Have any tests been conducted that show 2.4 quads out perform 3.0 dual? Dual processors don't necessarily double performance over single, it's not likely quads will quadruple performance.
Quads don't have to be 4x faster than single core cpus or 2x than dual core machines in order to be a nice upgrade. Wouldn't you be happy if a quad core iMac was 40% faster than the dual core machine it replaces? We don't know if this will be true or not but its not an unreasonable expectation IMO. Certainly with SL, I would hope this is attainable.
If you run Windows or linux in VM Ware, 4 cores are the sweet spot. Two cores fro the guest and two cores for the host. There is most definitely a difference in performance running Windows under VM Ware with two cores enabled vs one in my experience.
This can work well under proper conditions. But I don't see it being a great deal more effective with slower processors. Even if the OS is able to spread applications around to various cores, the software is still utilizing the resources of one core.
That being said, if you run multiple programs at once you should see a benefit from more cores and/or more processors. The individual programs don't even need to be able to take advantage of them because the OS will spread the processes out over the available cores to do the tasks. I don't know about you but I usually have at least 6 programs open at once at home and often 10 or more. Sure there are a number of them idle but there are also some constantly running in the background and I'm often switching between 3-4 quite a bit on a regular basis. Because of that the more memory and the more cores they give me at an affordable price the better.
Actually I think you're going to be surprised here. Take the C2D 3.06 Extreme chip that Apple uses in the top iMac. I'd bet that a properly threaded app and optimized OS like Snow Leopard would probably be able to deliver equivalent performance with in a lower heat signature. It's like the ARM Cortex, The A8 is fast and a single core but the forthcoming A9 MP is going to pop in another core albeit both will run at a lower frequency but for some designes it makes more sense to go wider than higher in frequency.
I can see this being the case with the 2.8GHz Quad, but I don't see it with a 2.4 GHz Quad. Plus a couple of the PC's you highlighted have 800MHz FSB and less cache, than the 3.06GHz currently in the iMac.
Quote:
Yes I think you take the extra cores which will handle more inflight instructions , mate that with an OS that handles tasks well (Grand Central Dispatch) leverage the GPU (OpenCL and OpenGL) and I think you have very nice multitasking box. Let's face it two cores are nice but it doesn't matter how fast they are ..when they hit the wall they hit the wall.
What you've described is a lot more going on than only 4 cores. No processor has unlimited resources they all hit a wall at some point.
Apple has already said they won't lower prices, they are just going to ride out the economic downturn until it gets better. The problem with lowering prices is that you cannot raise them again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw
I hope Apple is more aggressive in their pricing as I'm sure the component pricing has decreased in this economy. Let savings filter down to the consumer instead of hiking margins at every opportunity. And let's hope this applies to 'upgrading' various components on Apple.com as well. They've made improvements to RAM pricing, and I hope the gap continues to narrow.
Having four cores isn't better simply for the fact of having four cores irregardless of other factors. Most of the gain in processor performance is still going to come from each core itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
Quads don't have to be 4x faster than single core cpus or 2x than dual core machines in order to be a nice upgrade. Wouldn't you be happy if a quad core iMac was 40% faster than the dual core machine it replaces? We don't know if this will be true or not but its not an unreasonable expectation IMO. Certainly with SL, I would hope this is attainable.
If you run Windows or linux in VM Ware, 4 cores are the sweet spot. Two cores fro the guest and two cores for the host. There is most definitely a difference in performance running Windows under VM Ware with two cores enabled vs one in my experience.
Until mobile quadcore chips are released the majority of Macs will only by dualcore. I hope SL comes long before that happens.
Core 2 Quad mobile chips are already available to OEMs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Out of curiousity, is there any way to compare the prices of the current Intel chips in the iMac and the assumed quadcore chips that should be coming. I know that the chips weren't on Intel's pricesheet when they came out, but since then I know they have released some official hybrid chips. (I be happy to look it up but I'm able to use my iPhone for Internet access)
It'll take some research, but shouldn't be hard to find... With the new i7s out, even low-power Core 2 Quad CPUs should be dirt cheap.. Certainly nowhere NEAR the price of the fastest Core 2 Duos when they were somewhat new...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The most demanding software I currently use is Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, and Toast Titanium. None of which can currently take advantage of more than two cores. Most people aren't even using software that sophisticated.
Have any tests been conducted that show 2.4 quads out perform 3.0 dual? Dual processors don't necessarily double performance over single, it's not likely quads will quadruple performance.
Final Cut Pro video encoding and effects rendering is limited to two threads? I have a hard time believing that. And your second question depends on the application. Video encoding, 3D rendering, and other parallel tasks will greatly benefit from a quad-core that is 4/5 the speed of a similar dual core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I think the advantages of quad are being over stated. The machines with quad that are being used for comparison are not very impressive. The quad cores the iMac is remored to use are better.
Excuse me? How exactly would they be "better"? Intel CPUs are Intel CPUs. Apple does not have exclusive access to some special Core 2 Quad. At most, they are using newer, lower-power models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Quad doesn't yet offer that much of an advantage that Apple need to abandon dual core for slower quad core.
Because the thinness is sexy and sells machines better than large hulking machines with loud fans. I would agree with you under similar clock speed. But the gains of using quad processors are lost with significantly slower clock speeds per core.
1) It entirely depends on the application and speeds of the chips. If a user doesn't use applications that readily utilize many processing threads, then they are better off with a fast dual-core. For those doing 3D rendering, video encoding, and other DCC (in addition to different types of engineering and scientific processing), a quad-core that is 80% of the clock speed of a similar dual-core will be much faster in those tasks.
I recall reading something a number of years ago stating that adding processors has a diminishing return due to process management. So the more processors you have the less benefit you get out of adding each one. I'm not sure how things changed when multi-core processors were put into the mix but the management of the processes spread out between the cores takes still takes up processing time and memory.
It greatly depends on the OS kernel, applications, etc. But in general, 4 or 8 cores is not that difficult to manage and schedule across a whole OS and multiple applications.
Obviously Snow Leopard is going to greatly improve the utilization of multi-core processors for applications that are not traditionally very easy to "parallelize".
Having four cores isn't better simply for the fact of having four cores irregardless of other factors. Most of the gain in processor performance is still going to come from each core itself.
Core 2 Quad mobile chips are already available to OEMs.
He's talking about these processors, Core 2 Quad Q8200 (2.33GHz/4MB L2), Core 2 Quad Q9400 (2.66GHz/6MB L2) and Core 2 Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz/12MB L2).
They have only recently become available.
Quote:
It'll take some research, but shouldn't be hard to find... With the new i7s out, even low-power Core 2 Quad CPUs should be dirt cheap.. Certainly nowhere NEAR the price of the fastest Core 2 Duos when they were somewhat new...
The Core 2 Quad processors are $245, $320 and $369 in lots of 1000.
Quote:
Final Cut Pro video encoding and effects rendering is limited to two threads? I have a hard time believing that. And your second question depends on the application. Video encoding, 3D rendering, and other parallel tasks will greatly benefit from a quad-core that is 4/5 the speed of a similar dual core.
Compressor is the only application in Final Cut Studio that takes advantage of more than 2 cores. Final Cut Pro itself does not, at least not yet.
Can you link to a test where software was significantly faster with quad core that is 4/5th the speed of a faster dual core?
Quote:
Excuse me? How exactly would they be "better"? Intel CPUs are Intel CPUs. Apple does not have exclusive access to some special Core 2 Quad. At most, they are using newer, lower-power models.
No, Intel CPU's are not all the same. What would be the purpose of making so many if they were all the same.
Apple has had early access to special Intel chips in the past.
Having four cores isn't better simply for the fact of having four cores irregardless of other factors. Most of the gain in processor performance is still going to come from each core itself.
You know there already are apps that take advantage of more than two cores.
As well, VM Ware benefits from more than two cores.
When SL arrives then the advantages could be even greater.
I hope to keep my next desktop for 5 years so I suspect I'll see the advantages of having a quad core machine. If you're only going to keep your iMac for 12-18 months I think you're probably safe with a dual core machine. Frankly the only reason to get a fast dual core Mac is if you think SL will be a failure.
Nothing I've said disputes the fact that their are high level applications that take advantage of more than 2 cores. These are extremely few. What I am saying is that you reach diminishing returns because most apps cannot use and do not need multiple cores. Because of this you sacrifice performance if you use quad cores with a slower speed.
Apple is likely to use Intel's newest mobile quad processors which essentially equal the speed of the current iMac's. So this isn't really a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
You know there already are apps that take advantage of more than two cores.
As well, VM Ware benefits from more than two cores.
When SL arrives then the advantages could be even greater.
I hope to keep my next desktop for 5 years so I suspect I'll see the advantages of having a quad core machine. If you're only going to keep your iMac for 12-18 months I think you're probably safe with a dual core machine. Frankly the only reason to get a fast dual core Mac is if you think SL will be a failure.
He's talking about these processors, Core 2 Quad Q8200 (2.33GHz/4MB L2), Core 2 Quad Q9400 (2.66GHz/6MB L2) and Core 2 Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz/12MB L2).
They have only recently become available.
No, he said "mobile quad-core chips". Those are NOT laptop CPUs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Can you link to a test where software was significantly faster with quad core that is 4/5th the speed of a faster dual core?
Again, it depends on the application. Google is your friend, and you should be able to find countless tests done, but it is not even that necessary. Obviously it is more complex than this, but here is a simplification:
If the application scales very well (i.e. almost linearly) and is not being limited by things like memory or disk bandwidth, then:
2 cores * 1 unit of work = 2
4 cores * 0.8 unit of work = 3.2
anyways, I'll track down some good benchmarks with Core 2 processors and paste them in here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
No, Intel CPU's are not all the same. What would be the purpose of making so many if they were all the same.
Apple has had early access to special Intel chips in the past.
Clearly you understood the context of my statement. The poster said that Apple is rumored to use "special" Core 2 Quad CPUs that have better performance than those used in the PCs that were linked. My point was that only a few factors like clock frequency and L2 Cache size have any non-negligible effect on the performance of a (Penryn) Core 2 Quad, and all the PC companies have access to the same chips. There is no magic switch that Intel is going to flip on Core 2 Quads for Apple that is going to dramatically change their characteristics. The only thing customized in the past for Apple had to do with power usage, package size, etc and NOT major performance characteristics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Nothing I've said disputes the fact that their are high level applications that take advantage of more than 2 cores. These are extremely few. What I am saying is that you reach diminishing returns because most apps cannot use and do not need multiple cores. Because of this you sacrifice performance if you use quad cores with a slower speed.
Again, it completely depends on the intended use of the computer. For someone who browses the web and uses iPhoto, a quad-core is of no concern. But that hardly means that there are "very few" applications that can take advantage of quad-core CPUs. I'm not going to make a list, but you are talking about entire software industries... Video, 3D modeling and other DCC, Image processing, Audio processing, financial/securities analysis, scientific simulations, Oil and Gas exploration, theoretical mathematics, cryptology and security analysis, etc..
If Apple puts a quad-core or octo-core for that matter in that same tired shell - it will be bad news. It's time for a redesign- the current one is like 5 years old. Yawn.
NIce job. Put him in his place. What a moron, finding a PC that is ON SALE! Regular price, $1400. And the other one doesn't even have a monitor. Great comparison. Just proves what a genius he really is. But that is your typical PC shopper. I am sure both those computers run Vista really well too.
Um... it is not so simple. at least not here in New Zealand.
I just did a bit "stronger" scenario. I started with 24" iMac with following specs:
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8GHz
320GB HDD
2GB RAM
ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO 256MB graphics card
24? monitor
Price: NZ$2799 (roughly US$1400)
I compared it with following PC:
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 2.66GHz
WD 500GB SATA HDD
CRUCIAL DDR2 4GB PC2 6400 DUAL CHANNEL 2x2GB
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB graphics card
Asustek P5Q, Intel P45, DDR2. ATX motherboard
Thermaltake W0103 Toughpower 600W ATX Power Supply
No software with PC, mind you, and if you don't want to build it yourself, fine - most shops will build it for you free of charge if you get all parts in the same shop, but price will go a bit higher (as no shop has best prices for everything). If you have it built in the shop, you can also get OEM Windows cheap.
Still. That is one very solid configuration without weak spots... by lowering specs to match those of Mac (2GB RAM, slower graphics, smaller HDD, slower dual core CPU) without compromising components quality, you can get robust PC made of solid components for not far from half the price of equally specified Mac. And if you really want to go down that path, you can save even more by choosing generic kbd and mouse, case and power supply, mATX motherboard - just to mention few.
To my opinion it is big difference, specially considering that hardware is basically same brand wise (Intel, ATI...) and I don't expect to find better quality parts in Mac. Design, check... but it is not worth that much; not for me, at least.
I hope US price difference is more reasonable, but here in NZ...
On the other side, 13" MacBook (previous generation with Intel graphics) was - for some time at least - offered for NZ$1800 (US$900), and was not more expensive at all compared to 13" Lenovo, HP, Toshiba laptops. True, others were a bit higher with specs (more RAM, bigger HDDs etc) but were worst in battery life and, arguably, didn't look that good. Now... that was really good offer and almost got me getting MacBook. But desktops... nah.
If you have any doubts, you can check pricespy.co.nz and, of course, apple.co.nz.
No, he said "mobile quad-core chips". Those are NOT laptop CPUs.
Ok I guess he was mistaken. i thought he was saying the quad chips that were to be used in the iMac were not yet available.
Quote:
If the application scales very well (i.e. almost linearly) and is not being limited by things like memory or disk bandwidth, then:
anyways, I'll track down some good benchmarks with Core 2 processors and paste them in here...
I looked up and found a test between the 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad Q6600 and the 3.16GHz Core 2 Duo E8500.
The main advantage of the quad was in 3D rendering with heavily threaded applications, optimized for multiple cores. In video rendering the test found that their was slight to little advantage from the quad. The test found gaming to be worse on the quad because of its slower clock speed, at least until games become heavily threaded.
The majority of other software found no advantage from quad as they don't need to use four cores. Which essentially is my point.
Clearly you understood the context of my statement. The poster said that Apple is rumored to use "special" Core 2 Quad CPUs that have better performance than those used in the PCs that were linked. My point was that only a few factors like clock frequency and L2 Cache size have any non-negligible effect on the performance of a (Penryn) Core 2 Quad, and all the PC companies have access to the same chips. There is no magic switch that Intel is going to flip on Core 2 Quads for Apple that is going to dramatically change their characteristics. The only thing customized in the past for Apple had to do with power usage, package size, etc and NOT major performance characteristics.
I think you were addressing a comment I made, and I said the newer processors Apple are rumored to use are better. Better as in more appropriate for the needs of the iMac. Power management, heat dissipation, packaging size, cache are all important factors that change the design of the chip and can raise its price.
Quote:
Again, it completely depends on the intended use of the computer. For someone who browses the web and uses iPhoto, a quad-core is of no concern. But that hardly means that there are "very few" applications that can take advantage of quad-core CPUs. I'm not going to make a list, but you are talking about entire software industries... Video, 3D modeling and other DCC, Image processing, Audio processing, financial/securities analysis, scientific simulations, Oil and Gas exploration, theoretical mathematics, cryptology and security analysis, etc..
In the larger scope of the most widely used software, 3D modeling is a niche. That isn't good or bad, its just the truth.
Most who need 3D modeling, image processing, scientific simulations are primarily using workstations that have been using four/eight cores for the past 3 years. Not an iMac or machines from Best Buy.
No software definitely blows a big hole in your comparison. Computer components in a case with no software is completely useless. Once you add Windows and an iLife suite equivalent your machine would be more expensive than the iMac.
The other important factor that needs to be taken into your comparison is the fact that the iMac is 10 months old. Compared with a computer built of current parts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
Um... it is not so simple. at least not here in New Zealand.
I just did a bit "stronger" scenario. I started with 24" iMac with following specs:
Couldn't have said it better myself. Ran W7 beta on bootcamp (imac 2.4 4GB) and did a photoshop cs4 retouchartists speedtest and WIndows 7 finished in 42sec, 10.5.6 in 55sec so apparently the "Vista Killer" seems to be a legit contender. For what I do I need speed over sexiness and right now the only thing making Macs look appealing is their OS and that can't last forever.
No software definitely blows a big hole in your comparison. Computer components in a case with no software is completely useless. Once you add Windows and an iLife suite equivalent your machine would be more expensive than the iMac.
The other important factor that needs to be taken into your comparison is the fact that the iMac is 10 months old. Compared with a computer built of current parts.
Not really because I use Firefox/CS3/Office 08/Lightroom 2 99% of the time so for some of us the bundled software doesn't add much 'extra' value.
Not saying it doesn't for the low end consumer user (the iMacs supposed market base) but a lot of web/design professionals are looking to iMac level pricing for our needs because we can't justify the minimum $3.5k price tag (2nd hard drive, airport card, 3rd party ram, real video card) of the Mac Pro so this gaping hole that systems like Dell are filling look way more appealing to us than apples current lineup.
Don't forget the PITA factor of running maintenance/virus/malware software to keep the PC clean.
Tenon also brought up the excellent reminder that people often complain about the Macs at the end of their cycle, where the hardware is often nearly a year old.
I have a sneaky feeling that Apple will pump more value into the iMacs this time around, bending to the realities of the current economic climate. Even if it's a mere $100 + more competitive prices on upgrade options, it will help narrow the gap.
Comments
Have any tests been conducted that show 2.4 quads out perform 3.0 dual? Dual processors don't necessarily double performance over single, it's not likely quads will quadruple performance.
Quads don't have to be 4x faster than single core cpus or 2x than dual core machines in order to be a nice upgrade. Wouldn't you be happy if a quad core iMac was 40% faster than the dual core machine it replaces? We don't know if this will be true or not but its not an unreasonable expectation IMO. Certainly with SL, I would hope this is attainable.
If you run Windows or linux in VM Ware, 4 cores are the sweet spot. Two cores fro the guest and two cores for the host. There is most definitely a difference in performance running Windows under VM Ware with two cores enabled vs one in my experience.
That being said, if you run multiple programs at once you should see a benefit from more cores and/or more processors. The individual programs don't even need to be able to take advantage of them because the OS will spread the processes out over the available cores to do the tasks. I don't know about you but I usually have at least 6 programs open at once at home and often 10 or more. Sure there are a number of them idle but there are also some constantly running in the background and I'm often switching between 3-4 quite a bit on a regular basis. Because of that the more memory and the more cores they give me at an affordable price the better.
Actually I think you're going to be surprised here. Take the C2D 3.06 Extreme chip that Apple uses in the top iMac. I'd bet that a properly threaded app and optimized OS like Snow Leopard would probably be able to deliver equivalent performance with in a lower heat signature. It's like the ARM Cortex, The A8 is fast and a single core but the forthcoming A9 MP is going to pop in another core albeit both will run at a lower frequency but for some designes it makes more sense to go wider than higher in frequency.
I can see this being the case with the 2.8GHz Quad, but I don't see it with a 2.4 GHz Quad. Plus a couple of the PC's you highlighted have 800MHz FSB and less cache, than the 3.06GHz currently in the iMac.
Yes I think you take the extra cores which will handle more inflight instructions , mate that with an OS that handles tasks well (Grand Central Dispatch) leverage the GPU (OpenCL and OpenGL) and I think you have very nice multitasking box. Let's face it two cores are nice but it doesn't matter how fast they are ..when they hit the wall they hit the wall.
What you've described is a lot more going on than only 4 cores. No processor has unlimited resources they all hit a wall at some point.
I hope Apple is more aggressive in their pricing as I'm sure the component pricing has decreased in this economy. Let savings filter down to the consumer instead of hiking margins at every opportunity. And let's hope this applies to 'upgrading' various components on Apple.com as well. They've made improvements to RAM pricing, and I hope the gap continues to narrow.
Quads don't have to be 4x faster than single core cpus or 2x than dual core machines in order to be a nice upgrade. Wouldn't you be happy if a quad core iMac was 40% faster than the dual core machine it replaces? We don't know if this will be true or not but its not an unreasonable expectation IMO. Certainly with SL, I would hope this is attainable.
If you run Windows or linux in VM Ware, 4 cores are the sweet spot. Two cores fro the guest and two cores for the host. There is most definitely a difference in performance running Windows under VM Ware with two cores enabled vs one in my experience.
Until mobile quadcore chips are released the majority of Macs will only by dualcore. I hope SL comes long before that happens.
Core 2 Quad mobile chips are already available to OEMs.
Out of curiousity, is there any way to compare the prices of the current Intel chips in the iMac and the assumed quadcore chips that should be coming. I know that the chips weren't on Intel's pricesheet when they came out, but since then I know they have released some official hybrid chips. (I be happy to look it up but I'm able to use my iPhone for Internet access
It'll take some research, but shouldn't be hard to find... With the new i7s out, even low-power Core 2 Quad CPUs should be dirt cheap.. Certainly nowhere NEAR the price of the fastest Core 2 Duos when they were somewhat new...
The most demanding software I currently use is Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, and Toast Titanium. None of which can currently take advantage of more than two cores. Most people aren't even using software that sophisticated.
Have any tests been conducted that show 2.4 quads out perform 3.0 dual? Dual processors don't necessarily double performance over single, it's not likely quads will quadruple performance.
Final Cut Pro video encoding and effects rendering is limited to two threads? I have a hard time believing that. And your second question depends on the application. Video encoding, 3D rendering, and other parallel tasks will greatly benefit from a quad-core that is 4/5 the speed of a similar dual core.
I think the advantages of quad are being over stated. The machines with quad that are being used for comparison are not very impressive. The quad cores the iMac is remored to use are better.
Excuse me? How exactly would they be "better"? Intel CPUs are Intel CPUs. Apple does not have exclusive access to some special Core 2 Quad. At most, they are using newer, lower-power models.
Quad doesn't yet offer that much of an advantage that Apple need to abandon dual core for slower quad core.
Because the thinness is sexy and sells machines better than large hulking machines with loud fans. I would agree with you under similar clock speed. But the gains of using quad processors are lost with significantly slower clock speeds per core.
1) It entirely depends on the application and speeds of the chips. If a user doesn't use applications that readily utilize many processing threads, then they are better off with a fast dual-core. For those doing 3D rendering, video encoding, and other DCC (in addition to different types of engineering and scientific processing), a quad-core that is 80% of the clock speed of a similar dual-core will be much faster in those tasks.
I recall reading something a number of years ago stating that adding processors has a diminishing return due to process management. So the more processors you have the less benefit you get out of adding each one. I'm not sure how things changed when multi-core processors were put into the mix but the management of the processes spread out between the cores takes still takes up processing time and memory.
It greatly depends on the OS kernel, applications, etc. But in general, 4 or 8 cores is not that difficult to manage and schedule across a whole OS and multiple applications.
Obviously Snow Leopard is going to greatly improve the utilization of multi-core processors for applications that are not traditionally very easy to "parallelize".
Having four cores isn't better simply for the fact of having four cores irregardless of other factors. Most of the gain in processor performance is still going to come from each core itself.
Bad TenoBell, bad TenoBell!
Core 2 Quad mobile chips are already available to OEMs.
He's talking about these processors, Core 2 Quad Q8200 (2.33GHz/4MB L2), Core 2 Quad Q9400 (2.66GHz/6MB L2) and Core 2 Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz/12MB L2).
They have only recently become available.
It'll take some research, but shouldn't be hard to find... With the new i7s out, even low-power Core 2 Quad CPUs should be dirt cheap.. Certainly nowhere NEAR the price of the fastest Core 2 Duos when they were somewhat new...
The Core 2 Quad processors are $245, $320 and $369 in lots of 1000.
Final Cut Pro video encoding and effects rendering is limited to two threads? I have a hard time believing that. And your second question depends on the application. Video encoding, 3D rendering, and other parallel tasks will greatly benefit from a quad-core that is 4/5 the speed of a similar dual core.
Compressor is the only application in Final Cut Studio that takes advantage of more than 2 cores. Final Cut Pro itself does not, at least not yet.
Can you link to a test where software was significantly faster with quad core that is 4/5th the speed of a faster dual core?
Excuse me? How exactly would they be "better"? Intel CPUs are Intel CPUs. Apple does not have exclusive access to some special Core 2 Quad. At most, they are using newer, lower-power models.
No, Intel CPU's are not all the same. What would be the purpose of making so many if they were all the same.
Apple has had early access to special Intel chips in the past.
Bad TenoBell, bad TenoBell!
Hhmm, alright.
Having four cores isn't better simply for the fact of having four cores irregardless of other factors. Most of the gain in processor performance is still going to come from each core itself.
You know there already are apps that take advantage of more than two cores.
As well, VM Ware benefits from more than two cores.
When SL arrives then the advantages could be even greater.
I hope to keep my next desktop for 5 years so I suspect I'll see the advantages of having a quad core machine. If you're only going to keep your iMac for 12-18 months I think you're probably safe with a dual core machine. Frankly the only reason to get a fast dual core Mac is if you think SL will be a failure.
Apple is likely to use Intel's newest mobile quad processors which essentially equal the speed of the current iMac's. So this isn't really a problem.
You know there already are apps that take advantage of more than two cores.
As well, VM Ware benefits from more than two cores.
When SL arrives then the advantages could be even greater.
I hope to keep my next desktop for 5 years so I suspect I'll see the advantages of having a quad core machine. If you're only going to keep your iMac for 12-18 months I think you're probably safe with a dual core machine. Frankly the only reason to get a fast dual core Mac is if you think SL will be a failure.
He's talking about these processors, Core 2 Quad Q8200 (2.33GHz/4MB L2), Core 2 Quad Q9400 (2.66GHz/6MB L2) and Core 2 Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz/12MB L2).
They have only recently become available.
No, he said "mobile quad-core chips". Those are NOT laptop CPUs.
Can you link to a test where software was significantly faster with quad core that is 4/5th the speed of a faster dual core?
Again, it depends on the application. Google is your friend, and you should be able to find countless tests done, but it is not even that necessary. Obviously it is more complex than this, but here is a simplification:
If the application scales very well (i.e. almost linearly) and is not being limited by things like memory or disk bandwidth, then:
2 cores * 1 unit of work = 2
4 cores * 0.8 unit of work = 3.2
anyways, I'll track down some good benchmarks with Core 2 processors and paste them in here...
No, Intel CPU's are not all the same. What would be the purpose of making so many if they were all the same.
Apple has had early access to special Intel chips in the past.
Clearly you understood the context of my statement. The poster said that Apple is rumored to use "special" Core 2 Quad CPUs that have better performance than those used in the PCs that were linked. My point was that only a few factors like clock frequency and L2 Cache size have any non-negligible effect on the performance of a (Penryn) Core 2 Quad, and all the PC companies have access to the same chips. There is no magic switch that Intel is going to flip on Core 2 Quads for Apple that is going to dramatically change their characteristics. The only thing customized in the past for Apple had to do with power usage, package size, etc and NOT major performance characteristics.
Nothing I've said disputes the fact that their are high level applications that take advantage of more than 2 cores. These are extremely few. What I am saying is that you reach diminishing returns because most apps cannot use and do not need multiple cores. Because of this you sacrifice performance if you use quad cores with a slower speed.
Again, it completely depends on the intended use of the computer. For someone who browses the web and uses iPhoto, a quad-core is of no concern. But that hardly means that there are "very few" applications that can take advantage of quad-core CPUs. I'm not going to make a list, but you are talking about entire software industries... Video, 3D modeling and other DCC, Image processing, Audio processing, financial/securities analysis, scientific simulations, Oil and Gas exploration, theoretical mathematics, cryptology and security analysis, etc..
You can't even adjust its viewing height.
NIce job. Put him in his place. What a moron, finding a PC that is ON SALE! Regular price, $1400. And the other one doesn't even have a monitor. Great comparison. Just proves what a genius he really is. But that is your typical PC shopper. I am sure both those computers run Vista really well too.
Um... it is not so simple. at least not here in New Zealand.
I just did a bit "stronger" scenario. I started with 24" iMac with following specs:
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8GHz
320GB HDD
2GB RAM
ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO 256MB graphics card
24? monitor
Price: NZ$2799 (roughly US$1400)
I compared it with following PC:
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 2.66GHz
WD 500GB SATA HDD
CRUCIAL DDR2 4GB PC2 6400 DUAL CHANNEL 2x2GB
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB graphics card
Asustek P5Q, Intel P45, DDR2. ATX motherboard
Thermaltake W0103 Toughpower 600W ATX Power Supply
Gigabyte Triton Black MidTower ATX Chassis
LG GH20NS10 20X SATA DVD Writer
Viewsonic VX2433WM 23.6" 1920x1080 2ms Hdmi monitor
Logitech Cordless Desktop LX710 kbd + mouse
Price: NZ$1977 (roughly US$989)
No software with PC, mind you, and if you don't want to build it yourself, fine - most shops will build it for you free of charge if you get all parts in the same shop, but price will go a bit higher (as no shop has best prices for everything). If you have it built in the shop, you can also get OEM Windows cheap.
Still. That is one very solid configuration without weak spots... by lowering specs to match those of Mac (2GB RAM, slower graphics, smaller HDD, slower dual core CPU) without compromising components quality, you can get robust PC made of solid components for not far from half the price of equally specified Mac. And if you really want to go down that path, you can save even more by choosing generic kbd and mouse, case and power supply, mATX motherboard - just to mention few.
To my opinion it is big difference, specially considering that hardware is basically same brand wise (Intel, ATI...) and I don't expect to find better quality parts in Mac. Design, check... but it is not worth that much; not for me, at least.
I hope US price difference is more reasonable, but here in NZ...
On the other side, 13" MacBook (previous generation with Intel graphics) was - for some time at least - offered for NZ$1800 (US$900), and was not more expensive at all compared to 13" Lenovo, HP, Toshiba laptops. True, others were a bit higher with specs (more RAM, bigger HDDs etc) but were worst in battery life and, arguably, didn't look that good. Now... that was really good offer and almost got me getting MacBook. But desktops... nah.
If you have any doubts, you can check pricespy.co.nz and, of course, apple.co.nz.
No, he said "mobile quad-core chips". Those are NOT laptop CPUs.
Ok I guess he was mistaken. i thought he was saying the quad chips that were to be used in the iMac were not yet available.
If the application scales very well (i.e. almost linearly) and is not being limited by things like memory or disk bandwidth, then:
anyways, I'll track down some good benchmarks with Core 2 processors and paste them in here...
I looked up and found a test between the 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad Q6600 and the 3.16GHz Core 2 Duo E8500.
The main advantage of the quad was in 3D rendering with heavily threaded applications, optimized for multiple cores. In video rendering the test found that their was slight to little advantage from the quad. The test found gaming to be worse on the quad because of its slower clock speed, at least until games become heavily threaded.
The majority of other software found no advantage from quad as they don't need to use four cores. Which essentially is my point.
Revisiting The Dual-Core vs. Quad-Core Debate
Clearly you understood the context of my statement. The poster said that Apple is rumored to use "special" Core 2 Quad CPUs that have better performance than those used in the PCs that were linked. My point was that only a few factors like clock frequency and L2 Cache size have any non-negligible effect on the performance of a (Penryn) Core 2 Quad, and all the PC companies have access to the same chips. There is no magic switch that Intel is going to flip on Core 2 Quads for Apple that is going to dramatically change their characteristics. The only thing customized in the past for Apple had to do with power usage, package size, etc and NOT major performance characteristics.
I think you were addressing a comment I made, and I said the newer processors Apple are rumored to use are better. Better as in more appropriate for the needs of the iMac. Power management, heat dissipation, packaging size, cache are all important factors that change the design of the chip and can raise its price.
Again, it completely depends on the intended use of the computer. For someone who browses the web and uses iPhoto, a quad-core is of no concern. But that hardly means that there are "very few" applications that can take advantage of quad-core CPUs. I'm not going to make a list, but you are talking about entire software industries... Video, 3D modeling and other DCC, Image processing, Audio processing, financial/securities analysis, scientific simulations, Oil and Gas exploration, theoretical mathematics, cryptology and security analysis, etc..
In the larger scope of the most widely used software, 3D modeling is a niche. That isn't good or bad, its just the truth.
Most who need 3D modeling, image processing, scientific simulations are primarily using workstations that have been using four/eight cores for the past 3 years. Not an iMac or machines from Best Buy.
The other important factor that needs to be taken into your comparison is the fact that the iMac is 10 months old. Compared with a computer built of current parts.
Um... it is not so simple. at least not here in New Zealand.
I just did a bit "stronger" scenario. I started with 24" iMac with following specs:
No software with PC, mind you,
For me it is a race:
Updated Mini or sensible mid-range desktop
Versus
Windows 7 (and a Core i7 desptop to go with it)
Whichever comes first...
Couldn't have said it better myself. Ran W7 beta on bootcamp (imac 2.4 4GB) and did a photoshop cs4 retouchartists speedtest and WIndows 7 finished in 42sec, 10.5.6 in 55sec so apparently the "Vista Killer" seems to be a legit contender. For what I do I need speed over sexiness and right now the only thing making Macs look appealing is their OS and that can't last forever.
And no I'm never going to pay for a Mac Pro.
No software definitely blows a big hole in your comparison. Computer components in a case with no software is completely useless. Once you add Windows and an iLife suite equivalent your machine would be more expensive than the iMac.
The other important factor that needs to be taken into your comparison is the fact that the iMac is 10 months old. Compared with a computer built of current parts.
Not really because I use Firefox/CS3/Office 08/Lightroom 2 99% of the time so for some of us the bundled software doesn't add much 'extra' value.
Not saying it doesn't for the low end consumer user (the iMacs supposed market base) but a lot of web/design professionals are looking to iMac level pricing for our needs because we can't justify the minimum $3.5k price tag (2nd hard drive, airport card, 3rd party ram, real video card) of the Mac Pro so this gaping hole that systems like Dell are filling look way more appealing to us than apples current lineup.
You did not even add the price of an operating system in your PC configuration.
Not really because I use Firefox/CS3/Office 08/Lightroom 2 99% of the time so for some of us the bundled software doesn't add much 'extra' value.
.
Tenon also brought up the excellent reminder that people often complain about the Macs at the end of their cycle, where the hardware is often nearly a year old.
I have a sneaky feeling that Apple will pump more value into the iMacs this time around, bending to the realities of the current economic climate. Even if it's a mere $100 + more competitive prices on upgrade options, it will help narrow the gap.