Intel’s Pine Trail may not be out in full force just yet, but it looks like German website CarTFT has gotten ahold of a couple of Intel’s latest processor / motherboard combos (intended primarily for nettops) and gone ahead and published a few early benchmarks. As you may have expected, however, the boards don’t exactly represent a huge leap over current systems in terms of performance — especially when compared to an Atom 330 processor paired with an Ion chipset. Indeed, the Atom 330 / Ion pairing actually beat out both the Atom D510 and D410 in a number of real-world Windows 7 performance tests, although the new Atoms did of course come out top when it came to raw processor performance. Then again, the new boards do also both come in at under $100, and they each boast some reasonably good improvements in power consumption, which should be enough to get plenty of folks to overlook look a few shortcomings.
Immediate obsolescence is an age old problem in the computer industry, but it doesn’t look like the upcoming Core i9 “Gulftown” processor is going to do anything to solve it. Word is from early benchmarks of the upcoming Intel processor is that it bests the current Core i7 at the top of the heap with speed gains as large as 50% — directly in line with its addition of two cores on top of the Core i7’s existing four. Of course, six 2.8GHz cores aren’t quite as exponentially helpful when applied to non-optimized tasks, but with most major modern software development aimed at better utilizing multiple cores, the core overkill of Core i9 will likely prove increasingly useful over time. At the start, however, Core i9’s improvements will come at a premium: 130W power consumption instead of 95W in Core i7, and of course a high-end only price tag to match. Word is we’ll be seeing these chips hit the market in early 2010, possibly as soon as January.
It’s been a long time coming, hasn’t it? OCZ Technology’s Colossus is the outfit’s first in the desktop SSD space, and with capacities scaling as high at 1TB, it’s certainly tempting for performance junkies who just can’t pry themselves away from their tower. The benchmark-minded kids over at PC Perspective were able to get a drive in with final firmware a few weeks back, and they’ve pushed out a full review just prior to these things hitting retail en masse. Needless to say, all the numbers in the world won’t make this any cheaper, but for those willing to spend at least $3.24 per gigabyte on internal storage, there’s hardly a better option out right now. Reviewers found that read and write speeds seriously pushed the SATA 3Gb/sec limit, and the latter were “faster than on any SATA device tested to date.” Sadly, the lack of TRIM support and the inability for end-users to upgrade the firmware put somewhat of a damper on things, but if neither one of those tidbits bother you, pulling the trigger just might be the right thing to do.
Our iMac review included a 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo chip inside, but we received the top-of-the-line iMac housing the more promising 2.8GHz Core i7 processor. Do more cores make up for lower clock speeds? Yes. Often 2X to 3X.
The Basic Differences in Chips
First off, I should note that the Core i7 chip has what Intel calls a “turbo mode.” That is, when it’s not utilizing all of its cores, it can dynamically overclock itself up to 3.4GHz on whatever single core is in use. It can, as shown in this video, work in steps. So you get the turbo benefit when using some of the four cores in this iMac’s chip, but you also get it when all cores are being partially used. For example, if four cores are running but only at a fraction of their total capacity (less then 100%), the cores can use that electrical/thermal overhead to overclock to varying degrees. This should theoretically make up for the difference between the two-core 3.06GHz chip and the hyperthreaded quad core chip at a base of 2.8GHz.
The other thing to realize about these newer Core i7 chips are that they have no northbridge—or bus—between the memory and CPU. The memory controller is built right into the processor, and there’s a new tech called QuickPath interconnect which connects the cores in a point-to-point architecture. Core i7 supports triple-channel memory (which would use three banks at once), but this iMac only came loaded with two banks of RAM filled. Like our other iMac, that’s a 2GB + 2GB arrangement.
*Note that this machine also had a faster ATI Radeon 4850 video card with 512MB of RAM (versus the 4670 card in the other iMac) which may have impacted performance in several apps. I have no idea which of these apps uses the GPU to accelerate its tasks under Snow Leopard. (For example, Preview may use it to help render JPGs faster, or it may not. Apple could not tell me. In Adobe After Effects, the Radeon series of cards apparently is not supported for OpenCL acceleration. )
Performance with Multithreaded Apps
In short, any task we tried that expressly was written to either a) take advantage of multiple cores, or, b) take advantage of multiple cores through Snow Leopard’s multicore middleware, Grand Central Dispatch, were 2 to 3 times faster. (More on that here.) These results include:
• 64-bit versions of Geekbench, which focus on CPU and memory tests. • Adobe After Effects benchmarks • Opening 20 images of Tokyo Tower that are 2000×2000 pixels and 35MB each.
Impressive stuff, but honestly, those tests were kind of uninteresting to me. I mean, those tests don’t really have any correlation to my daily computing use. So on a whim, after benchmarking, I tested Handbrake, the DVD ripping software I love. It, too, was freaking fast.
I know the app is multithreaded, but I did not know what level of optimization it was written for. I was blown away by a 3x speed multiplier with the i7. On the Core i7 iMac, it took 43 minutes to rip a DVD, Storm Riders, a surfing film from the ’70s featuring Gerry Lopez (my favorite) and others. On the Core 2 Duo machine, it took 147 minutes! I know this is basically a DVD read test coupled with decoding and video conversion, but the results have me excited because this is a real task that takes my computer a long time to do, performed by a program that hasn’t been revised in a year.
Performance With Single-Core Optimized Apps (Otherwise Known as Reality)
Unfortunately, there are still very few applications that take advantage of multiple cores directly or via Snow Leopard’s GCD, not even video-based, let alone general purpose computing.
Photoshop CS4 on the Mac, which is not set up to handle multicore processors, showed almost less than a 3% improvement using the Driver Heaven benchmark. Basic tasks, like booting and shutdown, saw virtually none. Playing the 1080p Quicktime trailer of Avatar consistently showed that the i7 was using 3% less of its total CPU than the Core2Duo, but I wonder if that’s a result of the faster graphics card kicking in using CoreCL. Xbench, the old program that does a more comprehensive job of benchmarking a system from disks to processors, showed almost no difference.
I think Xbench, which hasn’t been updated in years, is a solid benchmark for that old program that you depend on but has been long abandoned or at least ignored by its developer.
These scores, again, are in relation to the top line 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo iMac we tested. Some benchmarks have come in from the web comparing the i7 to the i5. Here’s one that claims a 30% jump using Geekbench. Now we know Geekbench likes and does well with more cores and is a synthetic CPU test. But if the i5 is 30% slower, and the i7 pulls even with the 3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo chip in single threaded activity—most day to day activity—does that mean the i5 is slower than the cheaper Core 2 Duo? Maybe. Probably not 30%, since Geekbench is strictly CPU/memory and likes more cores, and this stuff does not translate so literally in the real world. But we can assume the i5 will have 30% less jump from the top tier Core 2 Duos, translating into a mere 1.3X to 2X speed increase from last gen chips on programs that like cores.
Value
For the most part, in our review, I said that you should stick to the preconfigured options, upgrading to Apple’s next recommended config before considering upgrades to the lower tier models. How does that advice change now that we’ve seen the i7? I don’t know! I guess it depends if you’re a betting man. If you think programs for Snow Leopard using GCD are coming, paying $200 to $500 bucks more from the top line Core 2 Duo chip for an i5 or i7 might make sense. The probability of you getting programs that can use those extra cores goes up if you are a graphics or video professional who expects to see support from Adobe, Apple, etc. (Apple already claims big jumps in Aperture that we weren’t able to test.) Or if you rip a lot of DVDs! The rest of you? The Core 2 Duo stuff could be fine for today and fine for tomorrow. But the Core i7 is not worse for today and will definitely be faster tomorrow. It just costs more.
Me personally? I’d opt for the Core i7. I just might wait til the new iMacs refresh a bump and the i7 is cheaper and part of a standard build. But I’m patient like that.
Okay, so maybe you didn’t need a full-on review to tell you that Fusion-io’s ioXtreme PCI Express SSD was staggeringly pricey, but at $11 per gigabyte ($895 for 80GB), you may want to turn a blind eye right now if you’re short on disposable income. If you’ve managed to continue on, then you owe it to your collective senses to give the read link a look. The gurus over at HotHardware were able to get one of these lightning fast devices in for review, and while we were always assured that performance would be mind blowing, it’s another thing entirely to see those promises proven in the lab. Critics found the card to be the “fastest overall SSD solution on the market today,” with consistent 700MB/sec reads and 300MB/sec writes. Of course, they were still anxious to get their hands on a supposedly forthcoming update to make this thing bootable, and the omission of a RAID BIOS definitely put a small damper on things; still, it’s hard to let annoyance such as those overshadow the monster performance numbers, but we’d recommend giving the full skinny a good lookin’ at before committing your child’s college education fund to a pile of NAND.
Cray has finally clawed IBM back from the lead position on the Top500 Supercomputer chip-measuring contest. After just missing out on the title to IBM’s Roadrunner last year, Cray’s XT5 supercomputer (aka, Jaguar) at Oak Ridge National Lab in Tennessee received an update from quad- to six-core Opteron processors to boast a 2.3 petaflop per second performance peak (theoretical) and 1.75 petaflops as measured by the Linpack benchmark; a feat requiring almost a quarter million AMD cores. IBM’s Roadrunner, the very first supercomputer to race past the petaflop per second threshold, managed just 1.042 petaflops by comparison. Remember, one petaflop per second is equivalent to one quadrillion calculations per second. Of course, chip makers put their own spins on the list by noting that 4 of the top 5 systems depend on AMD for performance while Intel can be found powering 402 of the Top500. Video of the AMD processor upgrade procedure can be found after the break.
Here’s hoping you held off on purchasing that Core 2 Duo G51 just a few months ago, ’cause ASUS has just pushed out the exact same laptop with a Core i7 within and a price tag that’s $200 skimpier. The G51J-A1 was launched alongside Windows 7, and the crew over at Hot Hardware managed to toss it on the test bench to find out what kind of gains could be expected when going from Intel’s last-gen CPU to the newly-announced Core i7-720QM. The long and short of it is this: the new CPU enabled this machine to smoke the C2D sibling in every test, with graphical performance being nothing short of astounding. ‘Course, the omission of a Blu-ray drive was somewhat of a bummer, but for just $1,499, it’s not like we really expected one to be included. Hit the read link for the full skinny, but only if you’ve got some disposable income that you don’t mind parting with.
It’s the priciest rig we’ve seen since we laid eyes on Alienware’s latest gaggle of machines back at TGS, and it’s not even from a company that you would generally take seriously in the gaming PC arena. But according to Computer Shopper, that small-man bias should be shelved, and fast. Maingear‘s newly unveiled SHIFT can be had for just over $2,000 if you stick with the basics, but CS managed to review a loaded-out $7,113 edition that produced “record-shattering performance.” The “uncompromising design” and build quality was also lauded, through the college-fund shattering price tag prevented it from notching a 10/10 rating. Feel free to tap the read link for the full skinny, but honestly, this thing simply did exactly what it should’ve done for the price; anything less than world-beating would’ve been a disgrace at seven large.
The fine folks at both HotHardware and PC Perspective have run the new ASUS P7P55D-E Premium motherboard through its paces, which has the particular distinction of handling both USB 3.0 and the up-and-coming SATA 6G through controllers by NEC and Marvell, respectively. Lucky for us, both sites’ tests came to similar conclusions. The Seagate Barracuda XT SATA 6G drive has almost zero improvement over SATA 3G, other than in some burst speeds due to the fancy cache on the 6G — the bottleneck here is the drive, not the controller. Meanwhile, USB 3.0 has speeds that are roughly 5 to 6 times faster than USB 2.0 with the same drive, a huge win for fans of external storage the world over. Perhaps even better news is that an ASUS US36 controller card with USB 3.0 and SATA 6G support is a mere $30, so this stuff is already basically within reach to the average desktop user.
Mmm, flash. Fusion-io’s product line has largely targeted enterprise users, but with the introduction of the ioXtreme PCI Express SSD back at E3, it was clear that the next-gen storage outfit was serious about breaking into the consumer market. Today, the 80GB ioXtreme and ioXtreme Pro (which was previously unheard of) have both broke cover over at Hot Hardware, with the former being useful for single-drive installs and the latter good for multi-drive setups. We should note that Fusion-io is obviously behind schedule on these, and there still doesn’t look to be a definite price and release for the laypeople out there. That said, if the company’s shipping out products that punch out an average write rate of 300MB/sec and read rate of 775MB/sec (yes, seriously), we’d say it’s darn near ready for the real world.
This is site is run by Sascha Endlicher, M.A., during ungodly late night hours. Wanna know more about him? Connect via Social Media by jumping to about.me/sascha.endlicher.
Intel’s Pine Trail may not be out in full force just yet, but it looks like German website CarTFT has gotten ahold of a couple of Intel’s latest processor / motherboard combos (intended primarily for nettops) and gone ahead and published a few early benchmarks. As you may have expected, however, the boards don’t exactly represent a huge leap over current systems in terms of performance — especially when compared to an Atom 330 processor paired with an Ion chipset. Indeed, the Atom 330 / Ion pairing actually beat out both the Atom D510 and D410 in a number of real-world Windows 7 performance tests, although the new Atoms did of course come out top when it came to raw processor performance. Then again, the new boards do also both come in at under $100, and they each boast some reasonably good improvements in power consumption, which should be enough to get plenty of folks to overlook look a few shortcomings.
SlashGear | 
CarTFT (PDF), SemiAccurate | Email this | Comments
