What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
62 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Shhhh! I want prices to drop on the PPC machines so I can get one cheap. Spread the word, "Intel Macs are 5X faster than PPCs - no, 10X faster!!!!""
Exactly. The quad-G5 obliterates anything Intel or AMD are or will be shipping this year.
I can't believe how hard Jobs is going to have to lie when he tries to replace it with the pathetic desktop chips Intel has in the pipeline for later this year.
Drop those 'slow' quad-G5 prices Apple! - Wings, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"...most of these tests are single threaded" isn't true. All the iLife apps that I've run on my Quad show ALL FOUR processors humping along at full tilt when doing anything intensive. I don't have a Duo in front of me but I'm sure that those apps are using both cores as well.
- chaos86, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2oh no! not an apple conspiracy! 2x faster! they lied to us.
oh wait, no they didnt, they've said that the 2x was in SPEC benchmarks with EVERY mention of 2x faster. so apple isnt false advertising after all. damn i wanted to blindly hate apple some more! - chaos86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1oh, and the digg mechanism works on diggs per minute. so yes, a 25 times dugg story can be on the front page if it's being dugg quickly. its not broken and it's not a conspiracy either.
- mwales, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So a 2 Core 2.0GHz is 1.1-1.3 times faster than a single core G5. Lets go ahead and reword this correctly, a single G5 core is almost 2x (more like 1.8) times faster than a single Intel core. And G5s were 64-bit, the Core Duo is only 32-bit. Sounds like Apple just took a big step backwards.
- dracula7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1what im really interested in is the macbook benchmarks... the benefits of intel should really shine in a mobile device, more than a desktop
- zetsurin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Apple lying again....so what's new?"
*****, it just meant they we telling the truth with previous generation chips dickwad. - paulmetzger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2oh my god, stop the presses! Real world performance isn't as good as raw number crunching using an optimized build? whooda thunkit?
- nomore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Considering the new iMac is a dual CPU (on one chip) it's not that impressive afterall... and clearly shows that the G5 certainly is a very fast processor.
I doubt the new first generation of Intel Macs will even beat the speed of a Dual G5 Powermac... since they have dual 1GHz FSB vs the iMac G5's 667MHz FSB - dustinw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Lets see a 2GHz intel DUAL core can outrun a SINGLE processor 2.1GHz G5 by a margin of 1.3. Well that right theer says it all the G5 is faster. The dual core G5 would have knocked the crap out of the intel proc. I'm still sick Apple is leaving one of the coolest archs.
- snuf42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If an application is only using a single thread, then there will be no speed benefit for that application when using a processor with 2 cores. Only application tasks that use multiple threads will benefit from having 2 cores. If you are multitasking and using multiple applications you will benefit from having 2 cores as you have multiple threads from different applications running.rnThese are single application benchmarks. Most likely at least most of these applications are single threaded. Until we get a real set of real world tests showing performance with single threaded apps, multi-threaded apps and multitasking - these benchmarks are pointless.rnAnyone who thinks having a dual core processor will give them twice the performance of a single core processor when running a single threaded application is clueless.rn
- stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Did anyone actually watch the Keynote? Jobs said that those specs themselves may be 2x faster based on numbers, but other pieces of the machine are no faster, such as memory, hard disk (!!!), etc. I swear people are just getting more and more stupid on the IntarWeb.
- palmrest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A little disappointed after reading it.
- iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Did anyone actually watch the Keynote? Jobs said that those specs themselves may be 2x faster based on numbers, but other pieces of the machine are no faster, such as memory, hard disk (!!!), etc. I swear people are just getting more and more stupid on the IntarWeb.
>> Yup, you're right, 100% - so I *HOPE* the new mac mini's with notebook hard drives, have at least a hard drive speed upgrade, because even with the new intel chip in them, it will be dog slow, due (I think) to the slow hard drive. - elroy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No, it's not 2X the speed, but eventually it will FAR faster than the G5 iMac -- because they're not making any more G5's. Get used to it, people.
- Disparity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0it doesn't talk about any graphics-intensive tests... such as games and what-not.
- phidong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Uh yeah.. there's a TON of benchmarks with the same system set-up and faster cpus and the faster cpu computers usually end up scoring higher frames every time.
- gohepcat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"You are obviously not much of a gamer if you think that a game would put any serious load on the MAIN PROECESSOR. They just dont."r
Ohh man. That's going to bite you in the ass. Games stress the main processor just as much as they stress the GPU (more if you are playing at lower resolutions). This is obviously coming from a Mac person with no grasp on modern gaming. A simple look at Tom's Hardware, HardOCP, Thresh's, or any other gaming site will back this up. - isilex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Note that Steve Jobs said at the keynote that even though the int/float tests represent a 2x speed difference -- he also said that it may not necessary be as fast due to the speed of the hard-disks, and other components.... 2x represents cpu/cpu difference in performance.
- Refrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This shows that SPECint and SPECfp are horrible benchmarks. It also shows that Apple switched to SPEC from real world application benchmarks as they have used in the past to make the Core Duo look faster than it really is.
- joehobbes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you watch Steve Jobs' keynote he says that it won't run 2X as fast -- only the processor is that much faster -- he acknoledges that the hard drive, RAM and other bottlenecks keep the system from seeing the full increase.
- Math-Sux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0From a performance standpoint, all this Apple/Intel hubbub is pretty boring. I'm sure the future will bring faster chips and more impressive benchmarks (seems like it always does). Apple has ways had an awesome marketing department.
- Archimboldo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Shhhh! I want prices to drop on the PPC machines so I can get one cheap. Spread the word, "Intel Macs are 5X faster than PPCs - no, 10X faster!!!!"
- freonchill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1anyone knows you cant run an OS on a intel chip w/ less than a 1gb these days
come on..
hehe - Malakin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1More benchmakrs on Arstechnica.
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/imac-coreduo.ars/5 - TomPetty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12 steps forward, one step back.
- Sixcolors, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Jenga, use the carriage return."
Hah, I haven't seen anyone use that word in ages.
Firstly, Jobs brought Apple back from the brink. They had forgotten their audience and were trying to be another beige box for the office.
Secondly, from what I've read Apple dropped IBM - not the other way around. - Refrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Jenga, use the carriage return.
- battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"...it doesn't talk about any graphics-intensive tests... such as games and what-not...."
You are obviously not much of a gamer if you think that a game would put any serious load on the MAIN PROECESSOR. They just dont.
ALL games grab CONTROL of the GRAPHICS card and use the GRAPHICS CARD ON-BOARD PROCESSOR for ALL grapihcs - inlcuding mouse control in many cases. - ZenPirate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1 The Intel move was never about Desktops. It was about getting the G4 out of the laptops.
- hibern8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Pretty much what I expected. 20-50% increase in performance for native applications and a similar drop in performance for anything that has to run through Rosetta. Actually it appears that most applications running through Rosetta run at about 1Ghz G4 speed ... ironically that is what I have been using quite happily for three years.
I am not a desktop person (didn't own one since 1995) and it appears the difference on the portable side will be even greater, since Core Due is a more significant upgrade from G4 than from G5 (plus faster FSB, memory and graphics). Also, once Intel native applications are available performance differences should show even more (consumer and portable, PowerMac G5 will be able to hold their own against MacTels for some time to come). Anyways, I'm happy and can't wait for Rev. B Mac/PowerBooks to replace my aging TiBook. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well it's more like 1.3 to 1.4x faster a far cry from the 2x faster apple claims and that's vs the single G5 2.1GHz .Hardly impressive and not worth the cost of buying a new machine and enduring a platform switch.
The core duo is two pentium M cores not one I saw a pic of the accual chip so yes it's rather unimpressive a two core chip beating a single core chip by 40% and thats with a much better graphics card handling the quartz GUI.
Apple laid an egg on the processor choice as they could have used a low volt version of the P4 6xx series , the sempron 64 or the athlon 64 mobile all of which are powerful yet cool running chips.
I'd wait until the next version on the imac since the core duo is very much dead how much longer will IA-32 be supported ?
I find it inexcusable since even semprons and celeron Ds are 64 bits now apple could have made progress If they skipped completely over IA-32 and went with X86-64 from the start .
From a software engineering stand point avoiding ia-32 altogether would have given them advantage over Microsoft's windows vista in not having to support the 32bit instructions etc as X86-64 fixed many of the problems that existed in IA-32 such as registry shortages 16 vs 8 and cleared much of the cruft from the old days . - chetmancini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Now who thought that the iMac would be 3x faster? In the keynote it was obvious to anyone watching that those were for integer and float calculations, completely different from real world performance benchmarks.
- ggriffit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah well, this is good news. It's a hair faster than the G5 which was SUPER fast.
Think of how great the difference will be when they put it right next to a PowerBook G4. I'm running a 1.33 and they'll probably compare it to the newest 1.67 (which is a bit faster than mine.) I'm really excited! - ZenPirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0 Jebus... by some of the comments here you'd think IBM could part the Red Sea. Isn't this the same company behind the Xbox 360 shortage?
- dracula7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0some people just want to buy a piece of ancient history
- notforgames, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This was hilarious the first time around.
Now it's just annoying.
I honestly thought that most of you were joking when you started mentioning gaming on Apple Computers.
Macs are meant for people that do real work on a computer. Gaming is for 15 year-olds, not grown people
who have a say in what kind of computer they are going to buy. When you buy a Mac, you are buying a workhorse; a reliable computer that will put up with a pounding. These computers are built for professionals,
video and audio editors, and for people that know the value of a superior machine when they see it. For gaming, I would suggest buying a P.C. Run Windows, have a ball, but when you get tired of hitting control-alt-delete, and feel like taking out your rage through poorly worded comments on this thread, take into account that there are people in here that use computers for work, not play. Also take into account your argument, because arguing that games run poorly on a Mac is like arguing that Gasoline runs poorly in a Diesel engine. In all, I think this stupid rivalry between Windows users and Mac users needs to end. I have a good bet running that Windows is soon to become a new version of OS X. - dracula7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0right, this was apples choice (and a good one at that). time warp to 7 months ago:
http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM,+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html - Refrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Apple is still selling Imacs with G5s and PowerBooks with G4s.
http://www.apple.com/imacg5/
http://www.apple.com/powerbook/ - FZero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How can this be a "first" lab test when Ars Technica already did this almost a week ago? No digg.
- theholyone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hi everyone in mac world. First an admission, I don't own a mac, never have and never will. In my opinion apple stands for design over function. As for the processor that is rattling your cages here are some facts. THIS IS PURELY A NOTEBOOK CHIP. Why apple are sticking it in a desktop is Probably due to limited cooling available within the confines of the chassis. The real desktop chip will be released later this year and will be 64bit and will have support for hyper threading (that's 2 real cores and two virtual cores). The chip will be based on the core duo you see before you but with everything 'put back in place'. The Pentium line is dead which is probably music to your ears. On a final note I find it amusing that a PC notebook chip is faster than your fast desktop offering. Never mind we will all have the same computer soon now that apple are making re badged PC's.
- dignon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't see what the problem is. The iMac shows approximately 1.4x better performance overall than the G5 in real-world applications. Everyone knows and understands that the "2x faster" Jobs was talking about is not real-world testing. Every PC manufacturer out there does the exact same market-speak. These results really validate what Jobs has said - Its considerably faster and is the exact same price as before. Sounds good to me.
- dasbell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0LOL... Apple stock down 2 points
- mark_in_bc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2After all it's still a Mac. What do you think it was going to do? Walk on water perhaps?
- dvdcr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0think* damn sorry...
- YouKnowWho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Amazing how every Apple story here on Digg, is bound to get the Apple bashers to comment always..
- Jarrod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1from the article-
"that makes the Core Duo iMac 1.1 to 1.3 times as fast."
Why do people continue to deify Steve Jobs? What a liar! Two times faster my ***. - rtilford, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1its still faster though :) Go Apple!
- KriTenKs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0So basically this test proves that the Intel chip is in fact better than the 0.1GHz faster G5. It also proves that Apple exaggerates allot and that the Intel Core Duo is not 2x faster than the G5, more like only 1.4 times faster
-
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is