Skip to Content

Intel announces Core 2011 processor details; hackintosh fans post benchmarks

Intel, the company that makes the processors used in every Mac currently being manufactured, officially announced the details of the new Sandy Bridge processors, otherwise known as the Intel Core 2011 processors. These are the second generation of the Core processors found in many of Apple's products (i.e., the Core i3, i5, and i7 CPUs), and the new silicon could herald good news for future Macs. The Sandy Bridge processor family uses Intel's 32nm microarchitecture and is the first to put the processor, memory controller, and graphics on the same die. In a nutshell, this means more performance and better energy efficiency.

TUAW reported back in early December that Apple has committed to use the integrated Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) of the Sandy Bridge processor in future MacBooks, providing speculation that most future MacBooks may do away with a separate GPU. At the current time, the entire MacBook family uses NVIDIA GPUs to accelerate graphics processing. By using the built-in GPU of the Core 2011 processors, the component cost of Apple's future Macs will be reduced slightly. Whether or not that will translate to lower prices for consumers is unknown at this time. More on the new hardware after the break.


There are a total of 29 new chips in the Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processor families. For laptops, the new processors have achieved a 22% reduction in package size, with designs as thin as .8" (the MacBook Pro line is currently between .95 - .98" thick) becoming possible. Intel expects the mobile processors to boost performance as much as 30% over existing first-generation silicon. When looking at "Lifestyle PCs" such as the iMac and Mac mini, the new desktop CPUs again provide up to a 30% performance boost while operating at much lower power levels.

One of the new processors, the Intel Core i7-980X Extreme, appears to be destined for high-end "Desktop Enthusiast" machines, perhaps in a future Mac Pro. It's interesting to note that there are two new chips, the Core i7-2600K and i5-2500K, that are enabled for overclocking. Apple has never condoned overclocking of CPUs, and would most likely pass on using these in future Macs; however, hackintosh enthusiasts would welcome the opportunity to rock Mac OS X on an overclocked box.

So, how fast are these new processors when running Mac OS X? TUAW received information from the tonymacx86 blog featuring Geekbench benchmarks of Snow Leopard running on one of the Core i5-2500K processors running at 3.3 GHz. These enterprising folks took advantage of the expiration of Intel's NDA on the Sandy Bridge CPUs today to load Mac OS X on a PC running this chip, resulting in a Geekbench score of 8874. That's quite a bit faster (31.9%) than a stock Core i5-680 in a stock 21.5" iMac with the 3.60 GHz option, which scores in the range of 6727 on Geekbench.

Of course, that's just one example, and we're sure to see many more benchmarks in the future. What interesting is that this was a hackintosh installation; Apple engineers would likely tune Mac OS X and the CPU to optimize performance on a future Mac product. Will Apple announce new Macs using the Sandy Bridge processors in 2011? We'd count on it.




Categories

Apple Mac

Intel, the company that makes the processors used in every Mac currently being manufactured, officially announced the details of the new...
 

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

8 Comments

Filter by:
Janichsan

"... providing speculation that most future MacBooks may do away with a separate GPU."

I certainly hope not. Everything I have read so far (including benchmarks of pre-series Sandy Bridge CPUs) leads me to the conclusion that the graphics performance of the new Intel chips – while better than any Intel IGP before – is still far worse than any other GPU. So "doing away" with the separate GPU – even if it's "just" the 320M with shared graphics memory – would be a massive step backwards.

January 04 2011 at 12:22 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
LloydChiro

The i7 980x isn't new.

January 04 2011 at 12:09 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
David Frantz

It should be noted that the Mini might be the one machine that can best put these new chips to use. Given the right power point "as in watts" we might actually see a 50% increase in performance or more. It is really a matter of just how fast the CPU can be clocked and maintain the same power level in the machine.

January 03 2011 at 9:56 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Bruce Hoult

Ok, I got curious and knocked it back to 2.8 GHz, same as a real iMac with the same Core i7 860 CPU. Result: 10165

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/337317

Should be comparable.

p.s. I built this system in January 2010, but the CPU came out in September 2009. Pretty old stuff now.

January 03 2011 at 8:46 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Bruce Hoult

8874 is a pretty low GeekBench score! Especially for 3.3 GHz.

I get 12403 on the Core i7 860 Hackintosh I'm typing this on, running at 3.44 GHz:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/331939

I get 11335 running the same Mac at 3.15 GHz. I think it would also beat 8874 at the stock 2.8 GHz, same as the same CPU in the top 27" iMac.

If you look at my full set of scores, I've had over 13000 running at 3.96 GHz, but there's little point and 3.44 GHz runs far cooler (43 C at idle) and less power consumption (75W total for the CPU tower at idle).

http://browse.geekbench.ca/user/brucehoult/geekbench2

(all those scores are the same box, but different versions of the Hackintosh software have installed different system ID strings)

January 03 2011 at 8:32 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
NutMac

With aluminum unibody redesign (with 16:9 LCD), iMacs switched to desktop class CPUs (they still use notebook class SO-DIMMs for memory, however).

Mac mini, on the other hand, is essentially MacBook without a screen, keyboard, and trackpad. And since it actually shrunk in size, I strongly doubt it switching desktop class components in the near future.

I hope low-end Mac Pro configurations will begin to use mass components and get serious price cut, say, $1499 (at least $1999).

January 03 2011 at 6:43 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
John.B

Too bad Intel can't figure out how to make their IGP work with OpenCL...

January 03 2011 at 6:28 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
nxiv

i hope apple finally comes around to using desktop variants of intel cpus in their desktop macs (imac, mac mini) in 2011.

January 03 2011 at 6:24 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Buy an ad here

Tweets

© 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.