In six months you will be very lucky to find an i3 or Core 2 based desktop computer in my opinion.
I still see it [Core i5] as the new low end.
If the Core i5 is the new low-end, what can we call desktop systems based on Core i3 or Pentium G6950?
The current Core i5 costs about $200, in january 4C Core i5 cpus will cost between $196 and $259, and 2C Core i5 cpus will cost between $176 and $284. This is way beyond low-end. Maybe too much virtualization does that... Core i3 and nehalem pentiums will cost less than $150. Those are the nehalem low-end cpus.
In 6 months, late Q1 2010, nehalem cpus will still be "niche", less than 10% of Intel's desktop boxed cpus sales, core MA pentiums will still make for 50% of those sales.
It seems the i5 released this year won't support VT-d but the ones released next year will:
........
Their branding isn't very clear.
An understatement of grand proportions. Sometimes I wonder if Intel is trying to confuse the market on purpose.
Quote:
.......
It's also not very clear if VT-d will work without special hardware. Parallels supports VT-d but their example usage is a high end workstation:
Special is not really the word i'd use, rather I would call it next generation hardware. I wouldn't put it past the manufactures to try to partition the market along the lines of advanced virtualization though. Given that I fully expect a trickle down of the tech with it showing up first in servers and workstations.
Quote:
......
They mention Nvidia's Multi-OS SLI feature in the Quadro and state it as a requirement. It doesn't seem like it will be a consumer tech from the outset. I imagine eventually it will be used to market to some gamers and people using 3DS Max or AutoCAD.
It depends in my mind what you consider the outset to be, but I could see Apple leveraging this tech in its iMac in the near future. That of course implies that supporting hardware is there. In the Mac Pro and server I think it is a given.
I'm not looking at this as a consumer tech though. At least not initially, it is very much something that professionals can leverage. Even small time developers can make good use of virtualization. Even at the consumer level I can see virtualization become more interesting as Macs grab more market share for the simple reason people have MS software they want to run reliably.
Quote:
I don't think the lack of VT-d support will be a deal-breaker for the majority of people.
No not at all! It however becomes more compelling as the user becomes more sophisticated. With "D" even a consumer level machine could more easily run MS windows with 3D acceleration.
Quote:
As for Clarksfield prices, the chips Apple use in the iMac must cost an amount similar to the mobile chips Intel already have. The top end model is $2200. The XE version of Clarksfield is very expensive but they could stick with the 1.6GHz and 1.73GHz models at $364 and $546, which respectively turbo-boost to 2.8GHz and 3.06GHz. The lower one can go into the 20", the higher one into the 24".
But then what benefit is there over the higher clocked dual cores they already use? The price should be round about the same if they are both mobile prices, which I think they are. The power usage of Clarksfield may be lower if it does in fact have a 35W TDP. The performance of the quads will be slightly better overall, 20-50% and the turbo boost should mean that single tasks don't run any slower.
Good question and I have to say there is the potential for a huge benefit once SL is widely used. The low cost of entry into the SL world for users should not be any great surprise as Apple has a lot of incentive to get it into the hands of as many users as possible. Developers need to know their efforts will be used and getting near 100% uptake on SL is a way to convince developer to take on its new facilities. Software, SL and developers are key to user acceptance of the new multicore processors.
As a side note I'm impressed enough with SL to believe that it can indeed properly leverage the slower cores. Now it is up to the developers to harness that potential where they need to. The interesting thing is that some software seems to benefit already while running on SL, that is a very good sign.
Quote:
It's certainly not what I'd call a compelling upgrade though and the clock speed drop will affect the marketing but they can't really use much else because of the power draw or risk waiting until next year for better chips. Last refresh, they made the move to OpenCL compatible GPUs, this time they either jump to the new CPU architecture, do a redesign or drop/rework the prices.
The need for new CPU's is certainly compelling but I'm seeing some really mixed info on the viability of i5 Lynnfields. In some cases Core 2 Quads are very close competitors. Frankly it appears that much of the benchmarking community is confused by the results they are seeing. I mention Lynnfields because i would love to see Apple step away from mobile processors in at least some of the iMac models. I'd rather see a properly engineered thermal solution than to sit by waiting for a Mac with Midrange performance.
That given that Apple has no plans for the fabled XMac. This of course is a whole thread on its own but if mobile processors go into the iMac again, with no options at the high end, then Apple needs to seriously consider another platform to fill the mid range desktop node. The Mac Pro is now such a huge step up form the iMac that it is becoming a joke.
And then there's the socket transitions that includes boxed and bulk sales. It will take almost 2 years for the C2D/C2Q to become "irrelevant".
Well I have to disagree, but it will all play out soon. I think the key here is that the total cost to deliver a PC is what matters and Core processors are going to be a problem for manufactures cost wise.
Then you have the perception, in the computer using community at large, that more cores are better. Or the general reluctance to buy what is perceived to be old technology.
The question in my mind is can a i5 derived PC be sold for under $600. If it can then it is the de-facto low end. Is that a stretch, maybe and might require refactoring what is considered a PC but a manufacture can come close to this number.
In many ways the C2D is irrelevant now, the C2Q is a more interesting story. In some cases it can compete well against the i5 (based on current benchmarking info) but the question in my mind is can it offer up a viable low cost motherboard to compete with i5. I'd have to say it will be a close call.
i5 is a new low end chip and it gives up a lot with respect to i7. One of the biggest issues being the loss of SMT. i don't dismiss that it is fast, i"m saying fairly clearly it is the new low end.
Now that Snow Leopard is out you have got to realize how important such a facility will be in wringing out maximal performance from the system AND apps using the new facilities in Snow Leopard. The fact that i5 effectively beats older processors doesn't detract form the fact that it is now the low end solution from Intel.
Frankly I'm stunned that you can't see this in the charts posted on the very web site you referenced. Notably this site tested the hardware on a questionable operating system that in no way compares with Snow Leopard and its new technologies. Admittedly there is little bench marking taking place on Apple hardware, based on any of these processors but until proven other wise I will continue to believe that SL will take advantage of all those threads on i7 in a very positive way. It is kinda the whole point of SL, GCD and the other improvements; that is to leverage the new hardware available in a way that few shipping OS do.
**************
Given all this arguing I still have to wonder if we will even see hardware based on Intels desktop chips from Apple. That is really the great sadness in this thread, Apple doesn't have anything offering up midrange performance, in a smallish desktop box. As I mentioned a long time ago the resulting gap between its laptop based machines and the Mac Pro just gets wider and wider mirroring consumer frustration. So what would be extremely nice would be to see Apple deliver one or more machines with this desktop solution. If nothing else we can benchmark to our hearts content (given that SL enhanced software comes out).
Nods.
Quote:
That given that Apple has no plans for the fabled XMac. This of course is a whole thread on its own but if mobile processors go into the iMac again, with no options at the high end, then Apple needs to seriously consider another platform to fill the mid range desktop node. The Mac Pro is now such a huge step up form the iMac that it is becoming a joke.
I heartily agree with everything Dave has said so far. An ancient cpu in an iMac selling from £900-£1600. It's poor value for money in that context with dubious GPU choices.
No quad core. And paying £1450 to get entry to a 'low end' GPU that trumps my two year old GS. Big Meh.
The iMac used to be about value for money. Now. It's not. The traditional tower Mac tower market has ascended to the heavens. Re-he-he-heally, Apple? £1800 to get a quad core cpu when the rest of the sane world has i7 class performance for less than a grand? Gpus with 1-2 gigs of VRAM on them for less than a grand? Puh-lease.
I own the iMac. Pre-2009 insane price hike in a recession model. It's a work of art.
But it's long overdue a proper thermal solution (gets very hot top left under load!), a decent desktop cpu and decent desktop GPU.
It's beautiful. But tech wise? An ageing queen, darling.
New chips please, don't spare the salt and vinegar and a price cut so we can get home.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. And while I'm being reasonable...a 28-30 inch model. It's not like 24 inch monitors are expensive these days...the market is moving on to 26, 27, 28, 30 inch LCDs...yeah we like the iphone and ipods...and tolerate the laptops...but can we puh-lease see some innovation and some love for the consumer desktops?
... I don't care that much exactly what sort of CPU they stick into the next iMac... but give me a Quad-core 24" iMac with 4GB+ RAM and a decent desktop GPU and at least keep or lover the price a bit and I'm right in... the piggy bank is full and waiting for your move Apple No blue-ray or BS like that needed... what we need is quad-core power bundled with the GPU openCL goodness, not some useless gadgets like BR...
... I don't care that much exactly what sort of CPU they stick into the next iMac... but give me a Quad-core 24" iMac with 4GB+ RAM and a decent desktop GPU and at least keep or lover the price a bit and I'm right in... the piggy bank is full and waiting for your move Apple No blue-ray or BS like that needed... what we need is quad-core power bundled with the GPU openCL goodness, not some useless gadgets like BR...
Fully agree!
Though I think that Apple should include LED screens, together with Quads and improved GPU options (4870HD) or nVidia >260 GT
I refuse to buy an dual core iMac with nothing more than a ATI 4850 under the hood in the graphics department.
It's just stupid that you have to buy an Mac Pro in order to get a Mac capable of running any games at full resolution (>1920x1200 - current 24" iMac's screen resolution, but hopefully higher, if they upgrade to LED)
PS. And while I'm being reasonable...a 28-30 inch model. It's not like 24 inch monitors are expensive these days...the market is moving on to 26, 27, 28, 30 inch LCDs...yeah we like the iphone and ipods...and tolerate the laptops...but can we puh-lease see some innovation and some love for the consumer desktops?
A larger display could mean more room for cooling?so the possibility of a desktop CPU?but on the other hand Apple could choose to put mobile CPUs in it.
Way back when, when apple first introduced the intel iMacs and later core2 ones, they were using chips that retailed for 600 - 800 dollars, that was on machines that were in the $1600 range. They can do this because the price they pay wholesale, and costs are amortized over the life of the product.
There is very little reason that apple may not do that again.... their biggest concern initially isn't chip price, it is the thermal efficiency and the performance of the chip. Over time, initial costs are relatively irrelevant.
Those can easily go into the iMac and I'd guess some of the MBPs too. The Radeon 4830 it has also seems to have 512GFlops computing power vs 120GFlops on the 9600M GT.
Those can easily go into the iMac and I'd guess some of the MBPs too. The Radeon 4830 it has also seems to have 512GFlops computing power vs 120GFlops on the 9600M GT.
Oh, snap, sh*t just got real.
Seriously, those look very nice. I wonder what the design was inspired by. That mobility Radeon 4830, by the way, uses the same chip as the desktop Radeon 4770. It's the very first 40nm GPU, very cool and low power.
Seriously, those look very nice. I wonder what the design was inspired by. That mobility Radeon 4830, by the way, uses the same chip as the desktop Radeon 4770. It's the very first 40nm GPU, very cool and low power.
i5 is a new low end chip and it gives up a lot with respect to i7. One of the biggest issues being the loss of SMT. i don't dismiss that it is fast, i"m saying fairly clearly it is the new low end.
Now that Snow Leopard is out you have got to realize how important such a facility will be in wringing out maximal performance from the system AND apps using the new facilities in Snow Leopard. The fact that i5 effectively beats older processors doesn't detract form the fact that it is now the low end solution from Intel.
Frankly I'm stunned that you can't see this in the charts posted on the very web site you referenced. Notably this site tested the hardware on a questionable operating system that in no way compares with Snow Leopard and its new technologies. Admittedly there is little bench marking taking place on Apple hardware, based on any of these processors but until proven other wise I will continue to believe that SL will take advantage of all those threads on i7 in a very positive way. It is kinda the whole point of SL, GCD and the other improvements; that is to leverage the new hardware available in a way that few shipping OS do.
**************
Given all this arguing I still have to wonder if we will even see hardware based on Intels desktop chips from Apple. That is really the great sadness in this thread, Apple doesn't have anything offering up midrange performance, in a smallish desktop box. As I mentioned a long time ago the resulting gap between its laptop based machines and the Mac Pro just gets wider and wider mirroring consumer frustration. So what would be extremely nice would be to see Apple deliver one or more machines with this desktop solution. If nothing else we can benchmark to our hearts content (given that SL enhanced software comes out).
Dave
It has 2 memory controllers on the CPU die instead of 3, which for super memory intensive things hurts performance. Of course, only serious pro or scientific apps chow through gigs of data at a time. i think the heat/energy performance needs to be done for the whole machine b/c the memory controller isn't on the motherboard anymore.
The core i5 is a really good consumer CPU. It has 4 cores, which is more than most people will need for multiprocessing apps and the memory system is a hell of a lot faster than any of the core2 quad processors - even when it only has 2 controllers instead of 3.
I would hope that apple would move toward using them in the imacs, as it would be a huge improvement.
The other problem with corei7 machines ATM is that the motherboards are more expensive than core i5s and they need 3 memory chips at a time to use all the controllers. For current consumer apps, 4 gigs is the sweet spot, 6 is overkill and 8 is awesome. So having a consumer machine with two memory slots means you get 4 or 8 gigs (if you want to pony up the huge amount of cash 4 gig chips cost).
edit: The other big shift between core2 chips and the core i5 and i7 is how the cache is utilized. All the cores on the new chips share an L3 cache and have their own 256k l2 cache. This means that data that all the cores are working on, get put on the L3, which reduces the number of trips to the main memory bus. I can't remember offhand all the other details, but its a much better multiprocessing setup. in comparison, the old chips might have duplicate data on the two caches, and be would have to get that duplicate data twice off the main memory system.
But keep in mind that memory speed improvements don't translate that well to real world application performance simply because most apps aren't that memory intensive and those that are immediately saturate the memory bus. For working on huge video or photos or doing matrix algebra with giant > 100MB matrices, the new system will be significantly better. for web surfing and email it won't matter.
On the surface much of below is true but in reality things are let's say interesting. In some cases i5 isn't showing a substantial lead over the old Core 2 Quads. A number of people benchmarking I5 are see strange results.
Now this could be software issues or something worst I'm not sure the strange behaviour of the I5 chip has been nailed down yet. It is safe to say that for now I5 isn't simply an I7 with a narrower memory controller.
Dave
Quote:
Originally Posted by freakboy
It has 2 memory controllers on the CPU die instead of 3, which for super memory intensive things hurts performance. Of course, only serious pro or scientific apps chow through gigs of data at a time. i think the heat/energy performance needs to be done for the whole machine b/c the memory controller isn't on the motherboard anymore.
The core i5 is a really good consumer CPU. It has 4 cores, which is more than most people will need for multiprocessing apps and the memory system is a hell of a lot faster than any of the core2 quad processors - even when it only has 2 controllers instead of 3.
I would hope that apple would move toward using them in the imacs, as it would be a huge improvement.
The other problem with corei7 machines ATM is that the motherboards are more expensive than core i5s and they need 3 memory chips at a time to use all the controllers. For current consumer apps, 4 gigs is the sweet spot, 6 is overkill and 8 is awesome. So having a consumer machine with two memory slots means you get 4 or 8 gigs (if you want to pony up the huge amount of cash 4 gig chips cost).
edit: The other big shift between core2 chips and the core i5 and i7 is how the cache is utilized. All the cores on the new chips share an L3 cache and have their own 256k l2 cache. This means that data that all the cores are working on, get put on the L3, which reduces the number of trips to the main memory bus. I can't remember offhand all the other details, but its a much better multiprocessing setup. in comparison, the old chips might have duplicate data on the two caches, and be would have to get that duplicate data twice off the main memory system.
But keep in mind that memory speed improvements don't translate that well to real world application performance simply because most apps aren't that memory intensive and those that are immediately saturate the memory bus. For working on huge video or photos or doing matrix algebra with giant > 100MB matrices, the new system will be significantly better. for web surfing and email it won't matter.
Yeah 95W for CPU is quite high. That's what it is on my Athlon X2 7550 BE OC'ed 2.7ghz to 3.0ghz. Even at stock 2.7ghz if you use the stock CPU cooler it is NOISY. Luckily I have a Zalman aftermarket cooler (CNPS something) that is a superb CPU heatsink/pipe/fan thingy.
I'm not going with anything more than 65W on CPUs if I can on my next build. Though AMD has come out with the Athlon2 X4 at remarkable price/performance:
That's likely total power draw which includes the display and other hardware. The display probably uses 40-50W on the 20". This means the TDP of the CPU from the maximum power usage would be around 45-55W.
A 95W CPU is a bit high. The low power 65W Core 2 Quads still seem like a better option.
Q8400s in the 20", Q9550s in the 24". People are paying enough for these machines, they could at least put high value processors in them. If the Core 2 Duo desktop prices match up for Apple's machines, their 2.66GHz low end is under $200, maybe under $100 and that's in a $1200 computer.
For the high end, using a $320 processor in a $2200 machine isn't that unreasonable.
I guess Apple assume people who buy iMacs won't be doing much more than video and audio encoding, which doesn't get a huge boost unless you do multiple encodings at a time. I think by now a dual core in such an expensive machine is ridiculous. Either drop the prices so the entry point is under $1000 or use faster chips (speaking from the consumer perspective).
Yeah 95W for CPU is quite high. That's what it is on my Athlon X2 7550 BE OC'ed 2.7ghz to 3.0ghz. Even at stock 2.7ghz if you use the stock CPU cooler it is NOISY. Luckily I have a Zalman aftermarket cooler (CNPS something) that is a superb CPU heatsink/pipe/fan thingy
With the new chips you can't look at power in the same way. 95 watts looks like alot but then you need to subtract about 25 watts for the chipset that would be elsewhere on the board. Yes it is a big point load but as you note there are good solutions for that. It is better to consider overall power usage of the board.
Quote:
I'm not going with anything more than 65W on CPUs if I can on my next build. Though AMD has come out with the Athlon2 X4 at remarkable price/performance:
AMD does have some respectable CPUs again. Still if you worry about power you need to rethink just looking at CPU power.
Quote:
That's on my wishlist more than anything Intel. I'm not overpaying 30% to 50% just because it's all Intel and shiny and what not.
Choose the best processor for the performance you need in your apps. That isn't always Intel even though some will try to tell you so.
Quote:
I'm going to get the most value for money for CPU and GPU on my PC rig.
In the mobile arena though the Penryns have been excellent, I have to say.
Desktop space, different.
That is true but we are talking about Apple here, or we where. So the conversation is kinda limited to Intel. An AMD powered Mac would be nice though. Not so much for performance but to keep Intel on it's toes.
With the new chips you can't look at power in the same way. 95 watts looks like alot but then you need to subtract about 25 watts for the chipset that would be elsewhere on the board. Yes it is a big point load but as you note there are good solutions for that. It is better to consider overall power usage of the board.
AMD does have some respectable CPUs again. Still if you worry about power you need to rethink just looking at CPU power.
Seriously, those look very nice. I wonder what the design was inspired by. That mobility Radeon 4830, by the way, uses the same chip as the desktop Radeon 4770. It's the very first 40nm GPU, very cool and low power.
I have heard about some issues with the 4770 but I don't know if that is FUD. I certainly hope ATI continues to push on with their 40nm stuff. I have a desktop ATI 4830 and it is quite powerful for its price. Based on 55nm IIRC.
Those can easily go into the iMac and I'd guess some of the MBPs too. The Radeon 4830 it has also seems to have 512GFlops computing power vs 120GFlops on the 9600M GT.
I'd be very surprised if the mobility 4830 doesn't easily outclass the 9600M GT...
Comments
In six months you will be very lucky to find an i3 or Core 2 based desktop computer in my opinion.
I still see it [Core i5] as the new low end.
If the Core i5 is the new low-end, what can we call desktop systems based on Core i3 or Pentium G6950?
The current Core i5 costs about $200, in january 4C Core i5 cpus will cost between $196 and $259, and 2C Core i5 cpus will cost between $176 and $284. This is way beyond low-end. Maybe too much virtualization does that... Core i3 and nehalem pentiums will cost less than $150. Those are the nehalem low-end cpus.
In 6 months, late Q1 2010, nehalem cpus will still be "niche", less than 10% of Intel's desktop boxed cpus sales, core MA pentiums will still make for 50% of those sales.
And then there's the socket transitions that includes boxed and bulk sales. It will take almost 2 years for the C2D/C2Q to become "irrelevant".
It seems the i5 released this year won't support VT-d but the ones released next year will:
........
Their branding isn't very clear.
An understatement of grand proportions. Sometimes I wonder if Intel is trying to confuse the market on purpose.
.......
It's also not very clear if VT-d will work without special hardware. Parallels supports VT-d but their example usage is a high end workstation:
Special is not really the word i'd use, rather I would call it next generation hardware. I wouldn't put it past the manufactures to try to partition the market along the lines of advanced virtualization though. Given that I fully expect a trickle down of the tech with it showing up first in servers and workstations.
......
They mention Nvidia's Multi-OS SLI feature in the Quadro and state it as a requirement. It doesn't seem like it will be a consumer tech from the outset. I imagine eventually it will be used to market to some gamers and people using 3DS Max or AutoCAD.
It depends in my mind what you consider the outset to be, but I could see Apple leveraging this tech in its iMac in the near future. That of course implies that supporting hardware is there. In the Mac Pro and server I think it is a given.
I'm not looking at this as a consumer tech though. At least not initially, it is very much something that professionals can leverage. Even small time developers can make good use of virtualization. Even at the consumer level I can see virtualization become more interesting as Macs grab more market share for the simple reason people have MS software they want to run reliably.
I don't think the lack of VT-d support will be a deal-breaker for the majority of people.
No not at all! It however becomes more compelling as the user becomes more sophisticated. With "D" even a consumer level machine could more easily run MS windows with 3D acceleration.
As for Clarksfield prices, the chips Apple use in the iMac must cost an amount similar to the mobile chips Intel already have. The top end model is $2200. The XE version of Clarksfield is very expensive but they could stick with the 1.6GHz and 1.73GHz models at $364 and $546, which respectively turbo-boost to 2.8GHz and 3.06GHz. The lower one can go into the 20", the higher one into the 24".
But then what benefit is there over the higher clocked dual cores they already use? The price should be round about the same if they are both mobile prices, which I think they are. The power usage of Clarksfield may be lower if it does in fact have a 35W TDP. The performance of the quads will be slightly better overall, 20-50% and the turbo boost should mean that single tasks don't run any slower.
Good question and I have to say there is the potential for a huge benefit once SL is widely used. The low cost of entry into the SL world for users should not be any great surprise as Apple has a lot of incentive to get it into the hands of as many users as possible. Developers need to know their efforts will be used and getting near 100% uptake on SL is a way to convince developer to take on its new facilities. Software, SL and developers are key to user acceptance of the new multicore processors.
As a side note I'm impressed enough with SL to believe that it can indeed properly leverage the slower cores. Now it is up to the developers to harness that potential where they need to. The interesting thing is that some software seems to benefit already while running on SL, that is a very good sign.
It's certainly not what I'd call a compelling upgrade though and the clock speed drop will affect the marketing but they can't really use much else because of the power draw or risk waiting until next year for better chips. Last refresh, they made the move to OpenCL compatible GPUs, this time they either jump to the new CPU architecture, do a redesign or drop/rework the prices.
The need for new CPU's is certainly compelling but I'm seeing some really mixed info on the viability of i5 Lynnfields. In some cases Core 2 Quads are very close competitors. Frankly it appears that much of the benchmarking community is confused by the results they are seeing. I mention Lynnfields because i would love to see Apple step away from mobile processors in at least some of the iMac models. I'd rather see a properly engineered thermal solution than to sit by waiting for a Mac with Midrange performance.
That given that Apple has no plans for the fabled XMac. This of course is a whole thread on its own but if mobile processors go into the iMac again, with no options at the high end, then Apple needs to seriously consider another platform to fill the mid range desktop node. The Mac Pro is now such a huge step up form the iMac that it is becoming a joke.
Dave
And then there's the socket transitions that includes boxed and bulk sales. It will take almost 2 years for the C2D/C2Q to become "irrelevant".
Well I have to disagree, but it will all play out soon. I think the key here is that the total cost to deliver a PC is what matters and Core processors are going to be a problem for manufactures cost wise.
Then you have the perception, in the computer using community at large, that more cores are better. Or the general reluctance to buy what is perceived to be old technology.
The question in my mind is can a i5 derived PC be sold for under $600. If it can then it is the de-facto low end. Is that a stretch, maybe and might require refactoring what is considered a PC but a manufacture can come close to this number.
In many ways the C2D is irrelevant now, the C2Q is a more interesting story. In some cases it can compete well against the i5 (based on current benchmarking info) but the question in my mind is can it offer up a viable low cost motherboard to compete with i5. I'd have to say it will be a close call.
Dave
i5 is a new low end chip and it gives up a lot with respect to i7. One of the biggest issues being the loss of SMT. i don't dismiss that it is fast, i"m saying fairly clearly it is the new low end.
Now that Snow Leopard is out you have got to realize how important such a facility will be in wringing out maximal performance from the system AND apps using the new facilities in Snow Leopard. The fact that i5 effectively beats older processors doesn't detract form the fact that it is now the low end solution from Intel.
Frankly I'm stunned that you can't see this in the charts posted on the very web site you referenced. Notably this site tested the hardware on a questionable operating system that in no way compares with Snow Leopard and its new technologies. Admittedly there is little bench marking taking place on Apple hardware, based on any of these processors but until proven other wise I will continue to believe that SL will take advantage of all those threads on i7 in a very positive way. It is kinda the whole point of SL, GCD and the other improvements; that is to leverage the new hardware available in a way that few shipping OS do.
**************
Given all this arguing I still have to wonder if we will even see hardware based on Intels desktop chips from Apple. That is really the great sadness in this thread, Apple doesn't have anything offering up midrange performance, in a smallish desktop box. As I mentioned a long time ago the resulting gap between its laptop based machines and the Mac Pro just gets wider and wider mirroring consumer frustration. So what would be extremely nice would be to see Apple deliver one or more machines with this desktop solution. If nothing else we can benchmark to our hearts content (given that SL enhanced software comes out).
Nods.
That given that Apple has no plans for the fabled XMac. This of course is a whole thread on its own but if mobile processors go into the iMac again, with no options at the high end, then Apple needs to seriously consider another platform to fill the mid range desktop node. The Mac Pro is now such a huge step up form the iMac that it is becoming a joke.
I heartily agree with everything Dave has said so far. An ancient cpu in an iMac selling from £900-£1600. It's poor value for money in that context with dubious GPU choices.
No quad core. And paying £1450 to get entry to a 'low end' GPU that trumps my two year old GS. Big Meh.
The iMac used to be about value for money. Now. It's not. The traditional tower Mac tower market has ascended to the heavens. Re-he-he-heally, Apple? £1800 to get a quad core cpu when the rest of the sane world has i7 class performance for less than a grand? Gpus with 1-2 gigs of VRAM on them for less than a grand? Puh-lease.
I own the iMac. Pre-2009 insane price hike in a recession model. It's a work of art.
But it's long overdue a proper thermal solution (gets very hot top left under load!), a decent desktop cpu and decent desktop GPU.
It's beautiful. But tech wise? An ageing queen, darling.
New chips please, don't spare the salt and vinegar and a price cut so we can get home.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. And while I'm being reasonable...a 28-30 inch model. It's not like 24 inch monitors are expensive these days...the market is moving on to 26, 27, 28, 30 inch LCDs...yeah we like the iphone and ipods...and tolerate the laptops...but can we puh-lease see some innovation and some love for the consumer desktops?
... I don't care that much exactly what sort of CPU they stick into the next iMac... but give me a Quad-core 24" iMac with 4GB+ RAM and a decent desktop GPU and at least keep or lover the price a bit and I'm right in... the piggy bank is full and waiting for your move Apple
Fully agree!
Though I think that Apple should include LED screens, together with Quads and improved GPU options (4870HD) or nVidia >260 GT
I refuse to buy an dual core iMac with nothing more than a ATI 4850 under the hood in the graphics department.
It's just stupid that you have to buy an Mac Pro in order to get a Mac capable of running any games at full resolution (>1920x1200 - current 24" iMac's screen resolution, but hopefully higher, if they upgrade to LED)
PS. And while I'm being reasonable...a 28-30 inch model. It's not like 24 inch monitors are expensive these days...the market is moving on to 26, 27, 28, 30 inch LCDs...yeah we like the iphone and ipods...and tolerate the laptops...but can we puh-lease see some innovation and some love for the consumer desktops?
A larger display could mean more room for cooling?so the possibility of a desktop CPU?but on the other hand Apple could choose to put mobile CPUs in it.
There is very little reason that apple may not do that again.... their biggest concern initially isn't chip price, it is the thermal efficiency and the performance of the chip. Over time, initial costs are relatively irrelevant.
Dave
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/14/h...g-pretty-real/
Those can easily go into the iMac and I'd guess some of the MBPs too. The Radeon 4830 it has also seems to have 512GFlops computing power vs 120GFlops on the 9600M GT.
The latest HP laptops have the Clarksfield processors:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/14/h...g-pretty-real/
Those can easily go into the iMac and I'd guess some of the MBPs too. The Radeon 4830 it has also seems to have 512GFlops computing power vs 120GFlops on the 9600M GT.
Oh, snap, sh*t just got real.
Seriously, those look very nice. I wonder what the design was inspired by. That mobility Radeon 4830, by the way, uses the same chip as the desktop Radeon 4770. It's the very first 40nm GPU, very cool and low power.
Oh, snap, sh*t just got real.
Seriously, those look very nice. I wonder what the design was inspired by. That mobility Radeon 4830, by the way, uses the same chip as the desktop Radeon 4770. It's the very first 40nm GPU, very cool and low power.
of course they look nice, they look like MBPs
i5 is a new low end chip and it gives up a lot with respect to i7. One of the biggest issues being the loss of SMT. i don't dismiss that it is fast, i"m saying fairly clearly it is the new low end.
Now that Snow Leopard is out you have got to realize how important such a facility will be in wringing out maximal performance from the system AND apps using the new facilities in Snow Leopard. The fact that i5 effectively beats older processors doesn't detract form the fact that it is now the low end solution from Intel.
Frankly I'm stunned that you can't see this in the charts posted on the very web site you referenced. Notably this site tested the hardware on a questionable operating system that in no way compares with Snow Leopard and its new technologies. Admittedly there is little bench marking taking place on Apple hardware, based on any of these processors but until proven other wise I will continue to believe that SL will take advantage of all those threads on i7 in a very positive way. It is kinda the whole point of SL, GCD and the other improvements; that is to leverage the new hardware available in a way that few shipping OS do.
**************
Given all this arguing I still have to wonder if we will even see hardware based on Intels desktop chips from Apple. That is really the great sadness in this thread, Apple doesn't have anything offering up midrange performance, in a smallish desktop box. As I mentioned a long time ago the resulting gap between its laptop based machines and the Mac Pro just gets wider and wider mirroring consumer frustration. So what would be extremely nice would be to see Apple deliver one or more machines with this desktop solution. If nothing else we can benchmark to our hearts content (given that SL enhanced software comes out).
Dave
It has 2 memory controllers on the CPU die instead of 3, which for super memory intensive things hurts performance. Of course, only serious pro or scientific apps chow through gigs of data at a time. i think the heat/energy performance needs to be done for the whole machine b/c the memory controller isn't on the motherboard anymore.
The core i5 is a really good consumer CPU. It has 4 cores, which is more than most people will need for multiprocessing apps and the memory system is a hell of a lot faster than any of the core2 quad processors - even when it only has 2 controllers instead of 3.
I would hope that apple would move toward using them in the imacs, as it would be a huge improvement.
The other problem with corei7 machines ATM is that the motherboards are more expensive than core i5s and they need 3 memory chips at a time to use all the controllers. For current consumer apps, 4 gigs is the sweet spot, 6 is overkill and 8 is awesome. So having a consumer machine with two memory slots means you get 4 or 8 gigs (if you want to pony up the huge amount of cash 4 gig chips cost).
edit: The other big shift between core2 chips and the core i5 and i7 is how the cache is utilized. All the cores on the new chips share an L3 cache and have their own 256k l2 cache. This means that data that all the cores are working on, get put on the L3, which reduces the number of trips to the main memory bus. I can't remember offhand all the other details, but its a much better multiprocessing setup. in comparison, the old chips might have duplicate data on the two caches, and be would have to get that duplicate data twice off the main memory system.
But keep in mind that memory speed improvements don't translate that well to real world application performance simply because most apps aren't that memory intensive and those that are immediately saturate the memory bus. For working on huge video or photos or doing matrix algebra with giant > 100MB matrices, the new system will be significantly better. for web surfing and email it won't matter.
Now this could be software issues or something worst I'm not sure the strange behaviour of the I5 chip has been nailed down yet. It is safe to say that for now I5 isn't simply an I7 with a narrower memory controller.
Dave
It has 2 memory controllers on the CPU die instead of 3, which for super memory intensive things hurts performance. Of course, only serious pro or scientific apps chow through gigs of data at a time. i think the heat/energy performance needs to be done for the whole machine b/c the memory controller isn't on the motherboard anymore.
The core i5 is a really good consumer CPU. It has 4 cores, which is more than most people will need for multiprocessing apps and the memory system is a hell of a lot faster than any of the core2 quad processors - even when it only has 2 controllers instead of 3.
I would hope that apple would move toward using them in the imacs, as it would be a huge improvement.
The other problem with corei7 machines ATM is that the motherboards are more expensive than core i5s and they need 3 memory chips at a time to use all the controllers. For current consumer apps, 4 gigs is the sweet spot, 6 is overkill and 8 is awesome. So having a consumer machine with two memory slots means you get 4 or 8 gigs (if you want to pony up the huge amount of cash 4 gig chips cost).
edit: The other big shift between core2 chips and the core i5 and i7 is how the cache is utilized. All the cores on the new chips share an L3 cache and have their own 256k l2 cache. This means that data that all the cores are working on, get put on the L3, which reduces the number of trips to the main memory bus. I can't remember offhand all the other details, but its a much better multiprocessing setup. in comparison, the old chips might have duplicate data on the two caches, and be would have to get that duplicate data twice off the main memory system.
But keep in mind that memory speed improvements don't translate that well to real world application performance simply because most apps aren't that memory intensive and those that are immediately saturate the memory bus. For working on huge video or photos or doing matrix algebra with giant > 100MB matrices, the new system will be significantly better. for web surfing and email it won't matter.
I'm not going with anything more than 65W on CPUs if I can on my next build. Though AMD has come out with the Athlon2 X4 at remarkable price/performance:
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3638
That's on my wishlist more than anything Intel. I'm not overpaying 30% to 50% just because it's all Intel and shiny and what not.
I'm going to get the most value for money for CPU and GPU on my PC rig.
In the mobile arena though the Penryns have been excellent, I have to say.
Desktop space, different.
Apple list the power draw for their iMacs:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3559
That's likely total power draw which includes the display and other hardware. The display probably uses 40-50W on the 20". This means the TDP of the CPU from the maximum power usage would be around 45-55W.
A 95W CPU is a bit high. The low power 65W Core 2 Quads still seem like a better option.
Q8400s in the 20", Q9550s in the 24". People are paying enough for these machines, they could at least put high value processors in them. If the Core 2 Duo desktop prices match up for Apple's machines, their 2.66GHz low end is under $200, maybe under $100 and that's in a $1200 computer.
For the high end, using a $320 processor in a $2200 machine isn't that unreasonable.
I guess Apple assume people who buy iMacs won't be doing much more than video and audio encoding, which doesn't get a huge boost unless you do multiple encodings at a time. I think by now a dual core in such an expensive machine is ridiculous. Either drop the prices so the entry point is under $1000 or use faster chips (speaking from the consumer perspective).
Yeah 95W for CPU is quite high. That's what it is on my Athlon X2 7550 BE OC'ed 2.7ghz to 3.0ghz. Even at stock 2.7ghz if you use the stock CPU cooler it is NOISY. Luckily I have a Zalman aftermarket cooler (CNPS something) that is a superb CPU heatsink/pipe/fan thingy
With the new chips you can't look at power in the same way. 95 watts looks like alot but then you need to subtract about 25 watts for the chipset that would be elsewhere on the board. Yes it is a big point load but as you note there are good solutions for that. It is better to consider overall power usage of the board.
I'm not going with anything more than 65W on CPUs if I can on my next build. Though AMD has come out with the Athlon2 X4 at remarkable price/performance:
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3638
AMD does have some respectable CPUs again. Still if you worry about power you need to rethink just looking at CPU power.
That's on my wishlist more than anything Intel. I'm not overpaying 30% to 50% just because it's all Intel and shiny and what not.
Choose the best processor for the performance you need in your apps. That isn't always Intel even though some will try to tell you so.
I'm going to get the most value for money for CPU and GPU on my PC rig.
In the mobile arena though the Penryns have been excellent, I have to say.
Desktop space, different.
That is true but we are talking about Apple here, or we where. So the conversation is kinda limited to Intel. An AMD powered Mac would be nice though. Not so much for performance but to keep Intel on it's toes.
Dave
With the new chips you can't look at power in the same way. 95 watts looks like alot but then you need to subtract about 25 watts for the chipset that would be elsewhere on the board. Yes it is a big point load but as you note there are good solutions for that. It is better to consider overall power usage of the board.
AMD does have some respectable CPUs again. Still if you worry about power you need to rethink just looking at CPU power.
Dave
Good points
Oh, snap, sh*t just got real.
Seriously, those look very nice. I wonder what the design was inspired by. That mobility Radeon 4830, by the way, uses the same chip as the desktop Radeon 4770. It's the very first 40nm GPU, very cool and low power.
I have heard about some issues with the 4770 but I don't know if that is FUD. I certainly hope ATI continues to push on with their 40nm stuff. I have a desktop ATI 4830 and it is quite powerful for its price. Based on 55nm IIRC.
The latest HP laptops have the Clarksfield processors:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/14/h...g-pretty-real/
Those can easily go into the iMac and I'd guess some of the MBPs too. The Radeon 4830 it has also seems to have 512GFlops computing power vs 120GFlops on the 9600M GT.
I'd be very surprised if the mobility 4830 doesn't easily outclass the 9600M GT...