Apple's inexperienced $1,099 iMac desire undoubtedly be real a all the rage supercomputer. Dwell in taking part in the know who plan the nearly all computing bang in place of their buck would be real smarter to step up to a higher-end copy, but in attendance are heaps of people—casual users, schools, businesses—who slightly plan an iMac that's "fast a sufficient amount," not individual that's "as fast since it might perhaps be real."
In place of individuals dwell in, we obtained individual of the inexperienced entry-level iMacs so we might evaluate its performance. On paper, it sounds like a sizeable step down—you're available from a quad-core desktop central processing unit and GPU to a dual-core Ultrabook central processing unit and GPU. This inexperienced iMac and the establish MacBook Air models taking part in information practice the exact same central processing unit, even though historically there's been a sizeable performance gap flanked by MacBook Airs and iMacs.
Taking part in practice, the story is supplementary complicated. Let's symposium something like what did you say? The inexperienced low-end iMac changes, and next we'll fritter roughly instant looking on central processing unit performance.
What’s distorted, and why?
Let's grow this not at home of the way fundamental: The low-cost iMac is externally identical to the copy released taking part in behind 2013, which is itself identical to the redesigned copy from behind 2012. It has the same 21.5-inch, glare-resistant, 1080p IPS strut panel and the same harbor arrange (one audio jack, individual SD certificate slot, four USB 3.0 ports, two Thunderbolt ports, and individual gigabit Ethernet port). Its other networking skin are plus unchanged—it's got a three-stream 802.11ac implementation skilled of up to 1.3Gbps connection speeds and Bluetooth 4.0. We're not even taking inexperienced pictures of the fad. There's nothing inexperienced to catch sight of.
Two main changes take been made to the iMac's internals. Fundamental, its 8GB of RAM is soldered to the motherboard and cannot be real upgraded, either on obtain before then. Next, it's using the same dual-core 1.4GHz foundation i5-4260U since the MacBook Air, even though all consumer iMac introduced since 2011 has incorporated a quad-core desktop CPU.
Higher-end 21.5-inch iMacs can still be real upgraded to practice 16GB of RAM on obtain, but finish users haven't really been able to upgrade them bearing in mind the information since the inexperienced designs were introduced taking part in 2012. Advertising a 21.5-inch iMac with soldered-in recollection is slightly the after that step down with the purpose of road; superior 27-inch iMacs can still be real upgraded bearing in mind the information via the RAM access entry on the back, while less significant 21.5-inch iMacs befall supplementary integrated and appliance-like. If Apple can save money taking part in a $1,099 iMac by soldering the RAM to the motherboard and limiting customization options, it can grow away with it as dwell in business the cheapest iMac probably won't need supplementary recollection than with the purpose of.
The CPU fine has with a reduction of to figure out with the central processing unit and supplementary to figure out with the GPU. Adult cut-down iMacs obtainable to schools and businesses take used dual-core foundation i3 desktop CPUs more accurately than quad-core i5s before i7s. This instant around, we suspect Apple is using a dual-core laptop CPU as of its Intel HD 5000 integrated GPU. Dual-core, socketed Haswell desktop processors include Intel's HD 4600 on finest, and taking part in this period and age it makes feeling to sacrifice a small CPU performance taking part in promote of a small GPU performance. Using the same central processing unit taking part in both the iMacs and MacBook Airs plus probably nets Apple a usefulness volume cut rate with the purpose of it wouldn't grow if it bought CPUs specifically in place of this low-end iMac.
Right now with the purpose of we know what's numerous something like this economical iMac and why, let's look on the performance of the central processing unit itself. Figure out you grow much further performance by putting the same CPU taking part in a roomier inclusion, before are we still looking on a desktop with the purpose of acts like a MacBook Air?
Versus the MacBook Air: Singing it cool
We're on a peak somewhere copy records and travel clock hustle in a row tells you with a reduction of than forever ahead of something like how a specified flake desire stage. This is especially dedicated taking part in laptops, medicine, and phones, which all garrote a chip's performance to changeable degrees to save battery life and prevent heat-related problems. We covered this question supplementary extensively taking part in our evaluation of the Nexus 5's SoC performance ultimate day.
We had assumed with the purpose of the low-end iMac would be real able to outpace the MacBook Air, since there's supplementary scope taking part in its box to move round around (and therefore, supplementary headroom in place of the CPU to run on its top speeds ahead of throttling happens). Intel's dexterous Power appliance desire narrate you detailed in a row something like your CPU and GPU's travel clock hustle, power tow, and heat taking part in real instant, so we fired it up to take a look on how both computers conduct yourself.
Notice with the purpose of the iMac's CPU and GPU idle on a top travel clock hustle than the flake taking part in the MacBook Air, and with the purpose of the power tow goes up accordingly (from something like 0.54W taking part in the MacBook Air to 0.80W taking part in the iMac). The laptop's CPU is tuned to practice with a reduction of power and produce the battery ultimate longer, and the desktop's is tuned to take better performance. Plus mention with the purpose of, despite these top travel clock speeds, the CPU heat taking part in the iMac is around four degrees cut.
So far, it looks like our hypothesis is correct—the iMac looks like it be supposed to be real able to outpace the MacBook Air. Let's run Geekbench 3, which more-or-less simulates the way dwell in really practice their computers—a pair minutes before so of intense action, followed by a return to idle at what time they're prepared.
These scores are identical somewhere the CPU performance is concerned, though it looks like the MacBook Air's recollection scores are consistently a small cut than the iMac's (possibly a side-effect of using low-power DDR3L more accurately than standard DDR3). We combed through the Geekbench results folder and fixed with the purpose of our results were steady with other MacBook Airs, and not something restricted to our piece.
Right now we'll kick individual of the CPU's two cores into anticyclone gear using the agreed > /dev/null rule to transmit it to 100 percent practice. Since these CPUs take Hyperthreading and the OS thinks it has four sensible "cores," you've got to figure out this four period to hook the complete CPU. We plus tested individual foundation by spawning two threads since Turbo Boost can climb travel clock frequency a small top if fewer cores are enabled, but our fundamental findings were the same.
We examined travel clock hustle, heat, and power practice while the CPUs ran full-tilt in place of around 20 minutes, well bearing in mind CPU heat stabilized, and we were surprised to catch sight of with the purpose of the iMac and MacBook Air might both run on a sustained 2.4GHz in place of basically since extended since we'd leave them on.
The superior difference was taking part in round and fan racket. The MacBook Air's fan spun up to a persistent complain and the CPU climbed to a toasty 96 degrees Celsius ahead of leveling not at home. The hustle on no account fell, but the laptop was plus on a fixed desk taking part in an air-conditioned apartment house; if its fan is muffled by a couch before bed, before if it is being used taking part in a warmer climate, with the purpose of CPU hustle is much supplementary likely to garrote down. The iMac, on the other offer, was cool since a cucumber and impossible to hear taking part in my mostly calm apartment house. Its CPU heat hovered around 60 degrees, 36 degrees cut than the MacBook Air. Definite performance isn't numerous, but with a reduction of round process with a reduction of stress on the components, which be supposed to translate into a longer lifespan. With the CPU on full-tilt, the flake was consuming around 14W taking part in both the MacBook Air and the iMac.
CPU performance flanked by the two be supposed to be real pretty similar—the iMac might be real a small earlier to spring to life in place of little bouts of action, but taking part in the extended haul both of them seem skilled of sustaining their pass with flying colors CPU frequency in place of since extended since it's needed. If you're slamming both CPU cores with no using the GPU, it's safe to say the low-cost iMac has a 2.4GHz CPU more accurately than a 1.4GHz individual.
The $1,099 iMac does get along to pluck out prematurely for the period of GPU-heavy activities, but simply by a insignificant amount. Gone experience has demonstrated with the purpose of Intel's integrated GPUs are much supplementary power-hungry (and along these lines, heat-generating, and earlier to throttle) than its CPU cores. Look on the power consumption records from Intel's NUC mini desktop, which uses largely the same CPU—gaming is supplementary stressful than pushing all the CPU cores to the pass with flying colors. Since the inexperienced iMac can dissipate supplementary round, it has a insignificant sidle.
With the purpose of supposed, the same GPU running to some extent sooner is veto match in place of a better GPU. Cinebench 11.5 demonstrates the difference pretty well—you're behind supplementary than partially of your graphics horsepower at what time you step down to the $1,099 iMac from the current $1,299 iMac. This is steady with what did you say? We've seen from other computers with the Iris Pro 5200 GPU, plus Gigabyte's Brix Pro mini-desktop.
没有评论:
发表评论