or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Benchmarks of 2009 iMacs, Mac minis show negligible speed-ups
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Benchmarks of 2009 iMacs, Mac minis show negligible speed-ups - Page 5

post #161 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

Not quite - they didn't test the NEW 3.06 GHz iMac.

Woah, you're right. I had the impression that there wasn't one, but it's behind the Apple "by now" link.
post #162 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Clearly you must have had problems in school grasping facts and reality. The reports clearly indicate that the machines have gained nothing from this update as far as CPU performance goes. For many of us that CPU performance is pretty good as some things will never be speed up via GPU processing.

Which brings up an interesting point, I expect in the future that we will see many reports of much better graphical performance on the new machines. That is all well and good if it applies to the way you use the machine, if not it is just a way to detract from the fact that each new iMac sold these days is in effect grossly outdated hardware. In a nut shell you are paying for 2 year old CPU performance.

Dave

You misread the article, then you spout off like you actually know something.

GPUs actually handle more tasks than just graphics these days. And even more so with the new MacOS coming out soon. Read your dang Appleinsider!

Thus performance of the CPU alone is not the measure of the machine.

Having slapped you down... I will say this update is a bit underwhelming...
post #163 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I made a movie with iMovie and encoded with iDVD. The movie was 1-2 minutes long but I encoded with iDVD to play on my TV. With my C2D MBP (2.16ghz) it took 20 minutes! I want an ATV just to avoid this hassle.

2 hour handbrake rips take about 2.5 hrs to complete. A friend has a last gen octo core MP and says 2 hr movies take him 20 minutes.

I can easily use a more powerful Mac. Alas, the only one that really offers the performance I desire is the Mac Pro and its not in my budget.

The trick is knowing where and when to look for heavily discounted stock of previous generation kit. That's where the value of money is.

About five months after the 2nd generation Mac Pro hit the shelves, I stumbled upon a reseller that was having problems shifting their remaining stocks of the 1st generation Mac Pro. I knew from previous experience that there was no real-world benefit to me from the additional four cores present in the 8-core machine, so I decided to purchase a brand new, unopened 1st generation machine that was marked down from £1,799 to £999. Sweet.

After about two weeks of trawling through Ebay, I managed to secure another six DIMMs that were identical to the two already in the machine (Hynix). A couple of £45 500GB 7200rpm drives later, and I had a quad-core workstation with 8GB of RAM and a 1TB RAID 0 array. Pretty sweet rig for £1,249 all in. And by the time I claimed the VAT back I had only paid £1,063.

A few months ago I sold my 8-core machine, because frankly, the souped-up 4-core machine was performing so well that holding on to the 8-core was a complete waste of money. My only regret is that I didn't buy two of the discounted 4-core machines when I had the chance!

If I were you, I'd be out looking for stocks of the 8-core machine right now. It may be a bit early, but there will be pockets of retailers who are struggling to shift their current stocks because everyone thinks that the 3rd generation Mac Pros are twice as fast again.

I'm still laughing up my sleeve when I compare the performance that my Mac Pro gives me compared to the iMacs etc. I hope you to will be able to pick up a bargain, and enjoy the same level of value for money as I have...
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #164 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by poxonyou View Post

"Steve" has been the problem since 2005. He decided to kill the consumer affordable PowerMac desktop line and made people choose between an expensive non-upgradeable All-in-One (using laptop parts) or an insanely expensive mega "Pro" line. Steve was fine prior to 2005, when Apple offered a reasonable selection (iMacs for the cheap end, low-end PowerMacs for mid-range, high-end PowerMacs for the "professionals"). Unfortunately, they decided to turn Apple from the fun, alternative computer to a high end fashion brand like Gucci. Why not make higher profits on fewer items sold to a smaller demographic? Great for Apple shareholders, bad for the average person. Their market share has barely grown, despite people being fed up with Windows and not being locked into Windows like they were in the 90's.

Anyway, this is still the work of Steve. The early 2000's Steve was great, but things have changed. I honestly can't wait for him to go now.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I had a circa 2003 eMac (decent machine for what the price was, and what you could do with it!) and in that era, it was about making the computer fun again. It was about making it easier, making it do more. The idea was to break away from Windows beige (1998 iMacs rocked!) and focus on creativity. Now, with this huge focus on "thin", it is the next clothing label. Hardware is the same (though a little outdated) than any other PC out there. True, software makes a difference. But again, you are paying for style, not substance like you used to.

Someone's gotta reign Apple back in. It's going to loose more and more people with updates like this (or lack of updates... the mini not being updated till now for HOW long?). It already lost one customer. The only Apple product I use now is a G4 Mac mini as a home server (which it does very well). I sold my other Apple machines with the newer ones showing signs of heat issues. I used to recommend Apple products. These days I only recommend them to those in the Film/Recording/Media industries. And even then, it still depends.

So sad... I used to like the company. They just drove me away with their practices.
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
post #165 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

Snow Leopard Grand Central.

Exactly! Within 6 months, these new updates that are seen as marginal will be seen as something quite different!

Headlines could read something like, "Snow Leopard just made your 6-12 month old Mac brand new!".

Speed increases across the board will be huge in most real-world computing scenarios. The combination between Grand Central and OpenCL will be a one/two punch. Grand Central will increase speed of any multi-core machine (most likely Intel only), while OpenCL will add onto Grand Central's advantages and increase computational speed in most programs on machines with video cards supporting OpenCL (this iMac/Mac mini update and probably the previous iMac update as well).

As you may tell, I'm really looking forward to Snow Leopard!
post #166 of 247
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by poxonyou
"Steve" has been the problem since 2005. He decided to kill the consumer affordable PowerMac desktop line and made people choose between an expensive non-upgradeable All-in-One (using laptop parts) or an insanely expensive mega "Pro" line. Steve was fine prior to 2005, when Apple offered a reasonable selection (iMacs for the cheap end, low-end PowerMacs for mid-range, high-end PowerMacs for the "professionals"). Unfortunately, they decided to turn Apple from the fun, alternative computer to a high end fashion brand like Gucci. Why not make higher profits on fewer items sold to a smaller demographic? Great for Apple shareholders, bad for the average person. Their market share has barely grown, despite people being fed up with Windows and not being locked into Windows like they were in the 90's.

Anyway, this is still the work of Steve. The early 2000's Steve was great, but things have changed. I honestly can't wait for him to go now.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I had a circa 2003 eMac (decent machine for what the price was, and what you could do with it!) and in that era, it was about making the computer fun again. It was about making it easier, making it do more. The idea was to break away from Windows beige (1998 iMacs rocked!) and focus on creativity. Now, with this huge focus on "thin", it is the next clothing label. Hardware is the same (though a little outdated) than any other PC out there. True, software makes a difference. But again, you are paying for style, not substance like you used to.

Someone's gotta reign Apple back in. It's going to loose more and more people with updates like this (or lack of updates... the mini not being updated till now for HOW long?). It already lost one customer. The only Apple product I use now is a G4 Mac mini as a home server (which it does very well). I sold my other Apple machines with the newer ones showing signs of heat issues. I used to recommend Apple products. These days I only recommend them to those in the Film/Recording/Media industries. And even then, it still depends.

So sad... I used to like the company. They just drove me away with their practices.

I competely understood everything that was said here. Remember where the tower used to be? A consumer product?

Steve HAS lost the plot on the Mac desktop. The most insightful post on Apple here in ages.

Style over substance at insane prices. What happened to insanely great?

Design and form over function and denying consumers cheaper, higher performing alternatives.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #167 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

Not quite - they didn't test the NEW 3.06 GHz iMac.

Actually, Primate Labs didn't test any hardware. They just gathered the results from subscribers and compare them. http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/

Waiting for a call back from John. The only thing I have is a cell phone number, i.e., 519-5090-3829, and know that they reside in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Same home for RIM.

Again, previous benchmark posting from Primate Labs only seem to confirm that the higher CPU number the higher the benchmark score. As we can see, it doesn't appear that there is any significant difference in the score numbers. However, based on the fact that every following Macworld hardware review contradicts to some degree, the value of the benchmark score as defined in Primate Labs particular protocol.

"If you’re unfamiliar with Geekbench and how it measures performance, a score of 1000 is the score a Power Mac G5 @ 1.6GHz would receive. Higher scores are better. Also, Geekbench 2 only measures processor and memory performance which is why models with the same processors but different video cards have roughly the same score."

What I would be looking at is the benchmarks that Macworld, Engaget, etc., will report relative to my needs, whether it be video/audio editing or gaming for example.

Next, I would like, if possible, get real time hands on and review respected professional comprehensive benchmark testing*. Not the off-the-wall idiots posting that profess just how stupid one can be and certainly NOT Primate Labs singualar clock speed tables.
post #168 of 247
Quote:
I'm still laughing up my sleeve when I compare the performance that my Mac Pro gives me compared to the iMacs etc. I hope you to will be able to pick up a bargain, and enjoy the same level of value for money as I have...

Canny customer. Shrewd.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #169 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah View Post

The trick is knowing where and when to look for heavily discounted stock of previous generation kit. That's where the value of money is.

About five months after the 2nd generation Mac Pro hit the shelves, I stumbled upon a reseller that was having problems shifting their remaining stocks of the 1st generation Mac Pro. I knew from previous experience that there was no real-world benefit to me from the additional four cores present in the 8-core machine, so I decided to purchase a brand new, unopened 1st generation machine that was marked down from £1,799 to £999. Sweet.

After about two weeks of trawling through Ebay, I managed to secure another six DIMMs that were identical to the two already in the machine (Hynix). A couple of £45 500GB 7200rpm drives later, and I had a quad-core workstation with 8GB of RAM and a 1TB RAID 0 array. Pretty sweet rig for £1,249 all in. And by the time I claimed the VAT back I had only paid £1,063.

A few months ago I sold my 8-core machine, because frankly, the souped-up 4-core machine was performing so well that holding on to the 8-core was a complete waste of money. My only regret is that I didn't buy two of the discounted 4-core machines when I had the chance!

If I were you, I'd be out looking for stocks of the 8-core machine right now. It may be a bit early, but there will be pockets of retailers who are struggling to shift their current stocks because everyone thinks that the 3rd generation Mac Pros are twice as fast again.

I'm still laughing up my sleeve when I compare the performance that my Mac Pro gives me compared to the iMacs etc. I hope you to will be able to pick up a bargain, and enjoy the same level of value for money as I have...


I've never really considered a Mac Pro. Maybe I will.

Oddly enough I LIKE the form factor of the iMac. It would fit nicely in our house in the location I have in mind.

I guess I'll start looking on ebay for a single processor Mac Pro. They almost never turn up as a refurb at the Apple web site.
post #170 of 247
The distinctly mixed reception to all this "new" hardware here and across forums underscores why it was not only not released at MacWorld, but quietly as well.

One hopes it's a placeholder for a post Snow Leopard and new gen CPU refresh within 6 months, but Apple doesn't typically change SKU's with major rearchitecting that often.

Kind of puzzling all in all.

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #171 of 247
Geekbench is a sorry application to test with, honestly. It only tests CPU speed. Xbench is a TRUE testing platform as all aspects of the system including drives and memory are tested.

GB is good to test CPU's, not systems.

Should also note that performance did increase, power consumption decreased across the line make these machines more watt/performance better.
post #172 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by scoates View Post


Instead of replacing my G5 iMac, I ordered a 15" MBPro (unibody refurb), and will look to the next iMac refresh for a reason to upgrade my G5. I need an Intel Mac now to start iPhone development.

The good news - the MBPro arrived within 24 hours.
The bad news - it was DOA. Or pretty close. Rebooted every couple of minutes and the iSight wasn't working.

Stunning piece of mechanical engineering though. Looking forward to getting a working one ;-)
post #173 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiimamac View Post

At $599, on paper you coyodnhave thrown in a entry i7. Why not, they bumped the GPU and realize laptops sell more and now, in some regard offerva machine with girewirenand decent audio video ( stop waiting for benchmarks), camcorder and slight possibility apple didn't cripple it. If so you'll see these in edit bays servers farms audio bay. So why not an entry level 7 chip. They are not xpensive and wouldhavenmade the mini one killer machine that is not portable but very strong. Woulndnhave sold millions. Think of all the promsumernmusicians,editors, mom and pop 1 to 1 users and all the IT users fir target mode. What could have been more epic will porbanly be an eclipse. Typing=iPhone

If I wanted a tower, I'da bought a tower eh? I bought the latest mini for java and iPhone development and some light gaming. No, I don't need to wait for benchmarks...it should perform slightly worse than the latest Macbook and slightly better than my 2006 MBP.

For $599 and a 4GB ram upgrade. That's great.

Why no entry i7 chip? Because then it wouldn't be a mini would it? At best shuttle sized and rather loud and more expensive.

Apple didn't cripple anything. I debunked that in the other thread.
post #174 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I've never really considered a Mac Pro. Maybe I will.

Oddly enough I LIKE the form factor of the iMac. It would fit nicely in our house in the location I have in mind.

I guess I'll start looking on ebay for a single processor Mac Pro. They almost never turn up as a refurb at the Apple web site.

I've had the best luck finding marked down stock in large chain stores. Ever so often you'll find a location where those in charge are clueless about the latest Mac developments to the extent that they've kept the older generation of product at full price. These sort of locations often try to mark the product down a little, and when it still doesn't sell they slash the price in order to clear what is now really outdated stock. Of course it's only outdated in theory, in practice it can often enjoy a really long and productive life.

I suspect you won't be so lucky if you deal with Apple directly, or with smaller more switched-on dealers.
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #175 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiimamac View Post

Only she they went to intel did thy improve.

whatever language + Software you are translating from/with into Olde English isn't working so great.
post #176 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

What's your problem? Didn't you read the other's calling this a pathetic update? This is the first time I've mentioned this iMac update. And for future reference, your should be spelled you're.

That completely misused apostrophe is ironic, right?

Cheers

Jim
post #177 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah View Post

I've had the best luck finding marked down stock in large chain stores. Ever so often you'll find a location where those in charge are clueless about the latest Mac developments to the extent that they've kept the older generation of product at full price. These sort of locations often try to mark the product down a little, and when it still doesn't sell they slash the price in order to clear what is now really outdated stock. Of course it's only outdated in theory, in practice it can often enjoy a really long and productive life.

I suspect you won't be so lucky if you deal with Apple directly, or with smaller more switched-on dealers.

There aren't many places in Kentucky that carry Mac hardware.

There's an Apple store in Louisville and Best Buys. The Best Buys don't carry Mac Pros, AFAIK.

The idea of a Mac Pro is growing on me. I'd rather have too much machine rather than too little.
post #178 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

There aren't many places in Kentucky that carry Mac hardware.

There's an Apple store in Louisville and Best Buys. The Best Buys don't carry Mac Pros, AFAIK.

The idea of a Mac Pro is growing on me. I'd rather have too much machine rather than too little.

The more machine you get, the longer it will be viable. You won't grumble if FW 3200 comes out and you want it, because you will just pick up a board. With Express 2 standard now, newer graphics cards should work as well.

If your monitor breaks down, you can get a temporary one.

Four FW 800 ports and I believe five USB 2 ports.

If you really need RAM, it's pretty cheap at OWC, and it's reliable.
post #179 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by talkshowonmute View Post

My opinion is that apple is just restuffing the same old stuff to show those products are still alive before a real update when Snow Leopard comes out..

oh wait thats probably just me fantasizing again

I don't doubt that the iMacs will be updated sooner than later but I'm wondering how long it will take for Apple to move the mini to the Nehalem architecture.

I hope we're not talking two more years for that to happen though that is possible.

I might just upgrade to iLife, maybe the new OS and stick it out with my current mini for a while, hoping that this time next year we'll see a really impressive upgrade of the mini.
post #180 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

I hope we're not talking two more years for that to happen though that is possible.

I think that 18 months or more is to be expected on Mac Mini updates. If Snow Leopard will speed up the Mac Mini even more then Apple will have even less reason to push it to newer architecture. I think if you want a Mini and you want it to be current, for a Mini, then you'll need to buy now.
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 #181 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

I don't doubt that the iMacs will be updated sooner than later but I'm wondering how long it will take for Apple to move the mini to the Nehalem architecture.

I hope we're not talking two more years for that to happen though that is possible.

I might just upgrade to iLife, maybe the new OS and stick it out with my current mini for a while, hoping that this time next year we'll see a really impressive upgrade of the mini.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think that 18 months or more is to be expected on Mac Mini updates. If Snow Leopard will speed up the Mac Mini even more then Apple will have even less reason to push it to newer architecture. I think if you want a Mini and you want it to be current, for a Mini, then you'll need to buy now.

I would think the new mini would take better advantage of iLife too, given how much Apple uses GPU acceleration for their photo and video software. I wonder if it's the cheapest computer to ever have Firewire 800 out of the box.
post #182 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I wonder if it's the cheapest computer to ever have Firewire 800 out of the box.

I'm pretty sure it is. I can't do that powerful of a search with MacTracker, but a prelimanary search came up with nothing less than double the Mac Mini's price.
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 #183 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

What I would be looking at is the benchmarks that Macworld, Engaget, etc., will report relative to my needs, whether it be video/audio editing or gaming for example.

Next, I would like, if possible, get real time hands on and review respected professional comprehensive benchmark testing*. Not the off-the-wall idiots posting that profess just how stupid one can be and certainly NOT Primate Labs singualar clock speed tables.

To add to this, I wish AppleInsider will stop presenting sensational "reviews" like these as news.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #184 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

- I still cannot even BELIEVE they didn't use a low-power quad-core part, even in the highest end model. Clearly they think everyone is a sucker and didn't bother to revise the cooling system to support a low-power quad core. They hardly use any more power than the fastest Core 2 Duo.

Some precise power consumption data would help here. From what I remember, the low-power quad chips are running at 65 W at least, which is more than the G5 used in the (then noisy) iMac.

The real problem here is the really slim form factor of the iMac. You cannot do much if the computer is like that.
post #185 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

What happened to insanely great?

Greatly insane? \

I agree that Apple has a problem here. And it is purely an issue of willingness and decisions about the design of the computers.
post #186 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB View Post

Some precise power consumption data would help here. From what I remember, the low-power quad chips are running at 65 W at least, which is more than the G5 used in the (then noisy) iMac.

The real problem here is the really slim form factor of the iMac. You cannot do much if the computer is like that.

Liquid cooling?
post #187 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Liquid cooling?

No, thanks \ . Apple has two choices: either keep the current desing and use low-power laptop chips, with whatever this may mean, or introduce a new machine with more volume and use normal desktop parts. But Apple likes to innovate and apparently has not found an original way to materialize the second option, most probably because there is no other than the usual one adopted by pretty much everyone else. So there remains the first option...
post #188 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think that 18 months or more is to be expected on Mac Mini updates. If Snow Leopard will speed up the Mac Mini even more then Apple will have even less reason to push it to newer architecture. I think if you want a Mini and you want it to be current, for a Mini, then you'll need to buy now.

[OPINION]
I think you're right. Apple had to keep even the higher priced Mac mini at 2 GHz in the standard configuration to differentiate the iMac with clockspeed.
Apple won't play the same clockspeed game when it can transition the iMac to Nehalem mobile.
After the iMac gets its update to the new platform, the mini's clockspeed will raise a bit (hopefully even up to 2.5GHz) and will stay there for at least another year.
[/OPINION]
post #189 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by copeland View Post

[OPINION]
I think you're right. Apple had to keep even the higher priced Mac mini at 2 GHz in the standard configuration to differentiate the iMac with clockspeed.
Apple won't play the same clockspeed game when it can transition the iMac to Nehalem mobile.
After the iMac gets its update to the new platform, the mini's clockspeed will raise a bit (hopefully even up to 2.5GHz) and will stay there for at least another year.
[/OPINION]

I think there won't be any Mini updates for at least 12 months. Even if during this time iMac goes Nehalem mobile.
post #190 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by copeland View Post

[OPINION]
I think you're right. Apple had to keep even the higher priced Mac mini at 2 GHz in the standard configuration to differentiate the iMac with clockspeed.
Apple won't play the same clockspeed game when it can transition the iMac to Nehalem mobile.
After the iMac gets its update to the new platform, the mini's clockspeed will raise a bit (hopefully even up to 2.5GHz) and will stay there for at least another year.
[/OPINION]

My hunch is Apple is trying to restrain costs by only building one logic board for the mini which would require a single CPU selection for all models. This cuts work-in-process inventory of logic board assemblies considerably. All they have to do is pop in the appropriate HDD and memory amount at final assembly, both of which are stock items for Macbook production anyway.
post #191 of 247
Are people really surprised by the tests? The only thing Apple did was bump the processor speed by a little bit, added different RAM that rarely shows any difference for normal use and added a different selection of GPUs.
post #192 of 247
Well I think in the performance/watt range the mini has improved for sure (Intel North and
Southbridge are hot powerhogs, and penryn uses less power than merom when compared
clock for clock).

For the iMac there might be some improvement, because it is now using the Nvidia chips also.

As far as I have read about the test, it just tests the cpu and nothing else. So any improvement
from RAM and GPU or HD will not be recognized.
I don't know, but will DDR3 help the IGP?
post #193 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiffy1 View Post

You misread the article, then you spout off like you actually know something.

GPUs actually handle more tasks than just graphics these days. And even more so with the new MacOS coming out soon. Read your dang Appleinsider!

Thus performance of the CPU alone is not the measure of the machine.

Having slapped you down... I will say this update is a bit underwhelming...

While you might have slapped him down a bit, did the front side bus increase? If it did, combined withbfaster CPU, sure some things like font redraw, screen refresh and app redraw might be tevhnicallybfaster but you know what. Ask 100 people if they notice the font redraw increase vs rendering a movie, ripping a auidiontrack, decompressing a rar or zip file. Sorry but the CPU increase affects more real world than update and we still don't now framerates for 3d games.
Combine your so called speed increase with a 5200 rpm hard drive andnthebrefreshbrate become moot.

Just saying. Turns out though. Best post isnthe 2005 post wheelrer apple is to focused on iPhone apps and iPhones. Now they don't care about the pro user at all. No pro app updates. Funny thing is, all the cash flow is about to hit millions of iPhone users that will reach their 2 yr marks and can dump iPhone for phones that record video, play flash and more. So apple IMHO has shot themself in the foot with their cash flow with contracts about to expire. Typed on iPhone.
post #194 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Question:Who the hell buys a computer based solely on clock speed?

Answer: Idiots

Question:Who the hell relies on benchmarks based solely on clock speed?

Answer: Idiots

dude. Where have you been last 15 years. Ever hear of mad onion they make 3d mark. Millions of users. Test frame rates for vid games and rendering, CPU which sell morebthan movies and music combined. And users rely on CPU for more things than font redraw and the on board gpu lakes compared to discrete.
post #195 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The more machine you get, the longer it will be viable. You won't grumble if FW 3200 comes out and you want it, because you will just pick up a board. With Express 2 standard now, newer graphics cards should work as well.

If your monitor breaks down, you can get a temporary one.

Four FW 800 ports and I believe five USB 2 ports.

If you really need RAM, it's pretty cheap at OWC, and it's reliable.

Well there are two schools of thought. That's one.

The other is to buy cheap, replace often. The only downside to that is Apple sometimes won't let you do the "upgrade often" part for the mini.

For video cards, that's been my strategy and it works a heck of a lot better than shelling out $500+ for a top end card. 3 revs later, the $99-$120 budget cards will work with more games anyway.

Same for projectors.
post #196 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiimamac View Post

While you might have slapped him down a bit, did the front side bus increase? If it did, combined withbfaster CPU, sure some things like font redraw, screen refresh and app redraw might be tevhnicallybfaster but you know what. Ask 100 people if they notice the font redraw increase vs rendering a movie, ripping a auidiontrack, decompressing a rar or zip file. Sorry but the CPU increase affects more real world than update and we still don't now framerates for 3d games.
Combine your so called speed increase with a 5200 rpm hard drive andnthebrefreshbrate become moot.

Just saying. Turns out though. Best post isnthe 2005 post wheelrer apple is to focused on iPhone apps and iPhones. Now they don't care about the pro user at all. No pro app updates. Funny thing is, all the cash flow is about to hit millions of iPhone users that will reach their 2 yr marks and can dump iPhone for phones that record video, play flash and more. So apple IMHO has shot themself in the foot with their cash flow with contracts about to expire. Typed on iPhone.

You just scared everyone away from using virtual keyboards.
post #197 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiimamac View Post

dude. Where have you been last 15 years. Ever hear of mad onion they make 3d mark. Millions of users. Test frame rates for vid games and rendering, CPU which sell morebthan movies and music combined. And users rely on CPU for more things than font redraw and the on board gpu lakes compared to discrete.

So your are telling me that you pick your computer simply and only by its clock speed.
post #198 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiimamac View Post

Funny thing is, all the cash flow is about to hit millions of iPhone users that will reach their 2 yr marks and can dump iPhone for phones that record video, play flash and more. So apple IMHO has shot themself in the foot with their cash flow with contracts about to expire. Typed on iPhone.

If Apple uses Tegra there shouldn't be any technical reasons why they can't offer video recording. Yes, it's technically possible now, but it's quite poor do to the HW. If Apple keeps the iPhoen the same size or goes smaller we shouldn't expect a much better camera. I'd rather see a better CMOS over increased megapixels, but the public at large will only care about the specs they can understand. Who can blame them.

As for Flash, until Adobe fixes Flash no phone will have a good version of Flash. And, perhaps more importantly, the majority that seemed to have complained about the iPhone not having Flash Lite now seem to be stating that they don't really miss Flash. The sites that use Flash for video, which doesn't seem to like Flash Lite anyway, are rumored to be pushing for native apps. This is smart as subverting Flash site to DL their content is relatively easy via a many plug-ins, so a native app to watch their videos does offer them more control and protection. I look forward to Hulu offering such an app, sooner rather than later.

I think you'll fine that the iPhone, for all its faults (and it does have them), will be keeping an unprecedented number of subscribers and draw in more with each new model for the foreseeable future. It's not the end-all-be-all of smartphones, but does seem to fit the needs of the average Western person better than most other such devices. Smartphones are longer just for hardcore business users and über-geeks.
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 #199 of 247
You are absolutely right a better CMOS sensor and better lens would make much more of a difference in picture quality than simply more megapixels. The public at large don't understand this because its inconvenient to marketing megapixels if the public really understood how imaging works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'd rather see a better CMOS over increased megapixels, but the public at large will only care about the specs they can understand. Who can blame them.
post #200 of 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiimamac View Post

dude. Where have you been last 15 years. Ever hear of mad onion they make 3d mark. Millions of users. Test frame rates for vid games and rendering, CPU which sell morebthan movies and music combined. And users rely on CPU for more things than font redraw and the on board gpu lakes compared to discrete.

Many games are already GPU bound, meaning, for those who don't know what that means, is that the cpu is more than powerful enough, but that the GPU isn't powerful enough.

We've been seeing this more and more.

As game companies move more of their games from one core to two, and then to many, this will be even less of a cpu problem.

With all the talk of how powerful GPU's are for certain calculations, four and eight cores with hyperthreading are even more powerful for most tasks, if those tasks can be put on all those cores and threads. That's what both Open CL and Grand Central will be doing.

The tests done aren't showing much useful information. They are just testing a PART of the computer, and not always the most important part. More balanced testing is needed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Benchmarks of 2009 iMacs, Mac minis show negligible speed-ups