Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Eug Wanker · Jan 31, 2006, 01:39 AM

Article

thiagofll · Jan 31, 2006, 02:07 AM

Is there an iMac Core Solo?

Eug Wanker · Jan 31, 2006, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by thiagofll

Is there an iMac Core Solo?

powerbook911 · Jan 31, 2006, 02:34 AM

How can you get to that processor menu shown on this page:

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2685&p=6

??

Thanks.

Ganesha · Jan 31, 2006, 02:49 AM

So we can conclude
- 2 cores is faster then 1 core
- a single G5 core is faster then a single Core core.
- Steve mislead. PPC needed to be removed from iMac anyway.

thiagofll · Jan 31, 2006, 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Cool, how do u do that? Do I need a special software?

Pierre B. · Jan 31, 2006, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by thiagofll

Cool, how do u do that? Do I need a special software?

Developer Tools.

saxondale. · Jan 31, 2006, 08:01 AM

Why would anyone want to run 1 CPU when you can run 2? Apart from benchmarks...?

Eug Wanker · 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by saxondale.

Why would anyone want to run 1 CPU when you can run 2? Apart from benchmarks...?

Just for interest's sake here, but it will also be useful in that it's quite probable that a future Mac laptop and the Mac mini will use a single-core Yonah. This gives you in advance an idea of how fast it will be.

P.S. I'm wondering here if turning off one core also shuts off half the L2 cache in these benches. If so, that means it's not really Core Solo (2 MB L2), but Celeron M (1 MB L2).

EDIT:

According to the article's author, shutting off 1 core does not affect the cache. So it is indeed functioning as a Core Solo with the full 2 MB L2.

Note however that I feel it's unlikely that the Mac mini will get a true Core Solo. I'd bet on Celeron M, with 1 MB L2 for the Mac mini, a few months from now.

Horsepoo!!! · Jan 31, 2006, 09:01 AM

Again...before anyone jumps on the "OMFG teh single core G5 is fast0r th4n teh Core Solo" bandwagon, that is not the point. The point is dual-core G5s at that speed wouldn't fit in a MacBook Pro or an iMac.

Please, lets keep this thread sane in that respect. Steve has made it very clear that the major reason for transition was performance per watt.

parsec_kadets · Jan 31, 2006, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by saxondale.

Why would anyone want to run 1 CPU when you can run 2? Apart from benchmarks...?

It can make debugging multi-threaded processes easier. One simple example is if you see a bug when you have two cores running, but not when you have one, then you know the bug is related to the way threading is being handled. That's actually a very handy feature and I'm glad Apple included it.

Eug Wanker · Jan 31, 2006, 03:40 PM

Stole this from another thread: More benches

So that settles it. If you want to run your old Apple ][+ software as fast as possible on your Mac, then you should get an iMac Core Duo.

madmanXwater · Jan 31, 2006, 04:14 PM

Just like every other benchmark I've seen on the new iMac, these three tests are somewhat dependant on disk access. I'd like to see a benchmark done on say H264 playback performance or track and plug-in count in Logic Pro when it ships UB. My fist test of a 2Ghz iMac Core Duo at my local Best Buy showed better playback performance of Apple's HD example H264 videos than a Dual 2Ghz G5 PowerMac! That's impressive.

Mike

Eug Wanker · Jan 31, 2006, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by madmanXwater

Just like every other benchmark I've seen on the new iMac, these three tests are somewhat dependant on disk access. I'd like to see a benchmark done on say H264 playback performance or track and plug-in count in Logic Pro when it ships UB. My fist test of a 2Ghz iMac Core Duo at my local Best Buy showed better playback performance of Apple's HD example H264 videos than a Dual 2Ghz G5 PowerMac! That's impressive.

Most of the benches shown in this thread aren't limited by disk access speeds.

Also, since you asked... H.264 decoding is reportedly much faster on Intel Macs.

I don't know if they're helped by the X1600 GPU or not, but the X1600 does support hardware H.264 acceleration.

Crusoe · Jan 31, 2006, 05:11 PM

I browsed the article quickly but was impressed with power consumption. Since I leave my Macs on all the time, this'll save me some cash each year. On a side note, MacBook is going to see a healthy dose of battery life methinks.

I've survived 2 years with a rev A 17" Powerbook and kept thinking I'd get a PowerMac but with the efficiency and power of the new CoreDuos the choice is clear.

All in all you get a moderately faster computer with lower power consumption.

madmanXwater · Jan 31, 2006, 05:46 PM

Hi, not to be picky but I didn't say, "limited", I said "somewhat dependent". Just to clarify. :-)
Thanks for the info on H264, I also had heard the X1600 had hardware support for H264 but have no confirmation that it's being utilized.

Mike

Eug Wanker · Feb 1, 2006, 12:33 AM

I don't know if they're helped by the X1600 GPU or not, but the X1600 does support hardware H.264 acceleration.

I also had heard the X1600 had hardware support for H264 but have no confirmation that it's being utilized.

It turns out that OS X is not using the X1x00 series' H.264 acceleration at this time.

mduell · Feb 1, 2006, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

It turns out that OS X is not using the X1x00 series' H.264 acceleration at this time.

That's really surprising, with reports from people about playing 3 1080p H.264 movie trailers at the same time on Intel Macs without dropping frames... do you have a link?

Pierre B. · Feb 1, 2006, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

That's really surprising, with reports from people about playing 3 1080p H.264 movie trailers at the same time on Intel Macs without dropping frames...

I don't believe that this is possible. The CPU usage in 1080p decoding just doesn't allow to run three trailers at the same time. However, three 720p trailers seems quite feasible.

mduell · Feb 1, 2006, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

I don't believe that this is possible. The CPU usage in 1080p decoding just doesn't allow to run three trailers at the same time. However, three 720p trailers seems quite feasible.

Originally Posted by inkhead

First of all, the specs aren't BS. Go play with one of the machines at the expo yourself. I had 3 1080p videos playing flawlessly at once.

Linky

Either Apple has drasticly improved their H.264 playback codec or they're using the GPU.

Eug Wanker · 03:44 PM

According to the author of the AT article I linked in the first post in this thread:

"Max CPU utilization (across both CPUs) when playing a 1080p stream scaled to fit the screen is about 60%, but it usually hovers below 50%. I am not sure whether or not the X1600's H.264 decode acceleration is taken advantage of (I doubt it), I'm trying to find out now."

That highlighted statement is confirmed by this bench done by someone else:

In other words, a 1.83 GHz Core Duo is great for one 1080p stream, and borderline for two 1080p streams. Three? Unlikely, unless they're at less than 24 fps (which could still look very smooth) or lower rez (ie. less than usual for 1080p, but still more than 720p).

The author of the AT article then later says:

"I just confirmed with ATI, the X1600's H.264 decode acceleration is currently not supported under OS X. ATI is working with Apple on trying to get the support built in, but currently it isn't there."

madmanXwater · Feb 1, 2006, 06:09 PM

So if in fact the X1600 is not being utilized, does that mean that the new iMac is faster than a dual 2Ghz G5? At least in H.264 playback it seams so. So is it optimized code for X86 or is it that a Intel Core Duo can out perform a dual G5 at certain tasks??

I see that Logic Pro 7.2 for Intel has been released today. I have ordered my copy so I can see how it performs compaired to G5 sytems. Can't wait!

Mike

Eug Wanker · Feb 1, 2006, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by madmanXwater

So if in fact the X1600 is not being utilized, does that mean that the new iMac is faster than a dual 2Ghz G5?

For some things yes. For some things no.

JustinHoMi · Feb 1, 2006, 07:26 PM

Ya know, it doesn't really matter to me if a single core is slower than a single G5 or not. In fact, that's probably why Apple put two cores in the current Intel macs. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple switched to single core cpus in the future, as soon as the speeds improve.

These intel macs are incredibly responsive, even with lots of stuff going on in the background. The other day I was compiling software, watching a dvd, and browsing the web all at once... and I didn't notice a hint of slowdown, even though the Activity Monitor said that both cpus were at 100%.

I'm happy!