Mac Musings

1 Core, 2 Cores, 4 Cores, 8: How Much Difference Does It Make?

Dan Knight - 2007.04.10 - Tip Jar

Low End Mac Reader Specials

Memory To Go Special: New 2008 iMac 2GB $42 / iMac Intel Core2 DUO & MacBook Pro 2GB $36 - 1GB $20. MacPro 8 Core Memory 8GB kit $286 / 4GB kit $143 / 2GB kit $93 -- Free shipping available. LIfetime warranty.

Download Typestyler, still the Ultimate Styling Tool for Internet, Print and Video Graphics. Works great in Classic with a Native OS X Version on the way. Free Tryout: www.typestyler.com

LA Computer Company: Specials on AppleCare, iMac's, Apple Batteries and Apple A/C Adapters. Also Great prices on Used Apple Computers. Call 1-800-941-7654 Click Here.

OWC: NewerTech NuPower Batteries for iBook and PowerBooks Designed+Built in USA to run longer, LAST LONGER TOO! Free Battery Recycling Return Label; Quality High-Capacity from $99.95

Mac users can finally play Party Poker for Mac. Not only that, they can also learn how to play PokerStars for Mac.

Laptop Hardware Provided by TechRestore - Overnight Mac & iPod Repairs.

Compare products like desktop computers, laptops, and LCD TVs side by side! All the information and reviews to make the best purchasing decision for a new cell phone GPS products or MP3 players. The Ciao network makes searching products easy for you.

How do the Intel Core Solo, Core Duo, Core 2, and new quad-core CPUs compare? That's the question Primate Labs addresses in their latest Geekbench Comparison.

Geekbench 2 is designed to measure CPU and memory performance, not graphics, and area where the Mac mini, MacBook, and entry-level iMac fall behind the rest of the pack with their integrated Intel GMA 950 graphics.

Primate Labs' conclusion: "There's not a huge change in performance across most of Apple's Intel-based Mac lineup (the high-end MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo is only 30% faster than the low-end MacBook Core Duo, for example). The only big changes occur at the low end with the (discontinued) single-core Mac mini, or at the high end with the quad-core Mac Pro."

Let's see if the numbers bear that out.

How Low Can You Go?

The baseline score of 1000 is based on performance of a Power Mac G5/1.6 GHz with a single CPU. Even the least powerful Intel-based Mac ever released, the Core Solo version of the Mac mini, outperformed it with a score of 1472 (just under 1000 points per GHz).

This is the only Mac ever released with a Core Solo CPU, and it really does make a difference. One step higher, from the 1.5 GHz Solo to a 1.66 GHz Duo, boosts the benchmark score by 50%. The 1.66 GHz Mac mini scores 2136, and the 1.83 GHz mini scores 2312, an 8.3% improvement (just a bit less than the 10% difference in clock speed).

There's an 11% difference in clock speed between 1.5 GHz and 1.66 GHz, and we anticipate a 1.5 GHz Core Duo would benchmark at roughly 1960. That means the second core on the original Core Duo CPU provides about one-third more power.

By way of comparison, the G4 Mac mini offered a lot less horsepower. The fastest model ran at 1.5 GHz and can achieve a Geekbench score of 862 (or just 575 per GHz). The Core Solo mini beats that by over 50%.

Other Core Duo Results

  • 1.83 GHz Mac mini: 2312
  • 1.83 GHz MacBook Pro: 2333
  • 1.83 GHz MacBook: 2363
  • 1.83 GHz iMac: 2373
  • 2.0 GHz MacBook: 2475
  • 2.0 GHz MacBook Pro: 2495
  • 2.0 GHz iMac: 2556
  • 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro: 2711

Benchmark results are very close across the board for the 1.83 GHz Core Duo, and the range of 2.0 GHz results is only slightly broader. The CPU benches 1295 per GHz in the 1.83 GHz iMac, 1278 in the 2.0 GHz iMac, and 1251 in the 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro, showing that performance is being constrained by the memory bus, not the CPU.

Core 2 Improvements

Comparing the 2.0 GHz MacBook, we have a Geekbench score of 2475 with the Core Duo and 2600 with the Core 2 Duo, a 5% improvement. Moving to the 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro, the Core Duo model scores 2711 while the Core 2 unit reaches 2825 - an improvement of only 4.2%.

The 2.0 GHz iMac goes from 2556 with Core Duo to 2654 with Core 2 Duo, a boost of just 3.8%. There is no Core 2 Mac mini, no was there a Core Duo version of the Mac Pro.

Four Cores

The Mac Pro was initially available in 2.0, 2.66, and 3.0 GHz versions, to which Apple added a 3.0 GHz dual quad-core version last week. The best comparison to other Macs is at 2.0 GHz:

  • MacBook: 2600 (1300 per GHz)
  • iMac: 2654 (1327 per GHz)
  • Mac Pro: 3926 (1963 per GHz)

With a pair of dual-core CPUs, the Mac Pro scores 48% higher than the iMac with a single Core 2 Duo CPU using Geekbench 2. Here's how the Mac Pro scales at different clock speeds:

  • 2.0 GHz, 3926 (1963 per GHz)
  • 2.66 GHz, 5034 (1888 per GHz)
  • 3.0 GHz, 5611 (1870 per GHz)

These numbers show that the Mac Pro is well optimized for fast CPUs, as there's only a 1% difference in the Geekbench score per GHz rating of the faster models.

The highest Geekbench scores have been achieved by our friends at Bare Feats on the new 8-core (dual quad-core CPUs) Mac Pro. With a score of 8735, that comes out to 2912 per GHz - a 56% higher score than the Core 2 Duo at the same speed.

And if you look back that the 1.5 GHz Core Solo Mac mini, that's about 3x the efficiency and 6x the overall score. Pretty good for a computer with a lot more expandability, far better graphics, and only 5x the price.

What About the Power Mac?

How does the Power Mac G5 fare under Geekbench? There are several results for the Late 2005 Power Mac G5, and the highest scores are in the 3300-3400 range. I'd have to guess that's the 2.5 GHz Quad, which gives it a rating of 1356 per GHz.

If you're wondering what Apple gained by going Intel, there you have it. A single Intel Core 2 Duo offers about the same performance as a pair of dual-core G5s.

That's two dual-core PowerPC 970MP CPUs with about the same score as a single dual-core Core 2 Duo CPU in an iMac. (For comparison, the PowerBook G4/1.67 GHz tops out at a score of 937 - or just 562 per GHz - and the Power Mac G4/1.42 GHz dual only achieves a 1248 for 878 per GHz. The "underwhelming" 1.5 GHz Core Solo Mac mini beats that!)

What Does It All Mean?

Every benchmark is different. Geekbench looks primarily at CPU and RAM performance. Other benchmarks are more interested in drive speed, overall graphics, 3D gaming, or broader real world performance. They're all carefully measured numbers that really only tell you how well a computer does at a particular task.

Still, they will show how one computer fares relative to another. Based on the Geekbench results, we see that doubling the number of cores can improve scores by 33% to 56%. Very impressive. (But not as impressive as in the early days of dual G4 Power Macs and Mac-specific benchmarks that tended to show a 50-70% improvement. Then again, those were different benchmark programs.)

Sure, there are benchmarks that will show a nearly 100% improvement, but that tends to be over a limited range of processes. A 50% average gain in processing power is nothing to sneeze at, and it's an especially good value when there's a minimal premium for the extra power. The 8-core Mac Pro is a great example of that, as it offers about 56% more power than the 4-core Mac Pro while selling at a 21% higher price.

The transition from Core to Core 2 doesn't look as impressive with Geekbench as it does with some other benchmarks. Our general rule of thumb is that Core 2 is roughly 10% more powerful than "Core1" - the big gains are in reduced energy consumption, longer battery life, and less heat.

We're grateful to Primate Labs for producing Geekbench and publishing these results. They show us that Apple and Intel are moving in the right direction, especially as regards multiple cores and the future of computing.  LEM

Further Reading

Dan Knight has been using Macs since 1986, sold Macs for several years, supported them for many more years, and has been publishing Low End Mac since April 1997. If you find Dan's articles helpful, please consider making a donation to his tip jar.

Recent Mac Musings

Links for the Day

Recent Content on Low End Mac

About LEM | Support | Usage | Privacy | Contacts

Entire Low End Mac website copyright ©1997-2008 by Cobweb Publishing, Inc., unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. Advice presented in good faith, but what works for one may not work for all. Please report errors to .
  LINKS: We allow and encourage links to any public page as long as the linked page does not appear within a frame that prevents bookmarking it.
  Access our RSS news feed at http://lowendmac.com/feed.xml.
  Email may be published at our discretion; email addresses will not be published without permission, and we will encrypt them in hopes of avoiding spammers. If you prefer your message not be published, mark it "not for publication." Letters may be edited for length, context, and to match house style.
  PRIVACY: We don't collect personal information unless you explicitly provide it. For more details, see our Terms of Use.
  Low End Mac is an independent publication and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Apple Inc. Apple, the Apple logo, Macintosh, iBook, iMac, eMac, iPod, iPhone, PowerBook, MacBook, MagSafe, Mac Pro, Apple TV, and AirPort are registered trademarks of Apple Inc. Additional company and product names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are hereby acknowledged.


Have a question?
Ask an expert!

Navigation

Used Mac Dealers
Apple History
Best Used Macs
Video Cards
Email Lists
InfoMac's Low
End Mac Forum

Favorite Sites

MacSurfer
MacMinute
MacInTouch
MyAppleMenu
InfoMac
Macs Only!
The Mac Observer
Accelerate Your Mac
RetroMacCast
PB Central
MacWindows
The Vintage Mac
   Museum
DealMac
DealsOnTheWeb
Mac2Sell
ramseeker
Mac Driver Museum
JAG's House
System 6 Heaven
System 7 Today
the pickle's Low-End
   Mac FAQ
Abandonware
   Petition
Mac vs. PC Info

Affiliates

The Apple Store
Mac Connection
MacMall
TechRestore
MacResQ
ExperCom
Crucial Memory
batteries.com

Advertise

All of our advertising is handled by BackBeat Media. For price quotes and advertising information, please contact at BackBeat Media (646-546-5194). This number is for advertising only.

Open Link

Problems viewing this page with Internet Explorer 5.5 or 6? It works fine in other browsers, including IE 7. We recommend Firefox for those using Windows, as it is standards based and more secure than IE 6 (and earlier). More LEM visitors use Firefox than any other browser.