Intel iMac disassembled...

kainjow · Jan 14, 2006

!!!

thecapitalizt said:
The reason why the encoding jobs are sooo slow is simply because all of the encoding algorithms have been EXTREMELY optimized for altivec (look at the encoder tab in iTunes, it will say AAC encoder Optimized for Velocity Engine), now we are back to square one, where Apple pretty much has to re-engineer all of their codecs. Give the Quicktime team 6-12 months to re-tweak everything for SSE, and we'll see our performance go back up. Also, i want to see apple re-engineer their encoders to use the GPU. ATI made an app, and they could compress a DVD in 5x real time. Take that!

Did you read the full thread? The 4.5x encoding speed was just a one-time problem. He tested it again on a MacBook Pro and it was about 20x:

I went back to Macworld today and performed more scientific tests with the new MacBook. I'll post more details later tonight but I'll post my revised iTunes times now.

I brought the same track I used with my G5 to MacWorld and re-encoded it using iTunes. It was read off the HD from the iTunes library and all other apps were closed.

Today the MacBook ripped at 20x which is far better than I expected.

If the slowness was real, and it was blamed on Altivec, than that would be incorrect since iTunes on Windows is fast and it's definitely not using Altivec there...

shawnce · Jan 14, 2006

So is the north bridge a 82945GT, 82945GM, or 82945PM? One of the part numbers (SL8Z2) implies 945GM which is interesting because that is the variant with Intel video support (which is going unused since it has an X1600 in it).

Oh and the south bridge looks to be an 82801GBM, so no ViiV features.

Also note the following post of mine from a different thread... reposting it because I think it is interesting and something I would like to know more about.

The following is snippet from an ioreg listing from a new iMac Core Duo system...

Code:

+-o Root* <class IORegistryEntry, retain count 13>
  +-o iMac4,1* <class IOPlatformExpertDevice, registered, matched, active, busy 0, retain count 24>
    +-o AppleACPIPlatformExpert* <class AppleACPIPlatformExpert, registered, matched, active, busy 0, retain count 37>
    +-o IOResources* <class IOResources, registered, matched, active, busy 0, retain count 16>
      +-o com_apple_BootCache* <class com_apple_BootCache, !registered, !matched, active, busy 0, retain count 4>
      +-o IOHIDSystem* <class IOHIDSystem, registered, matched, active, busy 0, retain count 16>
      +-o IOBSDConsole* <class IOBSDConsole, !registered, !matched, active, busy 0, retain count 7>
      +-o IONetworkStack* <class IONetworkStack, registered, matched, active, busy 0, retain count 11>
      +-o IODisplayWrangler* <class IODisplayWrangler, registered, matched, active, busy 0, retain count 8>
      +-o com_apple_driver_AudioIPCDevice* <class com_apple_driver_AudioIPCDevice, registered, matched, active, busy 0, retain count 7>
      +-o Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X* <class Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X, !registered, !matched, active, busy 0, retain count 5>

Notice the Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X object that is loaded and it looks like a few things have a reference to it (the increased retain count).

The following is what kextstat says about it... nothing appears to link against it.

Code:

Index Refs Address    Size       Wired      Name (Version) <Linked Against>
    1    1 0x0        0x0        0x0        com.apple.kernel (8.4.1)
    2   16 0x0        0x0        0x0        com.apple.kpi.bsd (8.4.1)
    3   25 0x0        0x0        0x0        com.apple.kpi.iokit (8.4.1)
    4   25 0x0        0x0        0x0        com.apple.kpi.libkern (8.4.1)
    5   24 0x0        0x0        0x0        com.apple.kpi.mach (8.4.1)
    6   12 0x0        0x0        0x0        com.apple.kpi.unsupported (8.4.1)
...
   83    0 0x20a15000 0x3000     0x2000     com.apple.Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X (4.0.0) <6 4 3 2>

Interesting

runninmac · Jan 14, 2006

AppleJustWorks said:
I think you and I are just about the only people on this forum to comprehend that fact.

Don't fret I understand that too... I was just saying it makes me sad that it still looks that way I thought they could improve it with a cooler chip.

Eidorian · Jan 14, 2006

runninmac said:
I also agree on that, if you go to iTunes under Preferences then Advance it has it importing optimized for the Velocity Engine.

Edit:Can anyone on and Intel Mac check to see what its optimized for?

It's optimized for MMX/SSE on the Windows version. They already have experience with x86 encoding and it's pretty damn fast on Windows x86 too. The encoding that is. The GUI is SLOW.

cyberfunk · Jan 14, 2006

Not what I wanna know

Screw taking this thing apart.. I'm much less interested in the insides, and much more interested in does it run Windows XP ?

Someone with a new iMac, for God's sake, please try installing windows ! I cant wait til a real hacker gets their hands on it (hacker in the good sense) and then we'll see what can be done w/ EFI and WinXP.

LaMerVipere · Jan 14, 2006

iMac Core Duo:

Eidorian · Jan 14, 2006

AppleJustWorks said:
I think you and I are just about the only people on this forum to comprehend that fact. And I swear, it's stressing me out that as a result of the misguided wording of this article, the thousands of readers are soon to think that the Intel iMacs are less nicely designed than the G5 iMacs.

MacRumors - you're misleading people, and to me that's a misuse of power.

Yeah, I've never taken the back panel off of a Rev. C iMac G5 but it should be the same screws on the bottom though. It does have the RAM panel but there should be screws for the back case too.

They can't make it impossible for their service technicians.

LaMerVipere said:
iMac Core Duo:

It's the FRONT again.

AppleJustWorks · Jan 14, 2006

LaMerVipere said:
iMac Core Duo:

*bashes head on desk*

That's. The. Front. Not. The. Back.

Anybody. Care. To. Show. Us. The. Front. Of. The. iMac. G5? Willing. To. Bet. It. Looks. The. SAME

*he said through gritted teeth*

Eidorian · Jan 14, 2006

AppleJustWorks said:
*bashes head on desk*

That's. The. Front. Not. The. Back.

Anybody. Care. To. Show. Us. The. Front. Of. The. iMac. G5?

*he said through gritted teeth*

I feel your pain.

kainjow · Jan 14, 2006

shawnce said:
Notice the Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X object that is loaded and it looks like a few things have a reference to it (the increased retain count).

See http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=89&Itemid=2

AppleJustWorks · Jan 14, 2006

Eidorian said:
I feel your pain.

I think I'm starting to remember why I hardly leave my sweet little home.. So serene.

Nermal · Jan 14, 2006

AppleJustWorks said:
*bashes head on desk*

That's. The. Front. Not. The. Back.

Anybody. Care. To. Show. Us. The. Front. Of. The. iMac. G5? Willing. To. Bet. It. Looks. The. SAME

*he said through gritted teeth*

The G5 opens from the back, and the Intel opens from the front. Therefore I think it's fair to compare the front of the Intel to the back of the G5. Don't you agree?

shawnce · Jan 14, 2006

kainjow said:
See http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=89&Itemid=2

Ah thanks... google not hitting on it yet.

kainjow · Jan 14, 2006

cyberfunk said:
Screw taking this thing apart.. I'm much less interested in the insides, and much more interested in does it run Windows XP ?

Someone with a new iMac, for God's sake, please try installing windows ! I cant wait til a real hacker gets their hands on it (hacker in the good sense) and then we'll see what can be done w/ EFI and WinXP.

I can't agree more.. who cares about the insides... who cares about bench marks (yes, it will be fast) - will it boot Windows!!

*goes insane*

AppleJustWorks · Jan 14, 2006

Nermal said:
The G5 opens from the back, and the Intel opens from the front. Therefore I think it's fair to compare the front of the Intel to the back of the G5. Don't you agree?

Actually, I didn't know that. And honestly, I have a hard time believing that. I don't think Apple would design a system so you'd have to nearly remove the logic board to do some simple work. And if they did, I'm selling my stock in Apple. Every. Single. Share.

~Shard~ · Jan 14, 2006

Is this one of those rare instances though where it doesn't matter what the inside looks like? The Intel iMac could have a pair of filthy diseased miniature trolls running all the components inside using magic and I wouldn't really care... How many people are really going to be popping these things open anyway, or if nothing else, making a decision on whether they like a machine or not based on what they can't normally see?

Eidorian · Jan 14, 2006

Nermal said:
The G5 opens from the back, and the Intel opens from the front. Therefore I think it's fair to compare the front of the Intel to the back of the G5. Don't you agree?

How?

http://images.apple.com/imac/gallery/images/gallery2imac20060110.jpg

The only access is still the bottom.

iMeowbot · Jan 14, 2006

shawnce said:
Notice the Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X object that is loaded and it looks like a few things have a reference to it (the increased retain count).

As a matter of fact, don't even look at that object, just walk away slowly and pretend you were never there. You don't want to burn in hell.

Nermal · Jan 14, 2006

Eidorian said:
How?

Like I said before, a nightmare.

Eidorian · Jan 14, 2006

Nermal said:
Like I said before, a nightmare.

Finally your proof. You took your sweet time with it.

Yeah is it scary.

law guy · Jan 14, 2006

jcrewleif said:
When my iMac Core Duo arrives I am not going to open it. I'll wait and see if someone else can install windows xp on it and decide if i am going to keep it. I may wait for another revision or until apps are optimized.

On the waiting to open the box: XP doesn't support EFI. Vista will. Read more at:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/172422/

nagromme · Jan 14, 2006

Not pretty. I guess that means most iMac users will want to keep the case on

But ignore a few cables and everything is neatly packed.

And it's got it where it counts: same compactness... new speed!

The real-world app tests that are rolling in are sounding good so far. Keep 'em coming.

kainjow · Jan 14, 2006

law guy said:
On the waiting to open the box: XP doesn't support EFI. Vista will. Read more at:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/172422/

Although true, EFI supports BIOS, which XP requires.

We just won't know until someone tests it out.

Ghibli · Jan 14, 2006

AppleJustWorks said:
*bashes head on desk*

That's. The. Front. Not. The. Back.

Anybody. Care. To. Show. Us. The. Front. Of. The. iMac. G5? Willing. To. Bet. It. Looks. The. SAME

*he said through gritted teeth*

You can find the photos on the very same site:

Here is the G5 with iSight:

http://www.kodawarisan.com/imacg5_isight/imacg501i.html

and here is the intel core due

http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawarisan/imac_intel/imac_intel01.html

They don't seem so different...

G5

Intel

shawnce · Jan 14, 2006

kainjow said:
Although true, EFI supports BIOS, which XP requires.

We just won't know until someone tests it out.

To be clear EFI can support BIOS if that compatibility mode exists in Apples EFI. Looking at a ioreg trace it may actually exist.

Intel iMac disassembled...

Moderator emeritus

macrumors 65816

macrumors 65816

macrumors Penryn

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502a

macrumors Penryn

macrumors regular

macrumors Penryn

Moderator emeritus

macrumors regular

Moderator

macrumors 65816

Moderator emeritus

macrumors regular

macrumors P6

macrumors Penryn

macrumors G3

Moderator

Attachments

macrumors Penryn

macrumors 6502a

macrumors G5

Moderator emeritus

macrumors regular

macrumors 65816

Our Staff