It doesn't matter what you think the layout is for as the two goals are not exclusive of each other. The new MBP pretty much proves this point.
That is starting to sound like making excuses. Really it does.
Dave
They can be mutually exclusive adding into account the Apple imposed constraint of designing internal layouts in a thin desktop.
It's not excuses, it's acknowledging a compromise. I know, I agonized over my decision to purchase an iMac this year because of it's lack of easy expandability. I took into account my choices (a mini, a Mac Pro, a PC, a laptop) and ruled them out (not powerful or expandable enough, to expensive and big, ran Windows, wanted a larger screen) and was left with the iMac.
It seems that several people are concerned about the possibility of a Quad-core chip skipping the new iMac release, and they are comparing the iMac to some randomly beefed-up Windows PCs.
When Apple creates the hardware and software, and, as put in other posts, the "user experience" as well, it creates a harmonious, synergistic machine that is not only accelerated by the speed of your chip.
If anyone's forgotten, Snow Leopard is (as I think I remember reading) something like up to 2.5x faster than Leopard when performing certain tasks, which clues in to the importance of a powerful operating system. It doesn't matter if you had a 5 GHZ Windows machine; if the software bites and the components do not work well together like in a Mac, than your extra specs are virtually worthless.
Aside, Apple has always sought to shave thickness from all of its products, and so I don't see this as an exception. It would also be nice if an anti-glare option similar to that on the MBP was available in the next iMac for those of us who need accurate color and less eye strain.
If anyone's forgotten, Snow Leopard is (as I think I remember reading) something like up to 2.5x faster than Leopard when performing certain tasks, which clues in to the importance of a powerful operating system.
Put the cool aide down. You've had too much.
SL is faster than Leopard, but 2.5x faster at what? I've had both (SL and Leopard) and SL feels slightly faster than SL during everyday use. Its not like I got a new machine. And I've installed it on two Macs that had Leopard so I don't think my experience is unusual.
If Apple are looking to improve performance, they're going to need multicore (more than one and preferably more than two) processors. That''s how SL is designed to work faster.
I see what you mean about the longetivity of Apples, because apparently some people still use G4 computers! Obviously Apple drops support for a machine after so many years. Whether you buy a new machine or not, new features and improved design are also no doubt a tool used to attract new users as well as existing customers. Budget may be a concern for many people, but chances are that if one can buy a machine this year, you can buy one the year after next too; and let's face it: how can one resist a fresh Apple? Though expensive, it's a difficult entity to deny!
I see what you mean about the longetivity of Apples, because apparently some people still use G4 computers! Obviously Apple drops support for a machine after so many years. Whether you buy a new machine or not, new features and improved design are also no doubt a tool used to attract new users as well as existing customers. Budget may be a concern for many people, but chances are that if one can buy a machine this year, you can buy one the year after next too; and let's face it: how can one resist a fresh Apple? Though expensive, it's a difficult entity to deny!
You can resist one if it can't do what you want it to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
Put the cool aide down. You've had too much.
SL is faster than Leopard, but 2.5x faster at what? I've had both (SL and Leopard) and SL feels slightly faster than SL during everyday use. Its not like I got a new machine. And I've installed it on two Macs that had Leopard so I don't think my experience is unusual.
If Apple are looking to improve performance, they're going to need multicore (more than one and preferably more than two) processors. That''s how SL is designed to work faster.
And that's the irony Snow Leopard, of all its advancements the only machine in Apple's lineup that can take real advantage of it is the Mac Pro. Dual core machines with lower end graphics and two SO-DIMM slots with real world maximum of 4GB of RAM (nobody is going to pay $650 for 8GB) are not going to take advantages of OpenCL, Grand Central Dispatch, or the 64-bit kernel.
SL is faster than Leopard, but 2.5x faster at what? I've had both (SL and Leopard) and SL feels slightly faster than SL during everyday use. Its not like I got a new machine. And I've installed it on two Macs that had Leopard so I don't think my experience is unusual.
If Apple are looking to improve performance, they're going to need multicore (more than one and preferably more than two) processors. That''s how SL is designed to work faster.
I'm not exactly sure what the "Cool Aide" thing refers to.
That aside, you'll notice that I posted that Snow Leopard is up to 2.5x faster while performing certain tasks. Make that 2.4x actually.
Quicktime X (a component of Snow Leopard I'd say) is up to 2.4x faster because of the OSs 64-bit performance, among other things. Safari 4 is up to 50% faster only when using Snow Leopard. When third party developers begin to write 64-bit Snow Leopard compatible software, significant performance boosts will be seen all around. Adobe AfterEffects CS4, for example, is supposed have a 250% performance gain on a 64-bit machine, which is extreme!
So, there you have it. Software-based performance boosts (providing that there is a processor that supports 64-bits, which there is on all current Macs). Not to say that a pumped machine isn't important, but synergy among computer components and software is a massive factor, and it seems that Apple has introduced 64-bit performance and a Cocoa base into their OS shortly before the newly anticipated iMac release, not to mention the massive amounts of ram that Snow Leopard can now address (up to 16 billion GB, theoretically, that reads in the link above) which directly affects performance.
I'm not exactly sure what the "Cool Aide" thing refers to.
That aside, you'll notice that I posted that Snow Leopard is up to 2.5x faster while performing certain tasks. Make that 2.4x actually.
Quicktime X (a component of Snow Leopard I'd say) is up to 2.4x faster because of the OSs 64-bit performance, among other things. Safari 4 is up to 50% faster only when using Snow Leopard. When third party developers begin to write 64-bit Snow Leopard compatible software, significant performance boosts will be seen all around. Adobe AfterEffects CS4, for example, is supposed have a 250% performance gain on a 64-bit machine, which is extreme!
So, there you have it. Software-based performance boosts (providing that there is a processor that supports 64-bits, which there is on all current Macs). Not to say that a pumped machine isn't important, but synergy among computer components and software is a massive factor, and it seems that Apple has introduced 64-bit performance and a Cocoa base into their OS shortly before the newly anticipated iMac release, not to mention the massive amounts of ram that Snow Leopard can now address (up to 16 billion GB, theoretically, that reads in the link above) which directly affects performance.
Thew 'cool aid' refers to the Apple propaganda. We all drink it around here, but it helps sometimes to have a friend tell you to put it down.
Look I don't deny that SL is faster than Leopard. But every upgrade of OSX has been faster than the previous one. Apple have chosen to trump this feature as they had little user facing changes to discuss.
And OSX has been able to run 64 bit apps since at least Tiger. SL has made the kernel 64 bit and available to some existing machines, but not all with 64 bit cpus.
I'm not ragging on SL. I have it on both my Macs and I like it. But the cpus is important when it comes to general performance and I still see the beach ball so I'd really like to see a higher performance in my Macs. That's only going to come from quad core and better cpu Macs. Why do you think they developed Grand Central Dispatch?
You can resist one if it can't do what you want it to do.
And that's the irony Snow Leopard, of all its advancements the only machine in Apple's lineup that can take real advantage of it is the Mac Pro. Dual core machines with lower end graphics and two SO-DIMM slots with real world maximum of 4GB of RAM (nobody is going to pay $650 for 8GB) are not going to take advantages of OpenCL, Grand Central Dispatch, or the 64-bit kernel.
Every Mac takes maybe 10 minutes to upgrade the ram with cheap after market memory. $100 bucks and your done, even on the iMac and the Mini.
Thew 'cool aid' refers to the Apple propaganda. We all drink it around here, but it helps sometimes to have a friend tell you to put it down.
Look I don't deny that SL is faster than Leopard. But every upgrade of OSX has been faster than the previous one. Apple have chosen to trump this feature as they had little user facing changes to discuss.
And OSX has been able to run 64 bit apps since at least Tiger. SL has made the kernel 64 bit and available to some existing machines, but not all with 64 bit cpus.
I'm not ragging on SL. I have it on both my Macs and I like it. But the cpus is important when it comes to general performance and I still see the beach ball so I'd really like to see a higher performance in my Macs. That's only going to come from quad core and better cpu Macs. Why do you think they developed Grand Central Dispatch?
You do realize that many of the advancements in SL won't be realized until the applications are written to take advantage of it. That said there are immediate differences in speed (yes some even 2.5 times faster than under leopard). The difference is very noticeable.
That said, a faster processor in any Mac is always a welcome sight
Thew 'cool aid' refers to the Apple propaganda. We all drink it around here, but it helps sometimes to have a friend tell you to put it down.
Look I don't deny that SL is faster than Leopard. But every upgrade of OSX has been faster than the previous one. Apple have chosen to trump this feature as they had little user facing changes to discuss.
And OSX has been able to run 64 bit apps since at least Tiger. SL has made the kernel 64 bit and available to some existing machines, but not all with 64 bit cpus.
I'm not ragging on SL. I have it on both my Macs and I like it. But the cpus is important when it comes to general performance and I still see the beach ball so I'd really like to see a higher performance in my Macs. That's only going to come from quad core and better cpu Macs. Why do you think they developed Grand Central Dispatch?
Haha yeah, I guess you're right. That is the purpose of Grand Central Dispatch. I mean, it's true that a Quad core configuration in a new iMac is the most obvious forward step left to be taken in terms of any major performance boosting. That would be very nice.
You do realize that many of the advancements in SL won't be realized until the applications are written to take advantage of it.
Sure I do. But my whole point is that SL is no panacea for performance improvements. Some would have you believe or at least imply that dual core on SL is better than 4 core machines on windows, or Leopard. I don't believe that to be true. The benefit of SL is its ability to utilize more than 2 core cpus. You know the kind only found on Mac Pros. Without multicore cpus, all the benefits of SL will never be realized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
That said there are immediate differences in speed (yes some even 2.5 times faster than under leopard). The difference is very noticeable.
I don't know where you guys are getting this. Are you only working in QuickTime X? And let's be honest. QuickTime X was rewritten from the ground up. It should be faster than the old QT which was an app that's been around with a few changes here and there for over a decade. Which apps haven't changed and run better under SL than they did under Leopard? Safari is the only one I've come across personally. It is much faster. SL is faster but it feels a lot like the difference in going from Tiger to Leopard IMO. Maybe a bit more, but no substantially different. Heck, CoD 4 actually has performed worse under SL than it did under Leopard for me.
Sure I do. But my whole point is that SL is no panacea for performance improvements. Some would have you believe or at least imply that dual core on SL is better than 4 core machines on windows, or Leopard. I don't believe that to be true. The benefit of SL is its ability to utilize more than 2 core cpus. You know the kind only found on Mac Pros. Without multicore cpus, all the benefits of SL will never be realized.
I don't know where you guys are getting this. Are you only working in QuickTime X? And let's be honest. QuickTime X was rewritten from the ground up. It should be faster than the old QT which was an app that's been around with a few changes here and there for over a decade. Which apps haven't changed and run better under SL than they did under Leopard? Safari is the only one I've come across personally. It is much faster. SL is faster but it feels a lot like the difference in going from Tiger to Leopard IMO. Maybe a bit more, but no substantially different. Heck, CoD 4 actually has performed worse under SL than it did under Leopard for me.
Third party benchmarks can be had all over the net:
No one is saying (or I should say I'm not saying as i haven't read all of the replies..lol) that SL is noticeably faster.
I'm genuinely curious where this information is that SL will only really benefit quad core? This is the first I'm reading of it. Could you post a link I'd be interested in reading the technical details. From what I've ready, any multi-core processor will benefit, not just quad-core or an 8-core.
No one is saying (or I should say I'm not saying as i haven't read all of the replies..lol) that SL is noticeably faster.
I'm genuinely curious where this information is that SL will only really benefit quad core? This is the first I'm reading of it. Could you post a link I'd be interested in reading the technical details. From what I've ready, any multi-core processor will benefit, not just quad-core or an 8-core.
I’m with you. The idea that more cores equals better performance is not so cut and dry. Sure MAc OS X, especially SL, is designed to take advantage of extra cores more effectively, but when you find a quad-core that has the same TDP as a dual-core CPU you then have each core running more slowly. Depending on the type of processing going on one or the other can be more beneficial.
For the iMac, there is now the new low voltage desktop CPUs that Intel designed specifically for AIOs, which to means specifically designed with the iMac in mind. They run at 65W while the current iMac CPUs run at 44W. Apple would have to do some serious reworking of the iMac to make that work, but it would boost the performance quite bit while also being cheaper. However, that does not account for the fact that Apple uses the same CPUs for the iMac as they do for their notebooks so economics from bulk purchasing could be affected negatively, though I doubt that is really an issue.
For notebooks, it looks like dual-core is the way to go for the time being. The mobile i5s and i7s that are Quad-core are still at such low clock speeds. There will be some apps that can benefit from that but I think that most people will benefit from the faster dual-cores. There is also the marketing aspect of trying to sell a new Mac notebook with a clock speed at nearly half of what it was before and trying to get the average layperson to understand that it’s actually an improvement.
No one is saying (or I should say I'm not saying as i haven't read all of the replies..lol) that SL is noticeably faster.
Man I should drink more coffee before posting. I meant to say that SL is noticeably faster, but that doesn't it would overpower a quad core in Windows as a result.
Apparently I shouldn't try to multi-task this early in the morning either
The MW UK link really validates what I am saying. SL shows a marked improvement in three benches, Time Machine, Java script and shut down. In the other tests they were pretty even. Time machine is a background process. I'm glad its faster but I don't notice it much because it works in the background. The JS improvement explains the Safari improvements and you can feel it in every day use. The improvement in Shutdown doesn't really affect my overall use. Sure it makes a difference when I turn my machine off, but I leave my iMac on and in sleep mode and my MBP usually only gets shut down once or twice a day. Overall SL has some areas that improve performance a lot but in every day use it doesn't feel *OMG* faster and the benches show why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
...
I'm genuinely curious where this information is that SL will only really benefit quad core? This is the first I'm reading of it. Could you post a link I'd be interested in reading the technical details. From what I've ready, any multi-core processor will benefit, not just quad-core or an 8-core.
When I say multicore, I mean anything four core or MORE.
I?m with you. The idea that more cores equals better performance is not so cut and dry. Sure MAc OS X, especially SL, is designed to take advantage of extra cores more effectively, but when you find a quad-core that has the same TDP as a dual-core CPU you then have each core running more slowly. Depending on the type of processing going on one or the other can be more beneficial.
For the iMac, there is now the new low voltage desktop CPUs that Intel designed specifically for AIOs, which to means specifically designed with the iMac in mind. They run at 65W while the current iMac CPUs run at 44W. ....
That's why many of us are fired up about Nehalem. When cores aren't being use the cores that are in use can run at a higher clock speed. That's the benefit of Turbo Boost, there isn't a compromise in having many cores. Cores turn on and off depending on use requirements and clock speed is maximized.
The low voltage desk top cpus are nice but at this point I think the Nehalems are a better choice.
That's why many of us are fired up about Nehalem. When cores aren't being use the cores that are in use can run at a higher clock speed. That's the benefit of Turbo Boost, there isn't a compromise in having many cores. Cores turn on and off depending on use requirements and clock speed is maximized.
The low voltage desk top cpus are nice but at this point I think the Nehalems are a better choice.
Then I approve, but is the TDP low enough to be a good fit for Apple?s current line up? There was a patent awhile back regarding a special cooling unit, but the simplest answer seems that Apple will use chips in the iMacs that are about equal to the current wattage they use now. You know Apple?s obsession with thinness.
Then I approve, but is the TDP low enough to be a good fit for Apple?s current line up? There was a patent awhile back regarding a special cooling unit, but the simplest answer seems that Apple will use chips in the iMacs that are about equal to the current wattage they use now. You know Apple?s obsession with thinness.
No TDP is an issue.
I have an iMac and while the thinness is nice, I'd easily take an extra inch of thickness to accommodate an i5 cpu. I hope Apple agrees with me but I'm not holding my breath.
For the iMac, there is now the new low voltage desktop CPUs that Intel designed specifically for AIOs, which to means specifically designed with the iMac in mind. They run at 65W while the current iMac CPUs run at 44W. Apple would have to do some serious reworking of the iMac to make that work, but it would boost the performance quite bit while also being cheaper. However, that does not account for the fact that Apple uses the same CPUs for the iMac as they do for their notebooks so economics from bulk purchasing could be affected negatively, though I doubt that is really an issue.
The problem is whether Apple would be willing to redesign it for hotter CPUs. Making it thicker I don't think is an option for the current design team. The form to them is more important than the function.
Quote:
For notebooks, it looks like dual-core is the way to go for the time being. The mobile i5s and i7s that are Quad-core are still at such low clock speeds. There will be some apps that can benefit from that but I think that most people will benefit from the faster dual-cores. There is also the marketing aspect of trying to sell a new Mac notebook with a clock speed at nearly half of what it was before and trying to get the average layperson to understand that it’s actually an improvement.
All arrandale and Clarksfield CPUs have turboboost. Just list booth the single thread and dual thread speeds. The people who want a dual core are going to know about the chip and most of the rest just take Apple's word without question anyway.
The MW UK link really validates what I am saying. SL shows a marked improvement in three benches, Time Machine, Java script and shut down. In the other tests they were pretty even. Time machine is a background process. I'm glad its faster but I don't notice it much because it works in the background. The JS improvement explains the Safari improvements and you can feel it in every day use. The improvement in Shutdown doesn't really affect my overall use. Sure it makes a difference when I turn my machine off, but I leave my iMac on and in sleep mode and my MBP usually only gets shut down once or twice a day. Overall SL has some areas that improve performance a lot but in every day use it doesn't feel *OMG* faster and the benches show why.
When I say multicore, I mean anything four core or MORE.
Can you provide a link that has information where four cores will benefit more than any multi-core processor?
Comments
It doesn't matter what you think the layout is for as the two goals are not exclusive of each other. The new MBP pretty much proves this point.
That is starting to sound like making excuses. Really it does.
Dave
They can be mutually exclusive adding into account the Apple imposed constraint of designing internal layouts in a thin desktop.
It's not excuses, it's acknowledging a compromise. I know, I agonized over my decision to purchase an iMac this year because of it's lack of easy expandability. I took into account my choices (a mini, a Mac Pro, a PC, a laptop) and ruled them out (not powerful or expandable enough, to expensive and big, ran Windows, wanted a larger screen) and was left with the iMac.
When Apple creates the hardware and software, and, as put in other posts, the "user experience" as well, it creates a harmonious, synergistic machine that is not only accelerated by the speed of your chip.
If anyone's forgotten, Snow Leopard is (as I think I remember reading) something like up to 2.5x faster than Leopard when performing certain tasks, which clues in to the importance of a powerful operating system. It doesn't matter if you had a 5 GHZ Windows machine; if the software bites and the components do not work well together like in a Mac, than your extra specs are virtually worthless.
Aside, Apple has always sought to shave thickness from all of its products, and so I don't see this as an exception. It would also be nice if an anti-glare option similar to that on the MBP was available in the next iMac for those of us who need accurate color and less eye strain.
If anyone's forgotten, Snow Leopard is (as I think I remember reading) something like up to 2.5x faster than Leopard when performing certain tasks, which clues in to the importance of a powerful operating system.
Put the cool aide down. You've had too much.
SL is faster than Leopard, but 2.5x faster at what? I've had both (SL and Leopard) and SL feels slightly faster than SL during everyday use. Its not like I got a new machine. And I've installed it on two Macs that had Leopard so I don't think my experience is unusual.
If Apple are looking to improve performance, they're going to need multicore (more than one and preferably more than two) processors. That''s how SL is designed to work faster.
I see what you mean about the longetivity of Apples, because apparently some people still use G4 computers! Obviously Apple drops support for a machine after so many years. Whether you buy a new machine or not, new features and improved design are also no doubt a tool used to attract new users as well as existing customers. Budget may be a concern for many people, but chances are that if one can buy a machine this year, you can buy one the year after next too; and let's face it: how can one resist a fresh Apple? Though expensive, it's a difficult entity to deny!
I see what you mean about the longetivity of Apples, because apparently some people still use G4 computers! Obviously Apple drops support for a machine after so many years. Whether you buy a new machine or not, new features and improved design are also no doubt a tool used to attract new users as well as existing customers. Budget may be a concern for many people, but chances are that if one can buy a machine this year, you can buy one the year after next too; and let's face it: how can one resist a fresh Apple? Though expensive, it's a difficult entity to deny!
You can resist one if it can't do what you want it to do.
Put the cool aide down. You've had too much.
SL is faster than Leopard, but 2.5x faster at what? I've had both (SL and Leopard) and SL feels slightly faster than SL during everyday use. Its not like I got a new machine. And I've installed it on two Macs that had Leopard so I don't think my experience is unusual.
If Apple are looking to improve performance, they're going to need multicore (more than one and preferably more than two) processors. That''s how SL is designed to work faster.
And that's the irony Snow Leopard, of all its advancements the only machine in Apple's lineup that can take real advantage of it is the Mac Pro. Dual core machines with lower end graphics and two SO-DIMM slots with real world maximum of 4GB of RAM (nobody is going to pay $650 for 8GB) are not going to take advantages of OpenCL, Grand Central Dispatch, or the 64-bit kernel.
Put the cool aide down. You've had too much.
SL is faster than Leopard, but 2.5x faster at what? I've had both (SL and Leopard) and SL feels slightly faster than SL during everyday use. Its not like I got a new machine. And I've installed it on two Macs that had Leopard so I don't think my experience is unusual.
If Apple are looking to improve performance, they're going to need multicore (more than one and preferably more than two) processors. That''s how SL is designed to work faster.
I'm not exactly sure what the "Cool Aide" thing refers to.
That aside, you'll notice that I posted that Snow Leopard is up to 2.5x faster while performing certain tasks. Make that 2.4x actually.
Quicktime X (a component of Snow Leopard I'd say) is up to 2.4x faster because of the OSs 64-bit performance, among other things. Safari 4 is up to 50% faster only when using Snow Leopard. When third party developers begin to write 64-bit Snow Leopard compatible software, significant performance boosts will be seen all around. Adobe AfterEffects CS4, for example, is supposed have a 250% performance gain on a 64-bit machine, which is extreme!
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/
So, there you have it. Software-based performance boosts (providing that there is a processor that supports 64-bits, which there is on all current Macs). Not to say that a pumped machine isn't important, but synergy among computer components and software is a massive factor, and it seems that Apple has introduced 64-bit performance and a Cocoa base into their OS shortly before the newly anticipated iMac release, not to mention the massive amounts of ram that Snow Leopard can now address (up to 16 billion GB, theoretically, that reads in the link above) which directly affects performance.
I'm not exactly sure what the "Cool Aide" thing refers to.
That aside, you'll notice that I posted that Snow Leopard is up to 2.5x faster while performing certain tasks. Make that 2.4x actually.
Quicktime X (a component of Snow Leopard I'd say) is up to 2.4x faster because of the OSs 64-bit performance, among other things. Safari 4 is up to 50% faster only when using Snow Leopard. When third party developers begin to write 64-bit Snow Leopard compatible software, significant performance boosts will be seen all around. Adobe AfterEffects CS4, for example, is supposed have a 250% performance gain on a 64-bit machine, which is extreme!
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/
So, there you have it. Software-based performance boosts (providing that there is a processor that supports 64-bits, which there is on all current Macs). Not to say that a pumped machine isn't important, but synergy among computer components and software is a massive factor, and it seems that Apple has introduced 64-bit performance and a Cocoa base into their OS shortly before the newly anticipated iMac release, not to mention the massive amounts of ram that Snow Leopard can now address (up to 16 billion GB, theoretically, that reads in the link above) which directly affects performance.
Thew 'cool aid' refers to the Apple propaganda. We all drink it around here, but it helps sometimes to have a friend tell you to put it down.
Look I don't deny that SL is faster than Leopard. But every upgrade of OSX has been faster than the previous one. Apple have chosen to trump this feature as they had little user facing changes to discuss.
And OSX has been able to run 64 bit apps since at least Tiger. SL has made the kernel 64 bit and available to some existing machines, but not all with 64 bit cpus.
I'm not ragging on SL. I have it on both my Macs and I like it. But the cpus is important when it comes to general performance and I still see the beach ball so I'd really like to see a higher performance in my Macs. That's only going to come from quad core and better cpu Macs. Why do you think they developed Grand Central Dispatch?
You can resist one if it can't do what you want it to do.
And that's the irony Snow Leopard, of all its advancements the only machine in Apple's lineup that can take real advantage of it is the Mac Pro. Dual core machines with lower end graphics and two SO-DIMM slots with real world maximum of 4GB of RAM (nobody is going to pay $650 for 8GB) are not going to take advantages of OpenCL, Grand Central Dispatch, or the 64-bit kernel.
Every Mac takes maybe 10 minutes to upgrade the ram with cheap after market memory. $100 bucks and your done, even on the iMac and the Mini.
Thew 'cool aid' refers to the Apple propaganda. We all drink it around here, but it helps sometimes to have a friend tell you to put it down.
Look I don't deny that SL is faster than Leopard. But every upgrade of OSX has been faster than the previous one. Apple have chosen to trump this feature as they had little user facing changes to discuss.
And OSX has been able to run 64 bit apps since at least Tiger. SL has made the kernel 64 bit and available to some existing machines, but not all with 64 bit cpus.
I'm not ragging on SL. I have it on both my Macs and I like it. But the cpus is important when it comes to general performance and I still see the beach ball so I'd really like to see a higher performance in my Macs. That's only going to come from quad core and better cpu Macs. Why do you think they developed Grand Central Dispatch?
You do realize that many of the advancements in SL won't be realized until the applications are written to take advantage of it. That said there are immediate differences in speed (yes some even 2.5 times faster than under leopard). The difference is very noticeable.
That said, a faster processor in any Mac is always a welcome sight
Thew 'cool aid' refers to the Apple propaganda. We all drink it around here, but it helps sometimes to have a friend tell you to put it down.
Look I don't deny that SL is faster than Leopard. But every upgrade of OSX has been faster than the previous one. Apple have chosen to trump this feature as they had little user facing changes to discuss.
And OSX has been able to run 64 bit apps since at least Tiger. SL has made the kernel 64 bit and available to some existing machines, but not all with 64 bit cpus.
I'm not ragging on SL. I have it on both my Macs and I like it. But the cpus is important when it comes to general performance and I still see the beach ball so I'd really like to see a higher performance in my Macs. That's only going to come from quad core and better cpu Macs. Why do you think they developed Grand Central Dispatch?
Haha yeah, I guess you're right. That is the purpose of Grand Central Dispatch. I mean, it's true that a Quad core configuration in a new iMac is the most obvious forward step left to be taken in terms of any major performance boosting. That would be very nice.
You do realize that many of the advancements in SL won't be realized until the applications are written to take advantage of it.
Sure I do. But my whole point is that SL is no panacea for performance improvements. Some would have you believe or at least imply that dual core on SL is better than 4 core machines on windows, or Leopard. I don't believe that to be true. The benefit of SL is its ability to utilize more than 2 core cpus. You know the kind only found on Mac Pros. Without multicore cpus, all the benefits of SL will never be realized.
That said there are immediate differences in speed (yes some even 2.5 times faster than under leopard). The difference is very noticeable.
I don't know where you guys are getting this. Are you only working in QuickTime X? And let's be honest. QuickTime X was rewritten from the ground up. It should be faster than the old QT which was an app that's been around with a few changes here and there for over a decade. Which apps haven't changed and run better under SL than they did under Leopard? Safari is the only one I've come across personally. It is much faster. SL is faster but it feels a lot like the difference in going from Tiger to Leopard IMO. Maybe a bit more, but no substantially different. Heck, CoD 4 actually has performed worse under SL than it did under Leopard for me.
Sure I do. But my whole point is that SL is no panacea for performance improvements. Some would have you believe or at least imply that dual core on SL is better than 4 core machines on windows, or Leopard. I don't believe that to be true. The benefit of SL is its ability to utilize more than 2 core cpus. You know the kind only found on Mac Pros. Without multicore cpus, all the benefits of SL will never be realized.
I don't know where you guys are getting this. Are you only working in QuickTime X? And let's be honest. QuickTime X was rewritten from the ground up. It should be faster than the old QT which was an app that's been around with a few changes here and there for over a decade. Which apps haven't changed and run better under SL than they did under Leopard? Safari is the only one I've come across personally. It is much faster. SL is faster but it feels a lot like the difference in going from Tiger to Leopard IMO. Maybe a bit more, but no substantially different. Heck, CoD 4 actually has performed worse under SL than it did under Leopard for me.
Third party benchmarks can be had all over the net:
http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/i...S&NewsID=27015
http://gizmodo.com/5345354/snow-leop...electedImage=1
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/17/s...ost-video-enc/
No one is saying (or I should say I'm not saying as i haven't read all of the replies..lol) that SL is noticeably faster.
I'm genuinely curious where this information is that SL will only really benefit quad core? This is the first I'm reading of it. Could you post a link I'd be interested in reading the technical details. From what I've ready, any multi-core processor will benefit, not just quad-core or an 8-core.
Third party benchmarks can be had all over the net:
http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/i...S&NewsID=27015
http://gizmodo.com/5345354/snow-leop...electedImage=1
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/17/s...ost-video-enc/
No one is saying (or I should say I'm not saying as i haven't read all of the replies..lol) that SL is noticeably faster.
I'm genuinely curious where this information is that SL will only really benefit quad core? This is the first I'm reading of it. Could you post a link I'd be interested in reading the technical details. From what I've ready, any multi-core processor will benefit, not just quad-core or an 8-core.
I’m with you. The idea that more cores equals better performance is not so cut and dry. Sure MAc OS X, especially SL, is designed to take advantage of extra cores more effectively, but when you find a quad-core that has the same TDP as a dual-core CPU you then have each core running more slowly. Depending on the type of processing going on one or the other can be more beneficial.
For the iMac, there is now the new low voltage desktop CPUs that Intel designed specifically for AIOs, which to means specifically designed with the iMac in mind. They run at 65W while the current iMac CPUs run at 44W. Apple would have to do some serious reworking of the iMac to make that work, but it would boost the performance quite bit while also being cheaper. However, that does not account for the fact that Apple uses the same CPUs for the iMac as they do for their notebooks so economics from bulk purchasing could be affected negatively, though I doubt that is really an issue.
For notebooks, it looks like dual-core is the way to go for the time being. The mobile i5s and i7s that are Quad-core are still at such low clock speeds. There will be some apps that can benefit from that but I think that most people will benefit from the faster dual-cores. There is also the marketing aspect of trying to sell a new Mac notebook with a clock speed at nearly half of what it was before and trying to get the average layperson to understand that it’s actually an improvement.
No one is saying (or I should say I'm not saying as i haven't read all of the replies..lol) that SL is noticeably faster.
Man I should drink more coffee before posting. I meant to say that SL is noticeably faster, but that doesn't it would overpower a quad core in Windows as a result.
Apparently I shouldn't try to multi-task this early in the morning either
Third party benchmarks can be had all over the net:
http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/i...S&NewsID=27015
http://gizmodo.com/5345354/snow-leop...electedImage=1
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/17/s...ost-video-enc/
The MW UK link really validates what I am saying. SL shows a marked improvement in three benches, Time Machine, Java script and shut down. In the other tests they were pretty even. Time machine is a background process. I'm glad its faster but I don't notice it much because it works in the background. The JS improvement explains the Safari improvements and you can feel it in every day use. The improvement in Shutdown doesn't really affect my overall use. Sure it makes a difference when I turn my machine off, but I leave my iMac on and in sleep mode and my MBP usually only gets shut down once or twice a day. Overall SL has some areas that improve performance a lot but in every day use it doesn't feel *OMG* faster and the benches show why.
...
I'm genuinely curious where this information is that SL will only really benefit quad core? This is the first I'm reading of it. Could you post a link I'd be interested in reading the technical details. From what I've ready, any multi-core processor will benefit, not just quad-core or an 8-core.
When I say multicore, I mean anything four core or MORE.
I?m with you. The idea that more cores equals better performance is not so cut and dry. Sure MAc OS X, especially SL, is designed to take advantage of extra cores more effectively, but when you find a quad-core that has the same TDP as a dual-core CPU you then have each core running more slowly. Depending on the type of processing going on one or the other can be more beneficial.
For the iMac, there is now the new low voltage desktop CPUs that Intel designed specifically for AIOs, which to means specifically designed with the iMac in mind. They run at 65W while the current iMac CPUs run at 44W. ....
That's why many of us are fired up about Nehalem. When cores aren't being use the cores that are in use can run at a higher clock speed. That's the benefit of Turbo Boost, there isn't a compromise in having many cores. Cores turn on and off depending on use requirements and clock speed is maximized.
The low voltage desk top cpus are nice but at this point I think the Nehalems are a better choice.
That's why many of us are fired up about Nehalem. When cores aren't being use the cores that are in use can run at a higher clock speed. That's the benefit of Turbo Boost, there isn't a compromise in having many cores. Cores turn on and off depending on use requirements and clock speed is maximized.
The low voltage desk top cpus are nice but at this point I think the Nehalems are a better choice.
Then I approve, but is the TDP low enough to be a good fit for Apple?s current line up? There was a patent awhile back regarding a special cooling unit, but the simplest answer seems that Apple will use chips in the iMacs that are about equal to the current wattage they use now. You know Apple?s obsession with thinness.
Then I approve, but is the TDP low enough to be a good fit for Apple?s current line up? There was a patent awhile back regarding a special cooling unit, but the simplest answer seems that Apple will use chips in the iMacs that are about equal to the current wattage they use now. You know Apple?s obsession with thinness.
No TDP is an issue.
I have an iMac and while the thinness is nice, I'd easily take an extra inch of thickness to accommodate an i5 cpu. I hope Apple agrees with me but I'm not holding my breath.
For the iMac, there is now the new low voltage desktop CPUs that Intel designed specifically for AIOs, which to means specifically designed with the iMac in mind. They run at 65W while the current iMac CPUs run at 44W. Apple would have to do some serious reworking of the iMac to make that work, but it would boost the performance quite bit while also being cheaper. However, that does not account for the fact that Apple uses the same CPUs for the iMac as they do for their notebooks so economics from bulk purchasing could be affected negatively, though I doubt that is really an issue.
The problem is whether Apple would be willing to redesign it for hotter CPUs. Making it thicker I don't think is an option for the current design team. The form to them is more important than the function.
For notebooks, it looks like dual-core is the way to go for the time being. The mobile i5s and i7s that are Quad-core are still at such low clock speeds. There will be some apps that can benefit from that but I think that most people will benefit from the faster dual-cores. There is also the marketing aspect of trying to sell a new Mac notebook with a clock speed at nearly half of what it was before and trying to get the average layperson to understand that it’s actually an improvement.
All arrandale and Clarksfield CPUs have turboboost. Just list booth the single thread and dual thread speeds. The people who want a dual core are going to know about the chip and most of the rest just take Apple's word without question anyway.
The MW UK link really validates what I am saying. SL shows a marked improvement in three benches, Time Machine, Java script and shut down. In the other tests they were pretty even. Time machine is a background process. I'm glad its faster but I don't notice it much because it works in the background. The JS improvement explains the Safari improvements and you can feel it in every day use. The improvement in Shutdown doesn't really affect my overall use. Sure it makes a difference when I turn my machine off, but I leave my iMac on and in sleep mode and my MBP usually only gets shut down once or twice a day. Overall SL has some areas that improve performance a lot but in every day use it doesn't feel *OMG* faster and the benches show why.
When I say multicore, I mean anything four core or MORE.
Can you provide a link that has information where four cores will benefit more than any multi-core processor?