlib Allocate single-threaded scalar -- 2837, , 10.6 Mallocs/sec
Stdlib Write single-threaded scalar -- 1568, , 3.25 GB/sec
Stdlib Copy single-threaded scalar -- 1591, , 1.64 GB/sec

Stream (Score: 1973)
Stream Copy single-threaded scalar -- 1828, , 2.50 GB/sec
Stream Copy single-threaded vector -- 2170, , 2.81 GB/sec
Stream Scale single-threaded scalar -- 1948, , 2.53 GB/sec
Stream Scale single-threaded vector -- 1969, , 2.66 GB/sec
Stream Add single-threaded scalar -- 1891, , 2.86 GB/sec
Stream Add single-threaded vector -- 2273, , 3.16 GB/sec
Stream Triad single-threaded scalar -- 2029, , 2.80 GB/sec
Stream Triad single-threaded vector -- 1682, , 3.15 GB/sec"
X7DWA-N Supermicro mobo,Dual QC 3.0 Xeons, 12Gb RAM, 6 Raptor drives + 500 Gb TM drive, 2x DVR-218L burners, M-Audio 7.1 sound card, Titan 650 case running Leopard 10.6.6,Win7 x64, Linux Fluxbox...
Reply
X7DWA-N Supermicro mobo,Dual QC 3.0 Xeons, 12Gb RAM, 6 Raptor drives + 500 Gb TM drive, 2x DVR-218L burners, M-Audio 7.1 sound card, Titan 650 case running Leopard 10.6.6,Win7 x64, Linux Fluxbox...
Reply
post #37 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

I'd wager that if we take a look at how the c2d MBP was stacking up against similar WIndows systems running the same chips, we'll see a simlar jump in battery life. OS X has proven itself more power efficient than Windows time and again, so we'll most likely see new MBPs w/even better battery life.

Switching the entire MBP lineup to SSD and possibly removing the optical drive as well will mean that much more space for battery and/or discrete video card for their Optimus-esque switching technology. My guess would be that the top end 15" and all 17" MBPs would have the discrete card and switching tech. 13" would be just SB APUs, the lowend 15" would be SB only as well.

if the MBP gets 9 hours life compared to say 6 hours for a Wintel laptop 1/2 to 1/3 the price it may be enough for a lot of people to not buy a MBP
post #38 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

Switching the entire MBP lineup to SSD and possibly removing the optical drive as well will mean that much more space for battery and/or discrete video card for their Optimus-esque switching technology. My guess would be that the top end 15" and all 17" MBPs would have the discrete card and switching tech. 13" would be just SB APUs, the lowend 15" would be SB only as well.

Youre playing my song.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #39 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

Safari uses webkit, which is at the core of the operating system, Safari updates have always required a restart. I suspect you don't understand as much about computing as your rant would have us believe. My 24" iMacs are running snow leopard, and are performing incredibly well - best check your system and see what you've done to mess it up.

Safari is a ram hog. My 4GB machine frequently runs low. Granted, it can be expanded, but still.
post #40 of 70
That is the deal. They do have the source code. You can download it yourself. The majority of OS X is opensourced as darwin. The Aqua based GUI is the primary item that Apple has kept locked up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by akf2000 View Post

I never understand how these people manage to do this without the source code.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel's new Sandy Bridge processors hacked to run Apple's Mac OS X