or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › OS X Lion tested with unreleased Intel Core i7 Ivy Bridge chip
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
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 ]
post #2 of 27
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.
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #3 of 27
Man, I really want the new MacBooks to come out soon... Hopefully April, hopefully April....
post #4 of 27
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/
post #5 of 27
People yearning for an xMac will cry over this news.
post #6 of 27
So minimal (~6%) gains over the 27" fully loaded iMac which scored ~12,800.
post #7 of 27
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....
post #8 of 27
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.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #9 of 27
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.
post #10 of 27
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!'
post #11 of 27
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.
post #12 of 27
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.
post #13 of 27
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
post #14 of 27
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.
post #15 of 27
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.
post #16 of 27
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.
post #17 of 27
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.
post #18 of 27
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.
post #19 of 27
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.
post #20 of 27
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
post #21 of 27
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.
post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa View Post

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?)

That is not true, all current iMacs use desktop parts.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...ndex-imac.html
iMac "Core i5" 2.5 21.5-Inch (Mid-2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5 (I5-2400S)
iMac "Core i5" 2.7 21.5-Inch (Mid-2011) 2.7 GHz Core i5 (I5-2500S)
iMac "Core i7" 2.8 21.5-Inch (Mid-2011) 2.8 GHz Core i7 (I7-2600S)
iMac "Core i5" 2.7 27-Inch (Mid-2011) 2.7 GHz Core i5 (I5-2500S)
iMac "Core i5" 3.1 27-Inch (Mid-2011) 3.1 GHz Core i5 (I5-2400)
iMac "Core i7" 3.4 27-Inch (Mid-2011) 3.4 GHz Core i7 (I7-2600)
iMac "Core i3" 3.1 21.5-Inch (Late 2011) 3.1 GHz Core i3 (I3-2100)

This page shows which Sandy Bridge model numbers are desktop, mobile, and server.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge
post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

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.

Mostly correct.

In addition, Ivy Bridge adds some external features like support for USB 3 on the chip as well as DDR3-1600.
http://www.techpowerup.com/143951/In...-Detailed.html
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #24 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa View Post

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.

Amiga has come out with an interesting development:

http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_AMIGAmini.aspx

Double the height of the Mini with all desktop parts and Blu-Ray. Seems a bit bizarre to launch a new desktop machine just before the new processors arrive that use 20% less power but anyway, it shows that it's possible to get a full desktop experience in a tiny box. iMac prices though.

I personally wouldn't mind the Ivy Bridge IGP and for cost, they'll probably stick with quad + IGP on the higher-end. I haven't read much about the mobile Kepler and Radeon 7000 series GPUs to see how much they improve over the previous generation.

The iMac chips should arrive April 29th so still a bit of a wait ahead:

http://pcper.com/news/Processors/Int...-March-23-2012
post #25 of 27
It's so funny that nobody talks about SATA III, which, in my opinion, is one of the biggest deals of Sandy Bridge. I did see one person mention it here I think but the difference is HUGE and not even Apple has mentioned it for their own reasons, of course.

Anyway, SSD's are crazy fast compared to the fastest 10,000RPM hard drives. Well, with SATA III running at 6Gbps, instead of SATA II 3Gbps, the speed literally DOUBLES! You need to buy an SSD that is SATA III compliant, of course, which most of the current ones are. They will run on SATA II as well, except, of course, at half the speed, and they're really no more expensive than their SATA II counterparts.

SATA III will be there, unchanged, in Ivy Bridge.

Another major Sandy Bridge item of interest is the support of twice the amount of RAM (for the most part). Every Early-2011 and Late-2011 MacBook Pro (13", 15" and 17") ALL support 16GB of RAM, instead of just 8GB, as Apple falsely advertises. The mid-2011 iMac's already supported 16GB of RAM by way of 4x4GB RAM chips, so if you get four 8GB chips, which have come down in price dramatically, you end up with 32GB. The mid-2011 Mac mini also supports 16GB, as does the MBP. This is great for people who run virtual machines and also for really high-end games.

Ivy Bridge will support the same amount of RAM, but the bump to DDR3-1600MHz from DDR3-1333MHz will be negligible IMO.

(Mid-2012) 15.4" MacBook Pro w/ IPS Retina Display | Quad Core i7-3720QM 2.6GHz / 3.6GHz Max. Turbo | 16GB DDR3-1600MHz RAM | 256GB Samsung 830 SSD-based NAND Flash ETA 9/5

Reply

(Mid-2012) 15.4" MacBook Pro w/ IPS Retina Display | Quad Core i7-3720QM 2.6GHz / 3.6GHz Max. Turbo | 16GB DDR3-1600MHz RAM | 256GB Samsung 830 SSD-based NAND Flash ETA 9/5

Reply
post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crunch View Post

It's so funny that nobody talks about SATA III, which, in my opinion, is one of the biggest deals of Sandy Bridge.

There's SATA III in Macs right now. How will its inclusion in Ivy Bridge (we're already on Sandy) be any different from now?

Quote:
This is great for people who run virtual machines and also for really high-end games.

"Yep," to the former, "Uh, what?" to the latter.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Amiga has come out with an interesting development:

http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_AMIGAmini.aspx

Double the height of the Mini with all desktop parts and Blu-Ray. Seems a bit bizarre to launch a new desktop machine just before the new processors arrive that use 20% less power but anyway, it shows that it's possible to get a full desktop experience in a tiny box. iMac prices though.

I personally wouldn't mind the Ivy Bridge IGP and for cost, they'll probably stick with quad + IGP on the higher-end. I haven't read much about the mobile Kepler and Radeon 7000 series GPUs to see how much they improve over the previous generation.

The iMac chips should arrive April 29th so still a bit of a wait ahead:

http://pcper.com/news/Processors/Int...-March-23-2012

I wouldn't judge cost to build a machine off that. I still don't understand why case size matters much. The towers are fine below a desk. It really shouldn't matter. If we ended up with the equivalent of the mac pro at a lower cost, then that would be pretty cool. Computer growth right now is slow enough to where refresh cycles may continue to increase over time. We're at a point where for most people, it's pointless to even update a laptop every couple years. The Air catered to a lot of people whose needs hadn't changed much in a while. It allowed them to retain roughly what they had while moving to a smaller machine. In that case it made more sense, as the Air is a machine you take with you. There aren't that many people who pack up and haul mac pros. Typically that's limited to photography and video production. Google industrial color. You'll see what I mean.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

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.


That in itself isn't a bad thing. I wish they'd do the same for the laptops.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › OS X Lion tested with unreleased Intel Core i7 Ivy Bridge chip