3 ms·

The author mentions the new CPUs in a footnote: "Except new CPUs, but who cares? CPUs are the least exciting (and usually least relevant) upgrades in modern mas

by m3koval 16y ago

The author mentions the new CPUs in a footnote: "Except new CPUs, but who cares? CPUs are the least exciting (and usually least relevant) upgrades in modern mass-market personal computers." For the vast majority of users, including many power users, moving from a "very fast" processor to an "extremely fast" processor is much less of a performance gain than moving from a HDD to a SDD. That's not to say that I don't wish compilation times were faster on my current Macbook Pro...

cletus 16y ago
Compilation is notoriously singlethreaded, generally speaking. I believe Apple has made a deliberate choice that quad core offers little benefit over dual core with unjustifiably higher power usage. So I wouldn't be surprised if the next gen is also dual core only. I don't expect the MBP to die in the next gen either. Performance is much better than the Ars.
- wheels 16y ago
  Compilation is notoriously singlethreaded, generally speaking. make -j 2 There, now it needs multiple processes. Actually, default builds on OS X often do since it's building for the 2-4 architectures that OS X supports (ppc, ppc64, i386, x86_64).
- masklinn 16y ago
  > I believe Apple has made a deliberate choice that quad core offers little benefit over dual core with unjustifiably higher power usage. It's more along the lines of Intel not having any quad arrandale in acceptable TDPs.
  - yuhong 16y ago
    Yea, Sandy Bridge is the first 32nm quad-core with integrated graphics.
Synaesthesia 16y ago
SSD's really help compilation times! All those little files.
- yread 16y ago
  I have a new intel core 2630QM quad core and it is the biggest difference in compile times I have ever gotten from an upgrade. At least 3x times as fast as on Core2Duo T7600 that I was using before. Then again I'm compiling Silverlight assemblies which might be more CPU-bound than what you're doing. Also don't take just my word for it: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/867741/ssd-drives-and-visual-studio-ide-big-improvements-real-usage-stories-no-theor/1660421#1660421 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/867741/ssd-drives-and-vis...
  - masklinn 16y ago
    Synaesthesia is probably talking about compiling C (lots of pretty small files) or worse C++ (files are reopened a lot, so random IO becomes very important).
icegreentea 16y ago
Well, Quick Sync (the new transcode stuff built into Sandy Bridge) is suppose to be the shit. As in just as good, or better than GPU solutions, and less power draw. Zooom. Honestly, I'm actually super excited about Sandy Bridge. I think if you downclock the i7s enough, you can get a quad core under 40W, probably clocked round 2.6 or something. And it'd still have turbo boost on, so single/dual thread performance will still be really competitive.

by m3koval 16y ago

cletus 16y ago

Compilation is notoriously singlethreaded, generally speaking. I believe Apple has made a deliberate choice that quad core offers little benefit over dual core with unjustifiably higher power usage. So I wouldn't be surprised if the next gen is also dual core only. I don't expect the MBP to die in the next gen either. Performance is much better than the Ars.

wheels 16y ago
Compilation is notoriously singlethreaded, generally speaking. make -j 2 There, now it needs multiple processes. Actually, default builds on OS X often do since it's building for the 2-4 architectures that OS X supports (ppc, ppc64, i386, x86_64).
masklinn 16y ago
> I believe Apple has made a deliberate choice that quad core offers little benefit over dual core with unjustifiably higher power usage. It's more along the lines of Intel not having any quad arrandale in acceptable TDPs.
- yuhong 16y ago
  Yea, Sandy Bridge is the first 32nm quad-core with integrated graphics.

Synaesthesia 16y ago

SSD's really help compilation times! All those little files.

yread 16y ago
I have a new intel core 2630QM quad core and it is the biggest difference in compile times I have ever gotten from an upgrade. At least 3x times as fast as on Core2Duo T7600 that I was using before. Then again I'm compiling Silverlight assemblies which might be more CPU-bound than what you're doing. Also don't take just my word for it: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/867741/ssd-drives-and-visual-studio-ide-big-improvements-real-usage-stories-no-theor/1660421#1660421 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/867741/ssd-drives-and-vis...
- masklinn 16y ago
  Synaesthesia is probably talking about compiling C (lots of pretty small files) or worse C++ (files are reopened a lot, so random IO becomes very important).

icegreentea 16y ago

Well, Quick Sync (the new transcode stuff built into Sandy Bridge) is suppose to be the shit. As in just as good, or better than GPU solutions, and less power draw. Zooom. Honestly, I'm actually super excited about Sandy Bridge. I think if you downclock the i7s enough, you can get a quad core under 40W, probably clocked round 2.6 or something. And it'd still have turbo boost on, so single/dual thread performance will still be really competitive.