I know the processors support it, it would not be unprecedented for a company to disable them for some reason though. Apple does not mention it on the product page, unlike other macs.
So do these things have Hyperthreading and Turbo Boost or not? Looking at that score, I'm thinking HT might be enabled as GB gives a big boost to any processor with it.
Only the i7s have Turbo Boost and Hyperthreading not these i5s. WRONG.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronTed
I say that is a bargain!!! MacBook Pro performance at $999!
$899 for the 2.7 GHz Dual Core i7 with AMD graphics capable of driving 3 monitors - confirmed with Apple Sales this morning - 2 daisy chained out the Thunderbolt port plus 1 out the HDMI port. The Quad Core i7 is a no go because it has no AMD graphics assist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
I'm not sure about Turbo Boost, but I believe the Minis do have Hyperthreading.
The $899 2.7 GHz i7 has both Turbo Boost up to 3.4 GHz and Hyperthreading - dual threads per core - but not these i5s. WRONG
So all these reports don't even include what is likely to be the fastest Mini of all which I, a long time Mac Pro kind of guy, am seriously thinking of pulling the trigger on soon.
Will someone please post what you gain from the i7 processor besides the 200 MHz difference in speed? There's gotta be something else or they wouldn't call it an i7 instead of just a faster i5. I see 4MB vs 3MB cache difference. Does that matter? And the i5 doesn't include Intel Insider. The retail price difference is $121. I did a comparison setup on the Intel website and could only find those two differences. Anyone know what Intel Insider is?
Conclusion: the $799 Mac Mini is the way to go unless an extra 1MB in the cache makes a difference.
Yeah it doesn't really pay to get the top of the line, does it? It's the same story oh the desktop side; this year's iMac is matching or besting last years Mac Pro. I find myself buying cheaper and cheaper Macs, even though my needs are becoming more and more demanding. My first Mac was a $2,500 blue and white G3, and now I'm considering a $799 Mac Mini!
There was a time when systems struggled to keep up. So it was important to acquire as much power as possible.
What would be interesting is to determine what the new Mini in it's most powerful form stacks up against looking at Mac Pro performance historically. By that I mean how far back in the Pro range do you go to arrive at the numbers delivered now by the new Mini. Three years? Four years? Less? More?
By the way, a good combination, I think would be a Mini desktop plus something portable but lower cost like the entry-level Air or the iPad. I'm heading in that direction.
That's 11%. You're (presumably) looking at the difference in results between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Geekbench. The difference seen between the 32-bit and 64-bit Darwin kernel is less - on the order of 1-2% IIRC.
I would say so, also a fresh instal of Lion so there may have been some spotlight indexing running in the background.
I should have run both versions before doing the lion install but did not think to do that.
I know the processors support it, it would not be unprecedented for a company to disable them for some reason though. Apple does not mention it on the product page, unlike other macs.
My guess is the detail of HT or TB isn't really that relevant to the target market.
OS X uses the Turbo Boost as it can request P0 access, I can't see why they'd disable those code requests for an Air specifically. Would certainly add an unnecessary overhead to execution, if nothing else.
I'll never buy a MacBook Pro again, next time I'll get a MacBook Air and replace it more often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer
Yeah it doesn't really pay to get the top of the line, does it? It's the same story oh the desktop side; this year's iMac is matching or besting last years Mac Pro. I find myself buying cheaper and cheaper Macs, even though my needs are becoming more and more demanding. My first Mac was a $2,500 blue and white G3, and now I'm considering a $799 Mac Mini!
I'd be with you except my notebook is now going to be my main machine and I'd really like the high-res 15" screen for the number of pixels I need on screen for some tasks. Of course, I don't need those on the road generally, so a maxxed out 13" MBA (faster than any computer I've ever had, which, in practical if not ego terms, matters more to me than having the faster mobile computer ever, i.e., next year's 15" MBP) and the new monitor for my serious photoediting and multi-tasking at home could work.
And I do need a new notebook computer. Now. Maybe the iPad2 would meet those needs, but I see the iPad2 as a tweener model, and next year's as the first really mature iteration - just as I see this just released MBA as a mature iteration (TB, speed, backlit KB, Lion, etc. - all the main new things in the Apple PC world which aren't going to be obseleted for a bit.)
And then I could wait for, first the iPhone 5 and then the next gen iPad - and like another poster said, have all the devices I need for my full digital life circa 2012 style (not counting the stationary monitor at home (with peripheral optical and hard drives) in less than five pounds of gear - all tied together by Lion, iOS 5 and iCloud. And get all three of the high end models of each for ~$3,000 (again not including the big monitor).
So, yeah, since I don't do high-end video editing or gaming, you guys definitely have a point - and Apple will probably garner at least as much revenue if users like you follow that model.
Hmmmmmm........
.....I was thinking a 15" MBP next spring, but now I'm thinking why wait?
...unless the next phone would tide me over with enough ubiquitous mobile net.... ...'cos that new TB monitor's a bit spendy and the 15" screen could do me for a year.
Decisions, decisions. But hey, at least between attractive alternatives......
For the longest time computers have been getting faster to run programs faster. At the same time programmers have been making programs more complex thus requiring faster computers. New programs don't always work well on two year old hardware. Last year I recall someone who is a programmer comment that many programmers are lazy these days and don't try to optimize their code to run at the maximum efficiency.
Right now technology is producing better hardware which handles the latest programs faster. Eventually the hardware will outstrip the bloat of programming largess. Only voice recognition, artificial intelligence, and holographic output will demand higher processing speed. When it comes down to it, there is only so much horsepower needed to do a spread sheet or play video games.
Social media will be a new challenge with incorporating multiple windows of video chats simultaneously. Right now my 2008 2.4 GHz Mac has trouble with just one pair of videos playing.
I'll never buy a MacBook Pro again, next time I'll get a MacBook Air and replace it more often.
I'm very happy to see these benchmarks because they show the beginning of the end of the belief that MBAs can't be used for anything serious. It will be hard to completely eradicate that belief, but it's just a matter of time, and these benchmarks mark the start point.
Regarding your post stating you won't buy a MBP again, if you say it because you dislike how soon a new machine can outperform a previous one, take also into consideration that if you want a powerful MBA it's not cheap. For example, if you want an MBA with a performance as close as possible to an MBP, it costs $1700 (because in that case you want the best processor and you also really need the 256GB SSD).
In the case of users needing a powerful MBA, it's not a $900 machine, so don't see it as a machine you replace everymonth.
I bought my late 2010 MBA 4 months ago (top configuration: not cheap at all) and I'm really satisfied with its performance, which will be more than adequate for my needs of at least a couple of years. I won't buy a MBA every year, but every 2, 3 or 4 years.
I'll never buy a MacBook Pro again, next time I'll get a MacBook Air and replace it more often.
i thought the same thing until i was unhappy with the USB dongle for etherent. the performance stinks with that thing. when you travel with a laptop, some places you go (businesses) only offer lan to hook into.
maybe one day there will be a thunderbolt ethernet adapter.....
I wonder how well the base Mini's graphics speed compare to the Nivida in the outgoing model? The Intel Graphics chips have never impressed me much.....
I have the latest MBP 13" with the 2.7Ghz i7 processor. The system is very fast, but the integrated Intel Graphics chips really hamper the video performance. My old 2.66Mhz Core Duo with the Nivida GT enabled can easy out pace it when running graphics intensive applications...
Why won't Apple sell me the quad-core 2Ghz i7 Mac Mini with the Radeon 6630M graphics and a single hard drive? Do they not like my money?
They like your money, but it's your... ...soul... ...they're really after. (And maybe they already have it, bwahh, hah, hah....).
It is amazing that the company that does the least consumer pre-product wish-list surveys and feature/form-factor testing (zero, zip, nada zilch of either), AND which carefully restricts its SKU's to a precious few - all of which are always missing something that's whizzing many to most (gear-head) buyers off (either because they're "saving" it or "perfecting" it for the next iteration or have already dropped it) has been such a consistently amazing sales growth powerhouse for the last decade....
...so I dunno bout souls, really, but some kinda 'streme secret sauce is involved.....
They like your money, but it's your... ...soul... ...they're really after. (And maybe they already have it, bwahh, hah, hah....).
It is amazing that the company that does the least consumer pre-product wish-list surveys and feature/form-factor testing (zero, zip, nada zilch of either), AND which carefully restricts its SKU's to a precious few - all of which are always missing something that's whizzing many to most (gear-head) buyers off (either because they're "saving" it or "perfecting" it for the next iteration or have already dropped it) has been such a consistently amazing sales growth powerhouse for the last decade....
...so I dunno bout souls, really, but some kinda 'streme secret sauce is involved.....
I'm pretty sure the've had my soul in a jar for over a decade now
You're implying that, based on their huge financial success, Apple knows best? I'll agree that Apple knows whats best for themselves, but not always their customers. And I don't think it's a gear head request; any smart shopper could compare the high-end Mac Mini and the entry-level iMac and realize that for a few-hundred more they get about four times the computer. I believe the Mac Mini still exists almost solely to make the iMac look like a great deal; I imagine the only reason the Mac Mini can now be had with a graphics card or quad processors but not both is because such a machine would actually be of value and therefore cannibalize iMac sales.
In fact if you add three of the things the Mac Mini is missing compared to the iMac (7200rpm drive, superdrive, magic trackpad) you're only $102 short of an iMac. Apple has intentionally positioned the Mac Mini to where it makes zero financial sense.
Comments
Both HT and TB.
http://ark.intel.com/products/54620/...ache-1_70-GHz)
I know the processors support it, it would not be unprecedented for a company to disable them for some reason though. Apple does not mention it on the product page, unlike other macs.
So do these things have Hyperthreading and Turbo Boost or not? Looking at that score, I'm thinking HT might be enabled as GB gives a big boost to any processor with it.
Only the i7s have Turbo Boost and Hyperthreading not these i5s. WRONG.
I say that is a bargain!!! MacBook Pro performance at $999!
$899 for the 2.7 GHz Dual Core i7 with AMD graphics capable of driving 3 monitors - confirmed with Apple Sales this morning - 2 daisy chained out the Thunderbolt port plus 1 out the HDMI port. The Quad Core i7 is a no go because it has no AMD graphics assist.
I'm not sure about Turbo Boost, but I believe the Minis do have Hyperthreading.
The $899 2.7 GHz i7 has both Turbo Boost up to 3.4 GHz and Hyperthreading - dual threads per core - but not these i5s. WRONG
So all these reports don't even include what is likely to be the fastest Mini of all which I, a long time Mac Pro kind of guy, am seriously thinking of pulling the trigger on soon.
I stand corrected. Looks like 2nd Gen i5s do have both Turbo Boost and Hyperthreading. 2.5 Boosts to 3.2 GHz. 2.7 i7 Boosts to 3.4 GHz. So what does one gain by getting the top of the line Dual Core i7 besides a very small speed bump? Anyone? It seems like i7 means something more than just the i5 speed difference doesn't it?
Will someone please post what you gain from the i7 processor besides the 200 MHz difference in speed? There's gotta be something else or they wouldn't call it an i7 instead of just a faster i5. I see 4MB vs 3MB cache difference. Does that matter? And the i5 doesn't include Intel Insider. The retail price difference is $121. I did a comparison setup on the Intel website and could only find those two differences. Anyone know what Intel Insider is?
Conclusion: the $799 Mac Mini is the way to go unless an extra 1MB in the cache makes a difference.
Yeah it doesn't really pay to get the top of the line, does it? It's the same story oh the desktop side; this year's iMac is matching or besting last years Mac Pro. I find myself buying cheaper and cheaper Macs, even though my needs are becoming more and more demanding. My first Mac was a $2,500 blue and white G3, and now I'm considering a $799 Mac Mini!
There was a time when systems struggled to keep up. So it was important to acquire as much power as possible.
What would be interesting is to determine what the new Mini in it's most powerful form stacks up against looking at Mac Pro performance historically. By that I mean how far back in the Pro range do you go to arrive at the numbers delivered now by the new Mini. Three years? Four years? Less? More?
By the way, a good combination, I think would be a Mini desktop plus something portable but lower cost like the entry-level Air or the iPad. I'm heading in that direction.
That's 11%. You're (presumably) looking at the difference in results between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Geekbench. The difference seen between the 32-bit and 64-bit Darwin kernel is less - on the order of 1-2% IIRC.
I would say so, also a fresh instal of Lion so there may have been some spotlight indexing running in the background.
I should have run both versions before doing the lion install but did not think to do that.
*derp*
I know the processors support it, it would not be unprecedented for a company to disable them for some reason though. Apple does not mention it on the product page, unlike other macs.
My guess is the detail of HT or TB isn't really that relevant to the target market.
OS X uses the Turbo Boost as it can request P0 access, I can't see why they'd disable those code requests for an Air specifically. Would certainly add an unnecessary overhead to execution, if nothing else.
I'll never buy a MacBook Pro again, next time I'll get a MacBook Air and replace it more often.
Yeah it doesn't really pay to get the top of the line, does it? It's the same story oh the desktop side; this year's iMac is matching or besting last years Mac Pro. I find myself buying cheaper and cheaper Macs, even though my needs are becoming more and more demanding. My first Mac was a $2,500 blue and white G3, and now I'm considering a $799 Mac Mini!
I'd be with you except my notebook is now going to be my main machine and I'd really like the high-res 15" screen for the number of pixels I need on screen for some tasks. Of course, I don't need those on the road generally, so a maxxed out 13" MBA (faster than any computer I've ever had, which, in practical if not ego terms, matters more to me than having the faster mobile computer ever, i.e., next year's 15" MBP) and the new monitor for my serious photoediting and multi-tasking at home could work.
And I do need a new notebook computer. Now. Maybe the iPad2 would meet those needs, but I see the iPad2 as a tweener model, and next year's as the first really mature iteration - just as I see this just released MBA as a mature iteration (TB, speed, backlit KB, Lion, etc. - all the main new things in the Apple PC world which aren't going to be obseleted for a bit.)
And then I could wait for, first the iPhone 5 and then the next gen iPad - and like another poster said, have all the devices I need for my full digital life circa 2012 style (not counting the stationary monitor at home (with peripheral optical and hard drives) in less than five pounds of gear - all tied together by Lion, iOS 5 and iCloud. And get all three of the high end models of each for ~$3,000 (again not including the big monitor).
So, yeah, since I don't do high-end video editing or gaming, you guys definitely have a point - and Apple will probably garner at least as much revenue if users like you follow that model.
Hmmmmmm........
.....I was thinking a 15" MBP next spring, but now I'm thinking why wait?
...unless the next phone would tide me over with enough ubiquitous mobile net.... ...'cos that new TB monitor's a bit spendy and the 15" screen could do me for a year.
Decisions, decisions. But hey, at least between attractive alternatives......
Right now technology is producing better hardware which handles the latest programs faster. Eventually the hardware will outstrip the bloat of programming largess. Only voice recognition, artificial intelligence, and holographic output will demand higher processing speed. When it comes down to it, there is only so much horsepower needed to do a spread sheet or play video games.
Social media will be a new challenge with incorporating multiple windows of video chats simultaneously. Right now my 2008 2.4 GHz Mac has trouble with just one pair of videos playing.
Now you see what I mean about them all being so similar?
I'll never buy a MacBook Pro again, next time I'll get a MacBook Air and replace it more often.
I'm very happy to see these benchmarks because they show the beginning of the end of the belief that MBAs can't be used for anything serious. It will be hard to completely eradicate that belief, but it's just a matter of time, and these benchmarks mark the start point.
Regarding your post stating you won't buy a MBP again, if you say it because you dislike how soon a new machine can outperform a previous one, take also into consideration that if you want a powerful MBA it's not cheap. For example, if you want an MBA with a performance as close as possible to an MBP, it costs $1700 (because in that case you want the best processor and you also really need the 256GB SSD).
In the case of users needing a powerful MBA, it's not a $900 machine, so don't see it as a machine you replace everymonth.
I bought my late 2010 MBA 4 months ago (top configuration: not cheap at all) and I'm really satisfied with its performance, which will be more than adequate for my needs of at least a couple of years. I won't buy a MBA every year, but every 2, 3 or 4 years.
Cheers!
I'll never buy a MacBook Pro again, next time I'll get a MacBook Air and replace it more often.
i thought the same thing until i was unhappy with the USB dongle for etherent. the performance stinks with that thing. when you travel with a laptop, some places you go (businesses) only offer lan to hook into.
maybe one day there will be a thunderbolt ethernet adapter.....
I have the latest MBP 13" with the 2.7Ghz i7 processor. The system is very fast, but the integrated Intel Graphics chips really hamper the video performance. My old 2.66Mhz Core Duo with the Nivida GT enabled can easy out pace it when running graphics intensive applications...
Maybe that have gotten better lately....
Why won't Apple sell me the quad-core 2Ghz i7 Mac Mini with the Radeon 6630M graphics and a single hard drive? Do they not like my money?
Get a MacPro. That will last you longer as it's easier to upgrade, on more internals as well, including the motherboard and CPU.
Get a MacPro. That will last you longer as it's easier to upgrade, on more internals as well, including the motherboard and CPU.
Let me go get something to drink so that I can snort it out of my nose all over everything.
Why won't Apple sell me the quad-core 2Ghz i7 Mac Mini with the Radeon 6630M graphics and a single hard drive? Do they not like my money?
They like your money, but it's your... ...soul... ...they're really after. (And maybe they already have it, bwahh, hah, hah....).
It is amazing that the company that does the least consumer pre-product wish-list surveys and feature/form-factor testing (zero, zip, nada zilch of either), AND which carefully restricts its SKU's to a precious few - all of which are always missing something that's whizzing many to most (gear-head) buyers off (either because they're "saving" it or "perfecting" it for the next iteration or have already dropped it) has been such a consistently amazing sales growth powerhouse for the last decade....
...so I dunno bout souls, really, but some kinda 'streme secret sauce is involved.....
They like your money, but it's your... ...soul... ...they're really after. (And maybe they already have it, bwahh, hah, hah....).
It is amazing that the company that does the least consumer pre-product wish-list surveys and feature/form-factor testing (zero, zip, nada zilch of either), AND which carefully restricts its SKU's to a precious few - all of which are always missing something that's whizzing many to most (gear-head) buyers off (either because they're "saving" it or "perfecting" it for the next iteration or have already dropped it) has been such a consistently amazing sales growth powerhouse for the last decade....
...so I dunno bout souls, really, but some kinda 'streme secret sauce is involved.....
I'm pretty sure the've had my soul in a jar for over a decade now
You're implying that, based on their huge financial success, Apple knows best? I'll agree that Apple knows whats best for themselves, but not always their customers. And I don't think it's a gear head request; any smart shopper could compare the high-end Mac Mini and the entry-level iMac and realize that for a few-hundred more they get about four times the computer. I believe the Mac Mini still exists almost solely to make the iMac look like a great deal; I imagine the only reason the Mac Mini can now be had with a graphics card or quad processors but not both is because such a machine would actually be of value and therefore cannibalize iMac sales.
In fact if you add three of the things the Mac Mini is missing compared to the iMac (7200rpm drive, superdrive, magic trackpad) you're only $102 short of an iMac. Apple has intentionally positioned the Mac Mini to where it makes zero financial sense.