Hands on with the Intel p4 & OS X (merged)

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Okay the xbench tests going around are misleading. I played with the OS X Intel Dev kit here at WWDC and I have to say it feels FAST. It feels faster than the dual 2.7ghz g5.



Ignore the benchmarks posted so far, while there isn't lots to test, all Apple's apps are on it, and they are faster on the single 3.6 than the dual processor. You know sometimes how you see the rainbow beachball? I never saw it once on the Intel system. Windows snap, the finder is faster, and iphoto even is faster. Safari screams, it's snappy it feels like using IE on windows....



Window resizing is much faster on the 3.6ghz box. I think for day to day things, browsing, mail, internet a single 3.6 is faster than a dual machine (probably great for processing photoshop)....



Can't wait to see a 3.8 or a dual core intel chip.



So far this thing is very fast, and it feels fast. Feels like OS X got the speeds it's needed all this time. Fast OS but it feels underpowered on the g5.
«13456789

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 174
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Aren't those xbench benchmarks run through rosetta? Those OS actions you're talking about are native Intel, but what about the Apple apps like iPhoto? Are they rosetta or native? My impression was that they were native, because he demonstrated them when he was talking about the OS being native. When he talked about rosetta he used Word and Excel.



    But it's good to hear that things are fast on even this test machine.
  • Reply 2 of 174
    addisonaddison Posts: 1,185member
    It is highly likely that all the apps on the Intel Macs with developers are made with FAT binaries. If a developer re-compiles his applications using the new xcode then the developer will have an idea of the true performance levels.



    Feel can be misleading. I have a Celereon 300 Laptop and it fells mush faster at browsing than my DP2.5 G5, but I wouldn't even attempt to edit video with it.
  • Reply 3 of 174
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    Anyone remember in the dark days of the G4, circa 2000-2003, when Steve used to demo OS X at macworlds and WWDC and it seemed unusally snappy? What if Steve was using intel machines for the demos, right under our noses?
  • Reply 4 of 174
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Addison

    It is highly likely that all the apps on the Intel Macs with developers are made with FAT binaries. If a developer re-compiles his applications using the new xcode then the developer will have an idea of the true performance levels.



    Feel can be misleading. I have a Celereon 300 Laptop and it fells mush faster at browsing than my DP2.5 G5, but I wouldn't even attempt to edit video with it.




    Yep, until I see numbers I'll be skeptical of the speed claims. All the Xbench numbers show so far is that emulate performance isn't quite a rosy as some assumed. But anyone who's watched these kinds of demos before probably suspected that.



    Even if we had numbers, I'm sure things have the potential to speed up and/or slow down as development is finished on these machines.
  • Reply 5 of 174
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    I think it's also important to remember that Rosetta is nobody's idea of an ideal operating environment; it's clearly intended as a "back up" option so that any apps you're using that haven't been recompiled by the time the first Macintel ships will at least run.



    Under that scenario, "good enough" speeds are a lot more forgiving than what we would expect from native intel compiles.



    I could imagine a scenario where users start to put the heat on laggard developers when they get a chance to experience nice speed enhancements in a lot of their day to day apps but have to put up with Rosetta speeds for those that haven't been ported yet. And remember, a functioning piece of software at any level makes it much easier to download an "update", as opposed to not being able to load something at all and having to start from scratch, finding and paying full price for a new version.



    Again, not ideal, but a great deal better then "Hey, this stupid Apple/Intel thing just made half my software obsolete, I hate Jobs and I hate Apple!"
  • Reply 6 of 174
    But will half of the software be obsolete. Couldnt software vendors allow an auto-update to intel Mac versions of its software for those running the PPC version under Rosetta?
  • Reply 7 of 174
    webmailwebmail Posts: 639member
    Apple software is natively compiled. Every Apple application in the last 5 years has an Intel version. The intel board also has PCI express ;-)



    It's fast. I'd like one to replace my dual 2.5 ghz at home. For browsing and stuff it was much faster. "Snappier" is a bad word for it but it was noticably faster than the dual machine at the most common tasks...



    Did you notice how fast it was on spotlight and the stuff steve did on stage?
  • Reply 8 of 174
    rolandgrolandg Posts: 632member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by webmail

    Apple software is natively compiled. Every Apple application in the last 5 years has an Intel version. The intel board also has PCI express ;-)



    Can you tell (or even show us) a little more about the innards of the developer kits?
  • Reply 9 of 174
    deestardeestar Posts: 105member
    Could the speed thing be down to use of better compilers? GCC is better on X86 chips I believe and Intel's own Compilers are impressive as well.
  • Reply 10 of 174
    thereubsterthereubster Posts: 402member
    yeah any idea what the chipset is? 925, 945, 955? Is the P4 3.6 a 660? What does Apple System profilier say?!?!
  • Reply 11 of 174
    rolorolo Posts: 686member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by RolandG

    Can you tell (or even show us) a little more about the innards of the developer kits?



    You can see the innards here:



    PowerPage



  • Reply 12 of 174
    dhagan4755dhagan4755 Posts: 2,148member
    Holy shit! Look at all of that empty space!
  • Reply 13 of 174
    xdanielxdaniel Posts: 29member
    I think that photo may show part of the reason behind the switch... That case looks empty! That should allow Apple to make some very cool new computers.
  • Reply 14 of 174
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    The processor is the 660, but 64-bit isn't enabled...yet. The chipset is said to be the 915.
  • Reply 15 of 174
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by xdaniel

    I think that photo may show part of the reason behind the switch... That case looks empty! That should allow Apple to make some very cool new computers.



    The 1.8SP has a lot of empty space too. It's more or less just a MicroATX board in that case. If a dual xeon machine had been used instead, all that space would have been used it. Apple gave the developers enough computer to get everything done.
  • Reply 16 of 174
    I know this is only a base developer prototype, but the question in my mind persists on how or IF Apple will reconfigure the newest AI motherboards to handle the same 8 GB's of RAM available in the current Pro chassis?
  • Reply 17 of 174
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Beats me.
  • Reply 18 of 174
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,657member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DHagan4755

    Holy shit! Look at all of that empty space!



    That means two optical drives will fit in an even smaller case. At last!
  • Reply 19 of 174
    thereubsterthereubster Posts: 402member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

    I know this is only a base developer prototype, but the question in my mind persists on how or IF Apple will reconfigure the newest AI motherboards to handle the same 8 GB's of RAM available in the current Pro chassis?



    The latest Intel 955x chipset will accept 8 GB of ram, although it only has 4 slots. I imagine that in another year 2Gb and 4Gb DDR2 dimms will be considerably cheaper, so 8 or 16Gb will be possible and affordable, and 32Gb possible (but expensive, 8Gb dimms already exist)
  • Reply 20 of 174
    Holy butt f**k Batman!



    I just checked out the price of a single 2 GB registered PC3200 RAM stick at Crucial



    ONLY $950.99
Sign In or Register to comment.