Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Core 2 Duo tested . . .
- Thread starter Pressure
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think the most impressive statistics was photoshop running under 'Rosetta' - it was negligibly slower than Windows, running Photoshop natively.
If these results are accurate - my computer's going to be obsolete in about 2 weeks.
If these results are accurate - my computer's going to be obsolete in about 2 weeks.
ROFL- impressive statistics, especially when you see the difference between a Core Duo and Core 2 Duo at the same clockspeed. But wow- that last benchmark cracked me up. Windows outperforms Mac OS X by 3% on Photoshop...when the Mac is running Photoshop under Rosetta!
Um... what Mac is a jMac? Yeah, thought so.
And there's no @ next to the CPU name in the system profiler, nor are there any model names, only the name of the CPU line (which should have been Core 2 Duo, without anything else).
And that's not to mention the CPU speed. 4 GHz? LOL
The profiler definitely looks like a pile of *********..
And there's no @ next to the CPU name in the system profiler, nor are there any model names, only the name of the CPU line (which should have been Core 2 Duo, without anything else).
And that's not to mention the CPU speed. 4 GHz? LOL
The profiler definitely looks like a pile of *********..
bbrosemer said:
Aye, Conroe uses a 266Mhz FSB (1.066Ghz effective)while Merom has a 166Mhz FSB (667Mhz effective) until the Santa Rosa platform arrives (800Mhz effective). Other than that, they are the exact same chip.
However it is widely known that Conroe is a good 15-30% faster(depending on the application) clock for clock compared to Yonah.
GFLPraxis said:
I was wondering the same thing, how could the difference between Mac OS X running Photoshop through Rosetta only be 3% slower than Windows running the same app natively?
But regardless, the Core 2 Duo looks pretty darn impressive!
It's fake, that image is a fake too - open DigitalColor Meter and compare fonts - the fonts are wrong - wrong size, and there's a lot of errors in that. The color's, compare regular fonts w/those on the image - they're wrong. I could make a decent - almost real - looking one bc I know what I'm doing. That guy can't make fake images worth crap.
GFLPraxis said:
Yes, I did read the article.
And I still believe that different hardware wouldn't make the syntax in System Profiler so radically different. It's like in Windows - all kinds of different hardware, but the way it's presented are all the same.
Well, to be fair, I think these things actually have to be released before you can call my machine obsolete :-D
WillMak said:
GFLPraxis said:
I don't think they used a hacked version of MacOS X, it looks more like a hacked screenshot of the System Profiler. If you have an Intel Macintosh, do "About This Mac" and click on "More Info", then compare with the screenshot in the article.
The distance between categories and values is different. It displays "Number of cores", not "Number of CPUs". It shows the size of the L2 cache, which is missing. The processor name would be something like "Intel Core2 Duo", without any (Registered Trademark) and (Trademark) symbols. "4 GHz" CPU is nonsense. Complete fake.
stunna said:
Rosetta is a runtime binary translator. When you start a PowerPC application, Rosetta loads all the code, then translates it into instructions for the Core Duo processor.
Well, nobody's brought this up yet - but my biggest problem with this is that they used XBench as if it were a reliable benchmarking tool. From all the times I've run it, I've learned not to trust it. Maybe since they just took the CPU readings, it might be more reliable, but I don't know. I wish they had run a few different tests.