The All-in-One Battle: Dell's XPS One 24 vs. Apple's iMac
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 30, 2008 3:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Systems
The CPU Question: Slow Quad-Core or Fast Dual-Core?
Normally when you compare two similarly priced PCs these days the specs are extremely close. For whatever reason, with all-in-ones, the specs couldn't possibly be more varied. Dell ships all of its XPS One 24s with an Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 (2.33GHz) while Apple offers either a 2.80GHz or 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo in its 24" iMacs, leaving us with the not nearly age-old discussion of what's better: a fast dual core or a slow quad core?
In the early days the decision was simple, you only gave up a small amount of clock speed if you opted for quad-core over dual (around 266MHz) but in today's comparison the difference is a bit more staggering. The top end iMac gives you a processor that runs its two cores 733MHz faster than the four cores in the Dell, not to mention that those two cores have more cache than is split among four cores in the XPS One 24. Apple's got a higher clock and more cache, but Dell has more cores, so which is better?
Back when AMD introduced its triple-core Phenom parts I put together a little table illustrating the speedup you get from one, two and four cores in SYSMark 2007:
| SYSMark 2007 Overall | E-Learning | Video Creation | Productivity | 3D | |
| Intel Celeron 420 (1 core, 512KB, 1.6GHz) | 55 | 52 | 55 | 54 | 58 |
| Intel Celeron E1200 (2 cores, 512KB, 1.6GHz) | 76 | 68 | 91 | 70 | 78 |
| % Increase from 1 to 2 cores | 38% | 31% | 65% | 30% | 34% |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 (2 cores, 4MB, 2.66GHz) | 138 | 147 | 141 | 120 | 145 |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4 cores, 8MB, 2.66GHz) | 150 | 145 | 177 | 121 | 163 |
| % Increase from 2 to 4 cores | 8.7% | 0% | 26% | 1% | 12% |
The purpose of the table was to show that while the move from one to two cores is justifiable for the vast majority of users, going from two to four isn't nearly as high yielding. The issue is that while most applications these days are multi-threaded, they are either still bound by the performance of a single thread or they are only able to split the workload two ways, meaning half of the cores on a quad-core CPU would be left with nothing to do. The exceptions are things like video encoding or 3D rendering as you can see from the results above.
To get an idea of general system performance between these two machines I turned to PCMark Vantage, which actually does a good job of comparing similar CPU architectures in a handful of general purpose tests. I'm going to highlight the important tests that really show where these two systems perform the most differently:
| PCMark Memories 1 | Apple iMac 24" (Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz) | Dell XPS One 24 (Core 2 Quad 2.33GHz) |
| CPU Image Manipulation | 3.78 MB/s | 3.319 MB/s |
| HDD Importing pictures to Windows Photo Gallery | 26.533 MB/s | 31.38 MB/s |
The PCMark Memories 1 test is actually a multitasking test with two things happening at once; some basic image manipulation is being performed alongside importing pictures into the Windows Photo Gallery. Both of these tasks are multithreaded and thus there's an actual advantage to having more than two cores, which is why despite the clock speed deficit Dell's XPS One 24 is able to pull ahead.
| PCMark Memories 2 | Apple iMac 24" (Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz) | Dell XPS One 24 (Core 2 Quad 2.33GHz) |
| Video Transcoding VC-1 to WMV9 | 2.681 MB/s | 3.075 MB/s |
The Memories 2 test is a simple video transcoding test going from VC-1 to WMV9, and here we see the quad-core advantage once more. The TV and Movies 1 suite also performs a video transcoding operation but this time while playing back a HD-DVD, while both systems are able to play the video back at full frame rate the transcoding task completes faster on the quad-core Dell system.
| PCMark TV and Movies 1 | Apple iMac 24" (Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz) | Dell XPS One 24 (Core 2 Quad 2.33GHz) |
| Video Transcoding (VC1 to VC1) | 0.435 MB/s | 0.664 MB/s |
| Video Playback VC1 HD-DVD with SD commentary | 29.46 fps | 29.44 fps |
The TV and Movies 2 test is similar to the one I just mentioned, here we're playing a slightly more stressful HD-DVD source but hitting the disk in an access pattern similar to what would be used in Windows Media Center. Once again both systems pull off the video playback just fine, but the Dell machine is twice as fast when it comes to the disk portion of the test thanks to its extra cores.
| PCMark TV and Movies 2 | Apple iMac 24" (Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz) | Dell XPS One 24 (Core 2 Quad 2.33GHz) |
| HDD Windows Media Center | 25.007 MB/s | 44.642 MB/s |
| Video Playback VC1 HD-DVD with SD commentary | 29.431 fps | 29.432 fps |
The Gaming suites clearly go to the iMac; most games don't use more than two threads and Apple's dual cores are clocked much higher than Dell's four, not to mention that the iMac has a much faster GPU as well. If you want to game, the iMac is the way to go (that still feels weird to type).
| PCMark Gaming 1 | Apple iMac 24" (Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz) | Dell XPS One 24 (Core 2 Quad 2.33GHz) |
| Data Decompression | 764.975 MB/s | 796.299 MB/s |
| GPU Gaming | 22.4 fps | 9.8 fps |
| PCMark Gaming 2 | Apple iMac 24" (Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz) | Dell XPS One 24 (Core 2 Quad 2.33GHz) |
| CPU Gaming | 8726.193 ops/s | 7518.558 ops/s |
| HDD | 10.692 MB/s | 11.054 MB/s |
The Music 1 test is a light multitasking test, here we're viewing web pages, transcoding a MP3 to WMA format and adding music to a Windows Media Player library. The web task is faster on the iMac, while the other two tasks are slightly faster on the Dell. I'd call this one a wash, the two perform about the same.
| PCMark Music 1 | Apple iMac 24" (Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz) | Dell XPS One 24 (Core 2 Quad 2.33GHz) |
| Web Page Rendering - Music Shop | 14 pages/s | 12.167 pages/s |
| Audio Transcoding (MP3 to WMA) | 0.578 MB/s | 0.633 MB/s |
| HDD Adding Music to WMP | 4.953 MB/s | 5.06 MB/s |
The second test is simply transcoding a WAV file to WMA lossless, basically backing up a CD. I haven't seen audio transcoding optimized for more than two threads, so it makes sense that Apple takes the advantage here - the iMac is around 27% faster than the Dell XPS One 24.
| PCMark Music 2 | Apple iMac 24" (Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz) | Dell XPS One 24 (Core 2 Quad 2.33GHz) |
| Audio Transcoding WAV to WMA Lossless | 8.884 MB/s | 6.971 MB/s |
The PCMark Communications 1 suite runs three tasks, here we're encrypted data, compressing data and running rules on a Windows Mail inbox. Despite the multitasking nature of the workload, it's simply not heavily threaded enough to stress all four of Dell's cores, Apple takes the clear win here.
| PCMark Communications 1 | Apple iMac 24" (Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz) | Dell XPS One 24 (Core 2 Quad 2.33GHz) |
| Data Encryption (CNG AES CBC) | 4.211 MB/s | 3.655 MB/s |
| Data Compression | 4.797 MB/s | 3.085 MB/s |
| Windows Mail - Copying | 9.807 ops/s | 4.605 ops/s |
The same goes for the 2nd communications suite, it's a 3 task scenario but the iMac pulls ahead in each of the three tasks.
| PCMark Communications 2 | Apple iMac 24" (Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz) | Dell XPS One 24 (Core 2 Quad 2.33GHz) |
| Web Page Rendering - News Serial | 2.229 pages/s | 1.776 pages/s |
| Data Decryption (CNG AES CBC) | 112.91 MB/s | 92.977 MB/s |
| HDD Windows Defender | 11.183 MB/s | 10.665 MB/s |
The last two Productivity suites echo what we've seen thus far, take out video encoding/decoding and the quad-core choice just doesn't make sense; a faster dual core wins.
| PCMark Productivity 1 | Apple iMac 24" (Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz) | Dell XPS One 24 (Core 2 Quad 2.33GHz) |
| Text Editing | 861.106 KB/s | 597.045 KB/s |
| PCMark Productivity 2 | Apple iMac 24" (Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz) | Dell XPS One 24 (Core 2 Quad 2.33GHz) |
| Windows Contacts - Searching | 17865 contacts/s | 12778 contacts/s |
| Windows Mail Searching | 8.444 ops/s | 4.901 ops/s |
| Web Page Rendering - Favorites Group - Parallel | 1.424 pages/s | 1.508 pages/s |
| HDD Application Loading | 2.61 MB/s | 2.551 MB/s |
What's interesting here is that there is no clear victory, while I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of users would benefit from the 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo in the iMac, it really depends on your usage model. If you are doing a lot of video editing, video encoding/transcoding and image manipulation - basically if you're using this thing as more of a workstation, then you're better off with the Core 2 Quad Q8200 in the Dell. If you're doing lighter multitasking, general usage stuff or basically anything other than 3D rendering/video manipulation, you'll find the iMac faster - even under Windows. Strange.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
60 Comments
View All Comments
nitrous9200 - Friday, October 31, 2008 - link
There will be an option to show the text next to the program icons in 7, but obviously it will be turned off by default. Of course it's really quite easy to differentiate between programs by the icon since they're usually so different.strikeback03 - Monday, November 3, 2008 - link
Yeah, but if you have several instances of the same program open (for example, I have 2 firefox right now, and multiple Explorer windows is common) then icons won't cut it. I couldn't care less how pretty the interface looks, so long as it is effective at conveying what is going on and allowing me to interact with it.sxr7171 - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
No big deal. You will get a choice which is the downside of Macs. It's either "our way" or the "highway" in the Mac universe which is my big issue with Mac.Wolfpup - Friday, October 31, 2008 - link
I've long felt Windows' interface is considerably superior to OS X. Honestly I'd take 98's interface over 10.5, let alone XP or Vistas. It's really customizable, and...well I could go on and on about the things I prefer.(Two huge ones off the top of my head, you can edit files and folders from a save dialog box, and create new documents where you want them in the file system rather than having to open a program and navigate that way.)
Certainly I vastly prefer the quick launch bar and start menu to the dock.
Expose is the only interface element I wouldn't mind ripped off and put in Windows (though even there there's sort of a version of it in Vista).
slashbinslashbash - Friday, October 31, 2008 - link
Hmmm... how long have you been reading AnandTech? I've been here a good 7-8 years now, and I have grown to have an almost personal relationship with Anand's reviews. I know his thought processes, and he has kept a consistent POV over the years. Look back to 2004-2005 when he got his first Macs and somewhat reluctantly concluded (after all, he had built his site's reputation as a PC hardware review site) that he liked OS X better than Windows. Ever since then, the push has been on. Anand has grown to be more and more of a "Mac guy" and AFAIK largely uses Macs to conduct his day-to-day work. It's to the point now that I think of Anand as my go-to guy for Mac reviews and analysis (as he and his site have always been my go-to site for PC hardware reviews), if only because his voice has been so consistent and I know that he will tell me what he really thinks, and more importantly, that I know how he thinks and I know that he usually thinks like I do. Editorial consistency is so important and usually overlooked.In any case, being surprised at the "obvious pro-Mac OS X bias" shows you to be a pretty non-observant AnandTech reader, IMO. It is no surprise to me at all, and in fact I felt that Anand gave pretty fair shakes to the Dell, which copied the iMac and OS X to an embarrassing degree (the Dock is such a blatant ripoff! And the "Eject" graphic! Even the input/output ports are totally Mac-like.).
As for your criticisms of OS X, "knowing what is running" is far less important on OS X than on Windows anyway. To quote from Anand's 4/13/06 review of the original MacBook Pro: "When I started using OS X I initially hated the idea that closing all the windows of an application wouldn't actually close the application itself. However the more I used OS X, the more I realized that I didn't want to close the applications I used a lot; I wanted their windows out of the way but I wanted the ability to switch to them without waiting on the hard drive to load up that program again. Leaving just about every application I use open all the time and not having to worry about my system getting slow over time was a bit of a new experience for me, but it was a welcome one." I am the same way. I pretty much never quit programs completely on my Macs. It just doesn't make any difference in performance. When they are running in the background, the memory is managed well enough by OS X that they do not intrude on what I am doing.
"Differentiating between the numerous windows I have open" -- nothing does this better than Exposé.
"a central place to go for all your programs" -- OS X does a much better job of this with the Applications folder and the way that Applications themselves are folders in a sense. You click on them to open the application, but all the files and components that actually make up the application are enclosed in the folder that is the visible manifestation of the application in the Applications folder. To give a concrete example: I have an application called "Firefox" in my Applications folder. To open Firefox, I double-click on it. But if I right-click (I have a MS wireless mouse and keyboard -- I'm not a bigot) and select "View Package Contents", I see that this Firefox application is really just a container with a bunch of files and folders within it; chrome, extensions, dictionaries, etc. All of the confusing files and folders that seem to spread their way across multiple locations on Windows confine themselves nicely to that one pseudo-folder on OS X. No .dll files in strange places! No configuration settings hidden in the Registry! Just one place, and if you want to get rid of the program, there's no need for a complicated "Uninstall" process that scours your hard drive for odd remnants, you just drag the whole thing to the trash and be done with it! Wow, what a concept!
As for Linux's "central place to go for all your programs" -- don't get me started on the multitudinous locations of various ./bin folders (/usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, ~/bin, /bin, here a /bin, there a /bin, everywhere a /bin /bin.... I've got a $PATH that is several lines long, and different on every machine that I log into).
sxr7171 - Monday, November 3, 2008 - link
Huh. I used to ask Mac users why they did thought Mac was better in some ways and I many would mention the whole process of installing and uninstalling apps as a drag and drop thing. I never understood why they made such a big deal out of that because I thought dragging and dropping was analogous to clicking the install file.Not until you explained did I realize why they always bring that point up. Honestly now that I understand it, that is pretty darn amazing. It just makes sense. I hate hunting through local settings, application settings, the registry etc.
xeutonmojukai - Friday, October 31, 2008 - link
Um, I'm writing this on my MacBook right now, and trust me, this thing has a much more in-depth task manager than any Windows computer I've ever seen, and even allows you to restart the Finder program (or Main UI, basically) without restarting the computer.I find that my computer can go plowing into the great unknown reaches of the internet and come out clean, without using a firewall or any sort of protection program. It runs as fast as it did four years ago when I bought it.
I also use 10.4, and I've seen a lot of the new things from Leopard in my install of Ubuntu, and I don't need them, honestly. I'm fine with what Tiger has to offer.
Wolfpup - Friday, October 31, 2008 - link
How is Window's task manager less in depth...and you've been able to restart Explorer (ie Finder) separately from the computer in Windows since at LEAST Windows 98, if not earlier.
michael2k - Friday, October 31, 2008 - link
Windows taskbar doesn't give you a progress bar update per application?Windows taskbar doesn't tell you how many emails, IMs, or activity status in the taskbar?
All the Windows taskbar does is tell you which apps are open, which apps want your attention, and how many windows each app has open.
sxr7171 - Monday, November 3, 2008 - link
Not even liking Macs, I have to agree. Even Firefox tabs are easier to navigate and more informative with the right extensions. How many times have I wished for mouse gestures in Windows explorer? I really think Windows 7 will be fixing some of these issues. They seem to be standardizing the ways in which applications interact with the user. The fact that are are working to standardized where and how drivers are updated centrally and even use manufacturer input to build in sync and device management directly into the OS is going to make Windows 7 very easy to use and a much more consistent "mac-like" experience. Only with far more choices in hardware, software, and peripherals. The task they are undertaking is huge, but the results, if implemented correctly will be worth it.