Leopard already utilizes dual core machines efficiently. Grand Central is for more than 2 core machines. It is supposed to facilitate the use of machines with 4 cores or more. Open cl may be useful for machines with the current gpus. We'll know more as it gets closer to release.
I was talking about the GPUs, which weren't in the previous models, and which Grand Central doesn't really have much (anything?) to do with.
The new MacBooks already use the NVIDIA GPU to accelerate some H.264-related tasks. That should carry over to these new Minis and iMacs — and the number of Quicktime/video-related tasks that take advantage of GPU acceleration should increase greatly in Snow Leopard, as well… to say nothing of the applications which will, hopefully, also take advantage of GPU acceleration under OpenCL.
For $1400 less, I'll take my early 2008 Mac Pro over their new slower machine. The new GPU architecture is NOT going to make any difference with Leopard or SL over my 8800gt. Everything is already perfectly smooth and instant... what's to improve? If I can play COD 4 on full detail, I'm pretty sure this machine can handle coverflow.
I can live with the extra .001 of a second it takes to render my photoshop files on my 'old' Mac Pro.
These updates are a bust.
Apple's 'Switch' campaign is now targeted at their own users.
The benchmarks show that the new machines aren't going to be any faster than the ones they replace.
If you're happy with the current performance of the iMac and mini then fine. I'm not.
I expect more for the premium price that Apple demands with its products. I don't mind paying more but I don't want less for my money.
And you better read up on Snow Leopard because it's designed to leverage the power of machines with more than 2 cores. Leopard utilizes 2 cores rather well thank you. So don't make out SL to some magic code that'll turn dual core Macs into performance beasts because it likely will not.
So you have an Intel Mac with one core? Thats all your crying about?
Then any of the last generation or the present should represent to you a big leap in performance.
Last generation Macs has Intel Core Duo at least (multi core)
Yes Snow Leopard use a lot of multicore but did you read the OpenCL Part? if not I copy-paste the general idea straight from Apple's Snow Leopard web page to refresh your memory.
OpenCL
Another powerful Snow Leopard technology, OpenCL (Open Computing Language), makes it possible for developers to efficiently tap the vast gigaflops of computing power currently locked up in the graphics processing unit (GPU). With GPUs approaching processing speeds of a trillion operations per second, they’re capable of considerably more than just drawing pictures. OpenCL takes that power and redirects it for general-purpose computing.
So you have an Intel Mac with one core? Thats all your crying about?
Then any of the last generation or the present should represent to you a big leap in performance.
Last generation Macs has Intel Core Duo at least (multi core)
Yes Snow Leopard use a lot of multicore but did you read the OpenCL Part? if not I copy-paste the general idea straight from Apple's Snow Leopard web page to refresh your memory.
OpenCL
Another powerful Snow Leopard technology, OpenCL (Open Computing Language), makes it possible for developers to efficiently tap the vast gigaflops of computing power currently locked up in the graphics processing unit (GPU). With GPUs approaching processing speeds of a trillion operations per second, they?re capable of considerably more than just drawing pictures. OpenCL takes that power and redirects it for general-purpose computing.
Yes I'm aware of open cl.
I hope that its a great as you expect it to be. Time will tell.
So contrary to some post here I support your position that Apple doesn't care as the IMac update is disgusting! They have this vast and ever widening gulf between the performance of the iMac and the high end with the Mac Pro. If you need or want something that is not two to three years behind PC performance you are pretty much out of luck. To the detractors that wish to respond yes it is now two to three years behind as Apple has overlooked both Penryn and i7 based machines and is effectively now using CPUs that are very old laptop parts. One can only hope for Apples sake that these machines are short term improvements.
This is fairly dramatic. What benchmarks have you seen showing the iMac two or three years behind. The iMac is using Penryn parts.
Quote:
Of course they aren't short term machines as they are using new Nvidia system chips. In my mind this means the platform will be around a lot longer than is reasonable. I really hope that Apple has something more up its sleeves that is due out very soon.
Dave
Yes what would be the point of bringing out the "new hotness" in the middle of a bad recession. It's likely Apple will wait for mobile Nelehem for a big iMac update.
These functions you list are somewhat of a running target. As quickly as hardware is improved, software is made as equally as demanding. It never really comes to a point of equalization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
Hell yes!
I use my machine. Have you ever encoded a home made movie with iDVD to watch on a TV?
Give that a try and come back and tell us if you wouldn't want a faster processor.
Have you heard of the new image stabilization feature in iMovie? People run that OVERNIGHT because it can take so long.
Heave you heard of Handbrake? Try ripping a DVD to watch on an iPhone or iPod touch and see how long that takes.
OK. I came in late on this thread, but from what I can gather, it appears that these benchmark scores and pathetic cosmetic changes (or no changes -mini -), mean that Apple's industrial design team and engineers are on a leave of absence or not disciplined enough without Steve there cracking the whip?
I mean, really, is all I have to look forward to now for the balance of the year is the 3rd gen iPhone? Oh man.
The article clearly stated these benchmarks are only for the CPU and not the entire system performance. They did not test video encoding or DVD burning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
The benchmarks show that the new machines aren't going to be any faster than the ones they replace.
If you're happy with the current performance of the iMac and mini then fine. I'm not.
These functions you list are somewhat of a running target. As quickly as hardware is improved, software is made as equally as demanding. It never really comes to a point of equalization.
Low power desktop quad core cpus (for the iMac, probably couldn't be made to work in a mini).
Mobile quad core cpus. I admit this choice isn't as appealing as the low power desk top cpus which come in speeds that are nearly as fast as the dual core cpus already in the iMac.
Sure software is a moving target in that it continues to get more demanding of cpu power. But that's a good thing for Apple and pc makers in general. It gives users a reason to get new and faster machines. Right now the HW seems ahead of the SW. At least in the case of > 4 core machines.
But eventually Apple and MS will harness this power and people won't remember how they lived without it.
The article clearly stated these benchmarks are only for the CPU and not the entire system performance. They did not test video encoding or DVD burning.
Video encoding is done by the cpu isn't it? At least with HB it is. I imagine its the same with iDVD.
Or it could mean Apple doesn't want to launch a major change in the middle of a severe world economic recession. Apple will likely wait until the end of the recession to launch a major change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyokuro
OK. I came in late on this thread, but from what I can gather, it appears that these benchmark scores and pathetic cosmetic changes (or no changes -mini -), mean that Apple's industrial design team and engineers are on a leave of absence or not disciplined enough without Steve there cracking the whip.
I mean, really, is all I have to look forward to now for the balance of the year is the 3rd gen iPhone? Oh man.
Or it could mean Apple doesn't want to launch a major change in the middle of a severe world economic recession. Apple will likely wait until the end of the recession to launch a major change.
Good point, however with Billions in cash, I think Apple has the resources to bring more to the table than this and still make it affordable. Something is going on.....
mean that Apple's industrial design team and engineers are on a leave of absence or not disciplined enough without Steve there cracking the whip?
Do you honestly think that all these machines went from drawing board to production in the few weeks that Jobs announced his hiatus? If you really think that, then " Apple's industrial design team and engineers" have been impossibly busy since took his leave.
Do you honestly think that all these machines went from drawing board to production in the few weeks that Jobs announced his hiatus? Jobs was well aware of these updates long before he took his leave.
I don't think there was a drawing board. From the looks of things they used the same hardware, while only updating the insides a bit. Jobs may have given the go ahead for this decision, but why?
Apple essentially offered a slight bump at a lower cost. Their is no reason for them to use their savings to sell more machines during an economic crisis.
They are likely using their savings to maintain operations by not cutting services or laying people off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyokuro
Good point, however with Billions in cash, I think Apple has the resources to bring more to the table than this and still make it affordable. Something is going on.....
Do you honestly think that all these machines went from drawing board to production in the few weeks that Jobs announced his hiatus? If you really think that, then " Apple's industrial design team and engineers" have been impossibly busy since took his leave.
Maybe not, but on the other hand should we also believe, as another member posted, that Apple is merely holding back because of the world-wide recession? Should we be expected to be that naive?
... this release of hardware is pretty much a NON-UPGRADE, except in the case of the Min which is actually a fairly solid update. Even on the Mini though they could have managed a bit more clock rate on the high end model. Lets face it separating two models by a measly 0.2 Giggle Hertz is pretty stupid.
... Apple doesn't care as the IMac update is disgusting! ... yes it is now two to three years behind as Apple has overlooked both Penryn and i7 based machines and is effectively now using CPUs that are very old laptop parts. One can only hope for Apples sake that these machines are short term improvements.
...I really hope that Apple has something more up its sleeves that is due out very soon. - Dave
(I could have included more quotes,,,
Lots of interesting comments.
I tend to agree with those who point out that this iMac update is barely marginal. I was hoping to replace my expired iMac, but looks like a dubious proposition now.
I am saddened by Apple's continued policy/habit of releasing relatively modest desktop updates. As if buffing it up (so to speak), and that stand wedgie (be still my heart), and boosting cpu and graphics by some tiny percentage will bring in droves of new iMac buyers.
Yes, more standard RAM is good, and slightly more MHz is good. Slightly better price curve is good. Word is not yet in on newer shared graphic vs. older dedicated. Throwing away a Firewire port is bad. And rolling this out approximately one year after last revision and trumpeting it as their latest and greatest -- it is all ludicrous. And so sad.
Their vision seems to be gone.
Maybe its just about being able to have a new Marketing Campaign - to be able to advertise New, Improved, Finally Available...
(I can't speak to the Mac Pro, as it has always been out of my price and need range.)
The one bright improvement seems to be the low-end Mac mini, which now is a bit better performing, with more memory, more HD, better CPU speed, and now comes with DVD writer, rather than the Combo drive (CD-RW, DVD-RO) in last year's -- I mean two years ago -- model.
From where I stand the new low-end mini seems to be the only decent improvement and value for $$$. I am putting one onto my wish list. Maybe it will keep me Mac-happy till ...
I too hope that there is some major iMac revamp later this year when the newer Intel architecture is available. One can hope, anyway.
The only thing these tests show is that the test itself was pointless. They are basically saying that the same processor architecture running at the same speed will yield about the same results. Well, no sh*t! The actually did say that the new Macs were in fact faster than the previous ones, but only in proportion to their clock speed increases. Again, shocker.
They tested absolutely nothing that was upgraded: graphics, hard drive, RAM. They say you are better off buying the previous generation as if FW800 and wi-fi N on the mini wasn't a consideration, or the increased RAM capacity. So basically, yes, buy the previous generation if the only thing you are ever going to run on it is a faceless application that can reside entirely in the CPUs cache. Was there even a point to the test, other than to prove that they can run a pointless test?
Comments
Leopard already utilizes dual core machines efficiently. Grand Central is for more than 2 core machines. It is supposed to facilitate the use of machines with 4 cores or more. Open cl may be useful for machines with the current gpus. We'll know more as it gets closer to release.
I was talking about the GPUs, which weren't in the previous models, and which Grand Central doesn't really have much (anything?) to do with.
The new MacBooks already use the NVIDIA GPU to accelerate some H.264-related tasks. That should carry over to these new Minis and iMacs — and the number of Quicktime/video-related tasks that take advantage of GPU acceleration should increase greatly in Snow Leopard, as well… to say nothing of the applications which will, hopefully, also take advantage of GPU acceleration under OpenCL.
http://www.macrumors.com/2008/10/18/...pros-and-airs/
I can live with the extra .001 of a second it takes to render my photoshop files on my 'old' Mac Pro.
These updates are a bust.
Apple's 'Switch' campaign is now targeted at their own users.
The benchmarks show that the new machines aren't going to be any faster than the ones they replace.
If you're happy with the current performance of the iMac and mini then fine. I'm not.
I expect more for the premium price that Apple demands with its products. I don't mind paying more but I don't want less for my money.
And you better read up on Snow Leopard because it's designed to leverage the power of machines with more than 2 cores. Leopard utilizes 2 cores rather well thank you. So don't make out SL to some magic code that'll turn dual core Macs into performance beasts because it likely will not.
So you have an Intel Mac with one core? Thats all your crying about?
Then any of the last generation or the present should represent to you a big leap in performance.
Last generation Macs has Intel Core Duo at least (multi core)
Yes Snow Leopard use a lot of multicore but did you read the OpenCL Part? if not I copy-paste the general idea straight from Apple's Snow Leopard web page to refresh your memory.
OpenCL
Another powerful Snow Leopard technology, OpenCL (Open Computing Language), makes it possible for developers to efficiently tap the vast gigaflops of computing power currently locked up in the graphics processing unit (GPU). With GPUs approaching processing speeds of a trillion operations per second, they’re capable of considerably more than just drawing pictures. OpenCL takes that power and redirects it for general-purpose computing.
So you have an Intel Mac with one core? Thats all your crying about?
Then any of the last generation or the present should represent to you a big leap in performance.
Last generation Macs has Intel Core Duo at least (multi core)
Yes Snow Leopard use a lot of multicore but did you read the OpenCL Part? if not I copy-paste the general idea straight from Apple's Snow Leopard web page to refresh your memory.
OpenCL
Another powerful Snow Leopard technology, OpenCL (Open Computing Language), makes it possible for developers to efficiently tap the vast gigaflops of computing power currently locked up in the graphics processing unit (GPU). With GPUs approaching processing speeds of a trillion operations per second, they?re capable of considerably more than just drawing pictures. OpenCL takes that power and redirects it for general-purpose computing.
Yes I'm aware of open cl.
I hope that its a great as you expect it to be. Time will tell.
So contrary to some post here I support your position that Apple doesn't care as the IMac update is disgusting! They have this vast and ever widening gulf between the performance of the iMac and the high end with the Mac Pro. If you need or want something that is not two to three years behind PC performance you are pretty much out of luck. To the detractors that wish to respond yes it is now two to three years behind as Apple has overlooked both Penryn and i7 based machines and is effectively now using CPUs that are very old laptop parts. One can only hope for Apples sake that these machines are short term improvements.
This is fairly dramatic. What benchmarks have you seen showing the iMac two or three years behind. The iMac is using Penryn parts.
Of course they aren't short term machines as they are using new Nvidia system chips. In my mind this means the platform will be around a lot longer than is reasonable. I really hope that Apple has something more up its sleeves that is due out very soon.
Dave
Yes what would be the point of bringing out the "new hotness" in the middle of a bad recession. It's likely Apple will wait for mobile Nelehem for a big iMac update.
These functions you list are somewhat of a running target. As quickly as hardware is improved, software is made as equally as demanding. It never really comes to a point of equalization.
Hell yes!
I use my machine. Have you ever encoded a home made movie with iDVD to watch on a TV?
Give that a try and come back and tell us if you wouldn't want a faster processor.
Have you heard of the new image stabilization feature in iMovie? People run that OVERNIGHT because it can take so long.
Heave you heard of Handbrake? Try ripping a DVD to watch on an iPhone or iPod touch and see how long that takes.
I mean, really, is all I have to look forward to now for the balance of the year is the 3rd gen iPhone? Oh man.
The benchmarks show that the new machines aren't going to be any faster than the ones they replace.
If you're happy with the current performance of the iMac and mini then fine. I'm not.
What faster processor could the iMac use?
These functions you list are somewhat of a running target. As quickly as hardware is improved, software is made as equally as demanding. It never really comes to a point of equalization.
Low power desktop quad core cpus (for the iMac, probably couldn't be made to work in a mini).
Mobile quad core cpus. I admit this choice isn't as appealing as the low power desk top cpus which come in speeds that are nearly as fast as the dual core cpus already in the iMac.
Sure software is a moving target in that it continues to get more demanding of cpu power. But that's a good thing for Apple and pc makers in general. It gives users a reason to get new and faster machines. Right now the HW seems ahead of the SW. At least in the case of > 4 core machines.
But eventually Apple and MS will harness this power and people won't remember how they lived without it.
The article clearly stated these benchmarks are only for the CPU and not the entire system performance. They did not test video encoding or DVD burning.
Video encoding is done by the cpu isn't it? At least with HB it is. I imagine its the same with iDVD.
OK. I came in late on this thread, but from what I can gather, it appears that these benchmark scores and pathetic cosmetic changes (or no changes -mini -), mean that Apple's industrial design team and engineers are on a leave of absence or not disciplined enough without Steve there cracking the whip.
I mean, really, is all I have to look forward to now for the balance of the year is the 3rd gen iPhone? Oh man.
Or it could mean Apple doesn't want to launch a major change in the middle of a severe world economic recession. Apple will likely wait until the end of the recession to launch a major change.
Good point, however with Billions in cash, I think Apple has the resources to bring more to the table than this and still make it affordable. Something is going on.....
mean that Apple's industrial design team and engineers are on a leave of absence or not disciplined enough without Steve there cracking the whip?
Do you honestly think that all these machines went from drawing board to production in the few weeks that Jobs announced his hiatus? If you really think that, then " Apple's industrial design team and engineers" have been impossibly busy since took his leave.
Video encoding is done by the cpu isn't it? At least with HB it is. I imagine its the same with iDVD.
Do you honestly think that all these machines went from drawing board to production in the few weeks that Jobs announced his hiatus? Jobs was well aware of these updates long before he took his leave.
I don't think there was a drawing board. From the looks of things they used the same hardware, while only updating the insides a bit. Jobs may have given the go ahead for this decision, but why?
They are likely using their savings to maintain operations by not cutting services or laying people off.
Good point, however with Billions in cash, I think Apple has the resources to bring more to the table than this and still make it affordable. Something is going on.....
Do you honestly think that all these machines went from drawing board to production in the few weeks that Jobs announced his hiatus? If you really think that, then " Apple's industrial design team and engineers" have been impossibly busy since took his leave.
Maybe not, but on the other hand should we also believe, as another member posted, that Apple is merely holding back because of the world-wide recession? Should we be expected to be that naive?
... this release of hardware is pretty much a NON-UPGRADE, except in the case of the Min which is actually a fairly solid update. Even on the Mini though they could have managed a bit more clock rate on the high end model. Lets face it separating two models by a measly 0.2 Giggle Hertz is pretty stupid.
... Apple doesn't care as the IMac update is disgusting! ... yes it is now two to three years behind as Apple has overlooked both Penryn and i7 based machines and is effectively now using CPUs that are very old laptop parts. One can only hope for Apples sake that these machines are short term improvements.
...I really hope that Apple has something more up its sleeves that is due out very soon. - Dave
(I could have included more quotes,,,
Lots of interesting comments.
I tend to agree with those who point out that this iMac update is barely marginal. I was hoping to replace my expired iMac, but looks like a dubious proposition now.
I am saddened by Apple's continued policy/habit of releasing relatively modest desktop updates. As if buffing it up (so to speak), and that stand wedgie (be still my heart), and boosting cpu and graphics by some tiny percentage will bring in droves of new iMac buyers.
Yes, more standard RAM is good, and slightly more MHz is good. Slightly better price curve is good. Word is not yet in on newer shared graphic vs. older dedicated. Throwing away a Firewire port is bad. And rolling this out approximately one year after last revision and trumpeting it as their latest and greatest -- it is all ludicrous. And so sad.
Their vision seems to be gone.
Maybe its just about being able to have a new Marketing Campaign - to be able to advertise New, Improved, Finally Available...
(I can't speak to the Mac Pro, as it has always been out of my price and need range.)
The one bright improvement seems to be the low-end Mac mini, which now is a bit better performing, with more memory, more HD, better CPU speed, and now comes with DVD writer, rather than the Combo drive (CD-RW, DVD-RO) in last year's -- I mean two years ago -- model.
From where I stand the new low-end mini seems to be the only decent improvement and value for $$$. I am putting one onto my wish list. Maybe it will keep me Mac-happy till ...
I too hope that there is some major iMac revamp later this year when the newer Intel architecture is available. One can hope, anyway.
They tested absolutely nothing that was upgraded: graphics, hard drive, RAM. They say you are better off buying the previous generation as if FW800 and wi-fi N on the mini wasn't a consideration, or the increased RAM capacity. So basically, yes, buy the previous generation if the only thing you are ever going to run on it is a faceless application that can reside entirely in the CPUs cache. Was there even a point to the test, other than to prove that they can run a pointless test?