Penryn: Cache Not the Only Difference
From Ed Hurtley:
In your commentary [When Is 2.1 GHz Slower than 2.0
GHz? When It's the New MacBook] about the new processors in the
MacBook and low-end MacBook Pro having less L2 cache than their
predecessors, there is one other difference. The new "Penryn"
processors also have more vector processing instructions, the "SSE4"
instruction set. A few benchmarks have shown that these new
instructions, when programs take advantage of them, can produce a 33%
improvement in some activities (like media encoding: a.k.a. iMovie
rendering to H.264,) at the same CPU speed.
AnandTech did a
comparison of two nearly identical notebooks where the only
difference was an older Merom processor and a newer Penryn processor.
Same speed (2.6 GHz) but Penryn having the 6 MB L2 cache vs.
Merom's 4 MB; and Penryn having the new SSE4 instruction set. Not
only did Penryn make a noticeable boost in battery life, but they saw
30-40% performance improvements in applications that made use of SSE4.
I'm really hoping Apple makes use of SSE4 in their H.264 encoder, as I
would love to have a 30-40% performance improvement over what
clock speed alone should provide. (That would make a
hopefully-coming-this-Summer Penryn-based MacBook Air noticeably faster
than my 2.0 GHz MacBook Pro, and would make for an acceptable
upgrade.)
Basically, once applications start making use of SSE4, the "slower"
2.1 GHz/3 MB processor will be noticeably faster than the 2.0
GHz/4 MB processor. And, as you said, if 5% faster is
unnoticeable, then the 2% slower in other tasks should be likewise
unnoticeable. (While the 30% improvement in some tasks will definitely
noticeable.)
Ed Hurtley
Ed,
It's tough to make comparisons, as every benchmark is
weighted toward certain factors. Some get bogged down with slow hard
drives, but Geekbench only looks at the CPU and memory. I haven't yet
seen a head-to-head speed comparison of the 15" 2.4 GHz MacBook Pro,
2007 vs. 2008 models. Macworld has the numbers for both, but they
didn't include the
2007 numbers in their review of the
2008 MBP.
Speedmark 5 Results
- 2007: 199 overall, 1:17 Photoshop CS, 0:55 Cinema 4D, 2:08
Compressor 3, 0:50 iMovie HD, 1:06 iTunes 7.5, 69.9 fps Unreal
Tournament, 5:01 Zip, and 3:02 HandBrake
- 2008: 204 overall, 1:05 Photoshop CS, 0:53 Cinema 4D, 1:51
Compressor 3, 0:49 iMovie HD, 1:03 iTunes 7.5, 73.4 fps Unreal
Tournament, 4:46 Zip, and 2:57 HandBrake
- 2.5 GHz: 222 overall, 1:02 Photoshop CS, 0:51 Cinema 4D, 1:42
Compressor 3, 0:46 iMovie HD, 1:01 iTunes 7.5, 89.4 fps Unreal
Tournament, 4:30 Zip, and 2:35 HandBrake
The new 2.4 GHz MacBook Pro with its 3 MB L2 cache
outperforms last year's model in every test, yet the overall score is
only 2.5% higher. The only two benchmarks where Penryn really runs past
Merom are Photoshop (18.5% faster) and Compressor (15%), so we can
guess that these programs make use of SSE4.
Based on Macworld's Speedmark results, the 2.5 GHz
Penryn with its 6 GB cache is approximately 10% faster across the
board. 4% of that can be attributed to clock speed; the other 6% should
be attributable to the larger L2 cache.
Macworld hasn't yet published benchmark results for
the Penryn MacBooks, but extrapolating from the above results, I'd
expect last year's 2.2 GHz MacBook and this year's 2.1 GHz MacBook to
have similar overall scores, with the 2008 MacBook only clearly winning
the Photoshop and Compressor tests.
Some tasks will benefit greatly from the improved SSE4
engine in Penryn, while for other tasks the October 2007 models may
generally outperform the new 2.1 GHz MacBook.
Dan
Why No LED Screen on the MacBook?
From Timothy Sipples:
Steve Jobs said that all Macs are going to have LED-backlit displays
as soon as economically and technically feasible. Yet the February 26th MacBook
refresh did not make the LED displays standard across the
range.
The older CCFL technology contains mercury, and such LCD panels
require special hazardous materials disposal. They also lose brightness
over time, consume more electricity, and weigh more. Sony, to pick a
competitor Steve often mentions, is much farther ahead, introducing LED
displays across their range. Even Dell offers LED display options on
many models, such as its XPS M1330 MacBook competitor. (And you know
it's bad when Dell is "greener" than Apple.)
So why doesn't Apple take a page out of Dell's book and immediately
offer a $150 LED display option on build-to-order MacBooks? Or make it
standard on the BlackBooks? Apple already offers display choices for
the MacBook Pros (glossy or matte on the 15 inch, and various choices
on the 17 inch). Apple could charge a fair profit on the newer display
for the MacBook and make more profit in 2008. Apple is already ordering
lots of 13.3 LED screens for MacBook Airs.
There's precedent for Apple to introduce a mid-cycle BTO feature. On
November 1, Apple introduced the 2.6 GHz processor option for the
MacBook Pros.
Timothy Sipples
Timothy,
We know the screen exists - and so does Apple, as
they're using it in the MacBook Air. But that's a
considerably more expensive computer, and using LED backlighting helps
keep it thin.
I'm sure it's a matter of economics: None of the
build-to-order options for the MacBook require taking the book apart.
Hard drive and RAM upgrades are done through a door in the battery bay.
I'm sure the day will come when the MacBook gets LED backlighting
across the board, and I like your suggestion that Apple make it the
standard display for the black MacBook to help offset the "black
tax".
Dan
Leopard on a G4 Cube?
From Melany Carmikele:
Dear Dan,
I have a G4 Cube
sitting around the house as an extra computer it's been heavily
upgraded and I wanted to know if I would be able to but Leopard on it I
know it has to hacked to a degree to work on my Cube. So here are the
specs.
- 1.0 GHz PPC G4 CPU
- 1.5 GB RAM
- ATI Rage Pro 16 MB VRAM
- 80 GB HD 7200 RPM
- DVD-ROM drive
So do you think it would run sluggish ?
Melany
Melany,
I'm still living with Tiger, but based on field
reports I've received, I think you'll find that Leopard will run
decently on your Cube. However, you might want to look into a modern
video card with Core Image support. Any AGP Radeon or GeForce card with
at least 16 MB of video memory will do the job, and newer cards are
better. Be sure to check which ones won't overheat in the Cube.
According to The Mac Elite, the
GeForce 6200 series (which
has to be flashed for use in a Mac) "is the most modern video card
available for it." ($75 and up on
eBay.)
Dan
Final Cut Works with Integrated Intel Graphics
From Matt Kaiser in response to Power Mac G5 Best Choice for Video
Work?:
In spite of Apple stating that Final Cut Studio isn't supported on
Intel-graphics based Macs, I have heard plenty of reports saying that
they will run some of FCS's apps, just not Motion or Color, which
really need the heavy-duty lifting power of a good GPU. The most
important thing to know is that Intel machines won't run non-UB
versions of Final Cut at all, so if your reader doesn't already
have at least Final Cut Studio 1 with FCP 5.1, they will need to
upgrade when getting a new machine. But the latest version of Final
Cut, DVD Studio, Compressor, and Sound Track should be able to
run on a Mac mini.
That being said (or typed, I suppose), I would highly recommend
moving to an iMac over a mini for video use. I ditched my Power Mac G4
(1.3 GHz, 1 GB RAM, ATI 9600) for an Intel iMac, and I couldn't be
happier. All my concerns about not having a "Pro" machine were quickly
blown away by the gains in speed and productivity.
Frankly, I view the G5 as a "Band-Aid solution" processor. It was
never able to reach the speeds promised by Apple, they continually had
heat issues, and their performance isn't fast enough to warrant the
expenses incurred when migrating from a G4 to a G5. And even though my
iMac can't accept PCI cards or extra hard drives, I would rather have
it than a Power Mac G5, simply because I can actually upgrade the
processor on an Intel iMac (with some know-how), but there is no way to
change out the processor on any G5.
Low End Mac is a fantastic site. I read it almost every day. Keep up
the great work.
- Matt
Matt,
Thanks for writing and sharing your experiences. I've
done some work with video on my dual 1 GHz Power Mac G4, and it's
mostly a process of waiting for the computer to finish some process or
another. It's excruciating, and I'd like to try it on the MacBook Pro my wife
uses (with an external hard drive, as there's not much room to spare on
the internal 80 GB drive.)
For those who need Classic Mode and lots of processing
power, I can't even imagine how fast the 2.5 GHz Power Mac G5 Quad must
be, but it's the ultimate PowerPC powerhouse. (With a
Geekbench score of 3197, it has similar performance to a 2.4 GHz
Core 2 iMac and only falls behind a quad-core 2.0 GHz Mac Pro by 13.4%.
Of course, the 8-core 3.2 GHz Mac Pro benches at 8254 - over 2.5x the
power of the Power Mac G4 Quad.)
We've gained a lot from the Intel transition. It
didn't produce the less expensive Macs everyone had anticipated, it
does saddle us with integrated graphics on the low end, and it cost us
Classic Mode, but the raw power, the ability to run Windows, and the
fact that we can now compare Macs to Windows PCs spec for spec work to
our advantage.
Dan
Scanner Advice
From Patrick O'Reilly:
Greetings, I'm sorry to be a bother but I had a question that I
thought you might be uniquely qualified to answer. If I recall
correctly besides being knowing a fair share about Macs, you also know
a fair amount about photography.
Well my problem is this. I have rare use for a scanner, and when I
do I simply borrow my father's. His current setup is an old G4 450
(Sawtooth) running Panther, and I think he got his scanner around the
same time he got the machine. So it's a little long in the tooth. I've
been meaning to try and scan a bunch of old photos, but I have gone
through this process before for the odd photo with his scanner, and
it's not difficult, but it tends to be rather time consuming.
I don't really follow the world of scanner based technology news,
and I wasn't sure if my dad's scanner not only had some possible
connivence problems for me, but also if the resolution of today's
scanners is appreciably better now too. I wasn't sure if they made a
scanner that had something to help automize the process of photo
scanning (in addition to a flatbed). I know there are scanner/printer
combos, but that is not really a big deal for my dad. I guess a color
printer would be nice, but he has a B&W laser printer, which is
fine for him.
And lastly, if you do know of such a product, would it work in
Panther? It's not a huge issue, as perhaps if I got him a scanner he
would finally get around to getting a Mac that is a little more
modern.
Thanks for your time, and keep up the good work. I first started
reading Low End Mac in 1997 or 98 on my 6100 (with a G3 upgrade), and
after a few years away from the Mac (it was 2001, I desperately needed
a new machine, didn't really have the money for a new Mac, OS X seemed
not ready yet, and I was intrigued by BeOS), I got 1.66 GHz Core Due mini as soon as
they were announced. I love my mini, but the lack of a video card and
the 2.5" drive are a bit annoying. But what are you going to do?
Patrick
Patrick,
Yes, I know quite a bit about Macs, and long before
that, I got into photography. I think it was about 8th grade when my
Dad took me to a photo show downtown sponsored by a local camera store.
I was intrigued, grabbed every brochure I could lay my hands on, and
learned all I could so I would make the right decision when I had the
chance to get my own camera.
That was over 35 years ago, and I've been a Mac user
for over 20 years now. In all that time, I've only owned one flatbed
scanner, and then only because it was being sold at a close-out price
of $149 including a full copy of Photoshop 4.0, if I recall correctly.
I've never really used that SCSI scanner, although one of my sons did,
and I'm anything but an expert on scanners.
That said, the situation is about to change here at
Low End Mac headquarters. I have a Brother all-in-one laser printer,
copier, and color scanner (MFC-7420) en route. I was tempted by a
Canon, but my research indicated that it didn't support scanning on
Macs. Anyhow, it has an optical resolution of 600 x 2400 dpi and an
automatic document feeder.
I don't know if the document feeder will be suitable
for snapshots, but I'll give it a try. I have hundreds (perhaps
thousands) of old photos I'd like to scan and burn to CD for my sons.
Since I doubt any of these will ever be printed bigger than 8x10, 600
dpi is going to be more than enough resolution to do them justice.
The only scanner I know of that's designed for photos
is the
Fujitsu SnapScan S510M, which retails for US$495 (Fujitsu also has
a $50 mail-in rebate through the end of March). It's currently
available from
Amazon.com for US$405. Users rave over it, saying it has taken the
agony out of scanning - and it's even compatible with Mac OS X
10.2.8.
It's not cheap, but if I could justify the cost, it
would be my hands-down choice.
But I don't expect to do that much scanning. We do
need a copier, which is our justification for this purchase, and I've
been very happy with my Brother
HL-5250DL, which has served me well for 1-1/2 years. (I prefer
laser printers to inkjet, as they're not only faster but much cheaper
to use in the long term.)
I'll know a lot more about scanners and scanning
software soon. I do know that some programs let you scan a whole
flatbed full of photos at once and save them as separate images, but I
haven't researched any further than that.
Dan
Upgrading a G4/500 Sawtooth
From Steve Gier:
Hi Dan,
Mega-thanks for LEM. Incredibly helpful for those of us too poor to
buy Apple's latest and greatest.
A question for you about upgrading my G4/500 Sawtooth (single
processor) running Tiger.
Would it work if I installed a dual 500 processor (pulled from
another Sawtooth, from eBay) in my machine? Or are there motherboard
limitations on the single 500s?
Any insights or links to resources here are much appreciated.
Steve Gier
Steve,
It depends. There are different Sawtooth motherboards,
and only "uni-n: 7" and later are compatible with dual processors.
More details
on the NewerTech website, including an OS X utility that can
tell you which version you have.
Dan
Dan:
Thanks - I found that link after my e-mail to you. My
is dual compatible, so
installing a dual-500 should work.
Any caveats on installation? Or is it as simple as plugging in the
processor and booting?
Also: Any chance that later G4 processors would work in the
Sawtooth? - like, say a G4 MDD Dual 867 MHz processor?
Steve
Steve,
It should be as simple as plug-and-play. Should be.
And a faster Apple CPU should be plug-and-play as well. Again, it
should be. I have no experience here, as the only CPU upgrade I've done
on a G4 was a
NewerTech one, and it required that I flash the firmware.
Dan
Diablo II, Leopard, and PowerPC Macs
From Mike:
Dan,
I'm wondering if you can help me out here. I have two Power Mac G4s
(Sawtooth w/ upgraded CPU and FW800 1.25 GHz), and I recently upgraded
both to Leopard. The Sawtooth DP500 runs it fine, and the FW800 system
is great with it. However, I have run into one unexpected problem. The
video game Diablo II
will not install. Actually, I don't know that it won't install, but the
OS X native installer does not seem to work. I tried it on both
systems, with the same results: The installer launches, plays a couple
of seconds of music, then nothing. It does not freeze or
anything as far as I can tell, as the menu bar items remain responsive;
it just does not continue the installer.
I've checked both Apple's Discussion board (where I found one other
instance of the same problem, but no solution) as well as Blizzard's
technical forums. I've also put an email into Blizzard technical
support, but have not heard back yet.
Basically I'm wondering if you or one of your readers have
encountered a similar issue or perhaps know of a workaround.
Based on my research, this does not apparently affect Macintel's
with Leopard.
It would be a shame to loose one of the few natively Mac OS
compatible games (not simply "ported" from the PC version) out
there.
Thanks for any info!
/Mike
Mike,
I did a bit of Googling, and it seems Macintel users
are also being plagued with problems. I can't say that I'm surprised,
as Diablo II is ancient - it first shipped in June 2000 and was
designed to run under the Classic Mac OS, which isn't supported in
Leopard. Blizzard released a patch that allows Diablo II to be
installed under OS X and run as a Carbon application, and the
latest versions of these are several years old and predate Tiger, let
alone Leopard, so it's possible the installer simply won't work in
Leopard.
Your options:
- Install Tiger on a separate drive or partition and run Tiger when
you want to play Diablo.
- Install Tiger on your Mac, run the Diablo II installer, and then
upgrade to Leopard. This avoids the whole issue of running the
installer in Leopard.
- Install the SheepShaver emulator and run Diablo II in Mac OS
8.1-9.1 in emulation.
Maybe our Mailbag readers will have some other
suggestions....
Dan
Dan Knight has been publishing Low
End Mac since April 1997. Mailbag columns come from email responses to his Mac Musings, Mac Daniel, Online Tech Journal, and other columns on the site.
