Advertisement: The New iMac – The Ultimate All-in-One. Turbocharged. Starting at $1,199.00 $1,164.99
“Unveiled Tuesday, updated the iMacs have, for the first time, adopted Intel’s Core i3 processor, with some distinct differences between the i3, i5, and i7 models, while the refreshed the Mac Pros tap Intel’s most advanced six-core processor, also a first,” Crothers reports. “Apple has gone with Core i3 processors for the first time. The Core i3, as the number suffix indicates, is Intel’s low-end core i series desktop processor. In addition to the most salient differences–clock (gigahertz) speed and processor core counts–the biggest variation among the various Core i3 and Core i5 models is that a couple of the iMacs don’t have both Turbo Boost and Hyper-Threading. The size of the cache memory is also a distinction.”
Read more in the full article here.
I definitely need more Turbo Boost and Hyper-Threading. And coffee.
I think it’s time to start thinking about replacing my dual 2.0 Power Mac G5… The impression I get, though, is that these machines, while powerful, are not orders of magnitude faster – the extra cores are useful for multiple applications, or for those applications that have been written to benefit from parallel processing. I’d prefer a 30Ghz dual processor machine rather than a 12 core, though…
or he/she is in dire need of a copy editor.
Funny … A cute chick I made it with the other night howled ‘turbo boost and hyper-thread me baby!’
So, i did
@bjh
The Intel line (even years ago) was significantly faster than the PowerPC line. I think you’d be surprised at home much faster an i7 or even an i3 is over a PowerPC.
My “home” = “how” above. My typos are usually the wrong word correctly spelled. Spelling checkers don’t help.
@michael. Thanks for the input. I do have a 2009 iMac so I’ll have to run some benchmarks, and then look at recent benchmarks to compare that iMac with the new Mac Pros.
I am sure the new Macs will be very impressive. My only question for the new towers is that 32 GB of RAM might be relatively small in just a few years. Given how much RAM a 64-bit OS can theoretically address (I recall reading it was 64 Exabytes), I wonder if 32 GB is an Apple-imposed limitation, or if it’s presently baked into Intel CPUs.
Any thoughts or insights would be appreciated. Thanks!
@bjh
Here are some benchmarks of various macs:
http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/
I just wonder why it took Apple so long to adopt the i3,5,7 core line of processors. Unfortunately, we still have to suffer with winblows machines, and I’ve had i7 processors in them for around a year now. Strange.
@X:
Was that before or after she took your credit card information?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
@ Ankh
Apple has had i5 and i7 iMacs since the last update.
No doubt these new iMacs are great in terms of specification, but there’s a good number of us out here who are livid that there were no matte screens. People who want matte screens need to get active to sign the petition at http://macmatte.wordpress.com which is 1,000+ already.
Probably one of the most poorly written articles I have read in a long time. For example:
“Unveiled Tuesday, updated the iMacs have, for the first time, adopted Intel’s Core i3 processor, with some distinct differences between the i3, i5, and i7 models, while the refreshed the Mac Pros tap Intel’s most advanced six-core processor, also a first.”
This could have been written thus:
“Unveiled Tuesday, the updated iMacs have for the first time adopted Intel’s Core i3 processor, allowing for some distinct differences between the i3, i5, and i7 models. In addition, the refreshed Mac Pros tap Intel’s most advanced six-core processor, also a first.”
I think CNET needs someone to review their grammar and spelling… Does CNET have editors?????
@Michael
Thanks ! I was actually looking for such a comparison yesterday, and came across this one : http://www.marketingtactics.com/Speedmark/. It has a link to PrimateLabs which I didn’t notice until you posted it.
It’s interesting to see that my 2003-ish machine has a benchmark of 1689. It’s really only in the last year or so that it’s worth thinking about upgrading it (since I would want at least to triple the speed before I replace it). These Geekbench scores, I suspect, are able to take full advantage of all the cores, unlike many applications.
@gmsquires – Apple has had i5 and i7 iMacs since the last update.
Different chips than the current i5 and i7
@ Macmatte,
OMFG! Are you telling me Apple has lost over 1000 sales in the last couple of years because of no matte screens? OMFG!
Contrary to what the PC crowd says, Apple is not a niche player. Apple can’t afford to make a build to order option for just over a thousand customers. Let them buy a Mac mini and any damn screen they want from any supplier they want. Or, they could switch to a Windows machine with Linux on it. I wouldn’t wish Windows on anyone.
About a thousand lost sales. WTF!
@ bjh
> I think it’s time to start thinking about replacing my dual 2.0 Power Mac G5… The impression I get, though, is that these machines, while powerful, are not orders of magnitude faster
I don’t know what you mean by “orders of magnitude.” It’s not 100 times (two orders of magnitude) faster, but it is probably easily 10 times faster.
I have a dual-core 2.0 GHz Power Mac G5 (from 2005), 4GB RAM. And I have a Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz iMac (17-inch “Late 2006” model), 3GB RAM (max). Surprisingly, in terms of everyday performance, the low-end consumer model from 2006 is about equal to a “pro” Mac from 2005. In some ways, my iMac feels faster. A lot of that may be due to today’s Mac OS X software being better optimized for Intel, especially things related to video and graphics. And the Power Mac is running Leopard, so it does not have the Intel-centric optimization improvements of Snow Leopard. However, my impression is that the Intel hardware is “faster,” even at the same GHZ rating and number of cores.
Therefore, a pro Intel Mac from 2010 with six or twelve cores, plus improved supporting architecture, will be FAR faster than a pro PowerPC Mac from 2005, even the quad. But it probably won’t improve email, iTunes, or general web browsing experience significantly. For general use, the main problem with any PowerPC Mac going forward is software compatibility.
@bjh
The impression you get is erroneous. Even a Mac mini blows away your G5 in almost every respect, except probably disk intensive operations. Believe me, I upgraded in 2008 from a 2.3 G5 to a 2.8 Mac Pro and the deference is profound in every single aspect.
@Brian,
I haven’t seen the actual *hardware* specifications yet, but it is typical for Apple to not offer or suggest any RAM configuration beyond the basics. It is quite probable (pending verification so don’t take this as gospel) that you could put 64 GB or more of RAM in the newest machines.
This habit of Apple’s dates at least back to the Mac Plus in ’86. Apple never officially supported anything more than 1 MB of RAM. However, you could install 4 MB, and utilize, if you were willing to go in and physically disconnect one resistor on the motherboard. Doing so did make the power on self test (POST) *significanly* longer. So there are sometimes small issues with going beyond Apple’s recommeded limits.
I AM CONFUSED Apple said they did not put the i3 in the macbook pro because the i3 would actually inhibit the performance of the laptop. I thought it was a lot of double talk but ok if that is true why put the i 3 in a imac that is suppose to be faster then the entry level laptop is suppose to be.
@ken,nugget
Thanks. Maybe later this year I’ll replace my G5 (8Gb 2 Tb) !
@ bjh
I’ve been using my Power Mac G5 like some people use a Mac mini; it’s connected to the living room HDTV as its display. It may use more power than a Mac mini, but it has the advantage of “size” and flexibility to do a lot more.
+ I can watch Internet content from Hulu, YouTube, and other video services on the large screen. I can also watch DVD movies.
+ The second internal drive is a recently-added 2TB WD “Green,” and gives my modest local network seemingly unlimited storage capacity. I boot off the fast/small 160GB stock drive and the second drive is all for data storage. It’s nice to be able to use full-sized 3.5-inch SATA hard drives internally.
+ Using Internet Sharing, I use the G5’s second Ethernet port (there are two) and its built-in AirPort to make it act as a secondary “base station.” 802.11g and slower wireless devices use it; that keeps my primary AirPort base station set at 802.11n-only (to run more efficiently).
+ It’s connected to an old-school Sony turntable via the analog input. I’ve been using GarageBand to record my old “LP” collection and digitize the music. It’s recorded and stored “lossless” on the G5; on my iMac, I use GarageBand to edit the continuous “side A” and “side B” GarageBand project files into the song tracks and “export to iTunes,” converting into AAC files. It works quite well with great results, and I’m enjoying some old music (some I haven’t heard in decades) on my iPod.
(I could connect the turntable to my iMac directly, but when you digitize audio, you should leave it alone while it’s recording for best results, and that would tie up my iMac.)
+ … and it does some other stuff. I’ll probably think of some other tasks for it.
FYI – I control it with a Bluetooth keyboard (the old white one) and mouse (the old single-button one) or using Screen Sharing from my iMac.
So my Power Mac G5 is not my “everyday Mac” but it is still very useful to have around. More useful than I imagine a “Mac mini acting as an Apple TV” being. When it’s ten years old, I’ll probably still be using it for something.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
@ken1w
Thanks for an interesting post. Appreciate to see how people are keeping older technology going.
I have to admit, I wish there was some way to replace the motherboard on my PowerMac G5 – such a great enclosure! This is one of my pet peeves with Apple.
I would like to do something similar, but netflix does not run on G5.