PDA

View Full Version : 27-Inch iMac Core i7 With SSD Is Fastest Mac Ever




MacRumors
Jun 15, 2011, 01:09 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/15/27-inch-imac-core-i7-with-ssd-is-fastest-mac-ever/)


Apple's latest edition of the iMac is finally shipping with the build-to-order 3.4GHz Intel Core i7 and 256GB Solid State Drive option installed. As with any new Apple product, benchmarks and speedtests are beginning to trickle out, and the conclusion is that this is the fastest Mac that has ever shipped.

Last month, Macworld benchmarked (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/04/thunderbolt-imac-torn-down-and-benchmarked/) the highest standard configuration 27" iMac Core i5 3.1GHz with standard hard drive installed. It scored 227 on Speedmark 6.5, roughly 16 percent faster than the old model -- but still quite a bit slower than a Mac Pro 3.33GHz Xeon 6-core, which scored a 263 on the same test.

Now, after a month-long delay, Apple is finally shipping BTO 3.4GHz Core i7 iMacs with a 256GB SSD option. This top-of-the-line iMac, the 27" 3.4GHz Core i7 w/SSD has been declared the fastest Mac that Macworld has ever tested (http://www.macworld.com/article/160469/2011/06/ultimateimac2011.html).

xS2ZipMM2Oo
The video above was sent in by a reader. He filmed it on his 27" 3.4GHz Core i7, 16GB of RAM and the 256GB SSD option. He opens all the standard applications that come with the iMac simultaneously (though with Front Row and Dashboard deselected, because they're both full-screen apps) as a quick demo of the speed of his new SSD iMac.

Macworld's testing puts the 3.4GHz i7 w/SSD at 298 on the Speedmark 6.5 test, well clear of the Mac Pro 3.33GHz Xeon 6-core's comparatively pokey 263. It also beat the Mac Pro in file duplication, Zip file compress and uncompress, iTunes encoding, and iMovie and iPhoto importing tests.

It's important to note, however, that for massively parallel tasks like Handbrake encoding, Cinebench, Mathematica, and GeekBench benchmarks the Mac Pro still outperforms the iMac because it has more cores, especially with Hyper-Threading. But, for individual application tests like encoding an MP3, importing a movie to iMovie, or importing photos to iPhoto, the iMac beats all.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/ultimateimac2011speedmark-241608.png



Of course, the brand new iMac might be faster than the current generation Mac Pro, but the Mac Pro hasn't been updated (http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac_Pro) since last July. New Mac Pros are expected sometime soon, presumably with Thunderbolt support and a rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/21/apple-developing-narrower-rackmountable-mac-pro-prototypes/) narrower, rackmountable enclosure.

Article Link: 27-Inch iMac Core i7 With SSD Is Fastest Mac Ever (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/15/27-inch-imac-core-i7-with-ssd-is-fastest-mac-ever/)



joskewarez
Jun 15, 2011, 01:13 PM
what a surprise :s
imagine that it's slower than the previous one :confused:

chrmjenkins
Jun 15, 2011, 01:14 PM
LGA 2011 processors don't launch until Q4, so I wouldn't expect new Mac Pros any time soon.

arn
Jun 15, 2011, 01:14 PM
what a surprise :s
imagine that it's slower than the previous one :confused:

It's not the fastest "iMac" ever, it's the fastest "Mac" ever.

arn

lighthouse_man
Jun 15, 2011, 01:15 PM
what a surprise :s
imagine that it's slower than the previous one :confused:

It's more about it also being faster than a MacPro.

admanimal
Jun 15, 2011, 01:16 PM
Kind of makes me wish I was patient enough to wait for the SSD model rather than just getting a standard HDD. Hopefully there will be some bootable Thunderbolt drives soon that will achieve the same effect.

ZMacintosh
Jun 15, 2011, 01:17 PM
its the fastest mac ever? by standard configuration or how do they judge that?
12-Core Mac Pro with SSD 16-32gb of memory?

:confused:

iRobz
Jun 15, 2011, 01:18 PM
Looking forward to getting mine. My last Mac was a 24" 2.16ghz core2duo iMac so this beast sounds like it'll run just a little bit quicker ;)

roland.g
Jun 15, 2011, 01:18 PM
I assume that the 27" 2.7 i5 with SSD would be about the same or slightly better than the 21.5" i5 SSD at about 256. The improvement over the 227 score for the HDD 27" 2.7 i5 might be worth it, but that $600 upcharge is quite steep (sorry but if you are going to go SSD, you might as well include the 1TB HDD along with it internally too).

wordoflife
Jun 15, 2011, 01:18 PM
Interesting, figured the mac pro would have beat it though

chrmjenkins
Jun 15, 2011, 01:19 PM
its the fastest mac ever? by standard configuration or how do they judge that?
12-Core Mac Pro with SSD 16-32gb of memory?

:confused:

In all but the most heavily threaded applications, the determining factors are going to be CPU architecture, clock speed and disk transfer speed.

The CPU architecture is newer in the iMac plus it boasts a higher clock speed, so it follows it performs better in benchmarks, despite the Mac Pro boasting up to 3x the cores.

stefmesman
Jun 15, 2011, 01:20 PM
this doesn't say anything about processing speed...

Apple...
Jun 15, 2011, 01:20 PM
Dang. I want one. :D

Really though, I wonder how the next generation Mac Pros will fair?

scottsjack
Jun 15, 2011, 01:21 PM
OMGWTF. Why even waste the time writing an article that mirrors that of another publication when neither of you has tested the iMac SSD against a Mac Pro SSD?

It's like implying that the a current Air with 2GB RAM is better than my late 2008 MBP with 8GB RAM because the Air's puny SSD reacts faster than my MBP's 7200 RPM WD Black drive.

Internetting would be faster but real work? Probably not. If you're going to write articles like this atleast test machines with similar available options.

Jeez. . .

Russell L
Jun 15, 2011, 01:21 PM
But isn't it always "the fastest Mac ever" with each new generation of models? Or is this news because it's an iMac beating out a Mac Pro (which hasn't been updated for almost a year)?

kellen
Jun 15, 2011, 01:23 PM
OMGWTF. Why even waste the time writing an article that mirrors that of another publication when neither of you has tested the iMac SSD against a Mac Pro SSD?


I was thinking the same thing. Put the 6 core 3.33 with SSD and lets see who wins.

dagamer34
Jun 15, 2011, 01:24 PM
But isn't it always "the fastest Mac ever" with each new generation of models? Or is this news because it's an iMac beating out a Mac Pro (which hasn't been updated for almost a year)?

I'm pretty sure it's actually beating a 12-core Mac Pro, which is rather impressive. And it's the cost associated with each machine that matters as well.

odinsride
Jun 15, 2011, 01:26 PM
I was thinking the same thing. Put the 6 core 3.33 with SSD and lets see who wins.

This. What are they trying to prove with these benchmarks when they are comparing apples to oranges? (no pun intended)

YoGramMamma
Jun 15, 2011, 01:27 PM
and this is the very iMac I bought. Though slightly peeved that I placed my order about 2 minutes after they went on sale on May 3rd.. and i JUST came 2 days ago.... literally six weeks later. Its a screamer though. The thing boots and is ready to go insanely fast. The only thing is I wish there was a way i could prevent the internal 2TB drive from being unmounted. That, and there was some thunderbolt stuff I can use with it.

314631
Jun 15, 2011, 01:27 PM
Thanks for confirming this. I think anyone who owns any kind of older Mac desktop has to dump their old machines and upgrade to one of these beauties immediately. iMac performance today is just mindblowing. I don't know how Apple does it but there technologies really are so far ahead of the competition. I hope a lot of people take advantage of this and buy into the fastest computer money can buy.

Infrared
Jun 15, 2011, 01:29 PM
Interesting, figured the mac pro would have beat it though

Get a Mac Pro and an iMac rendering, 100% usage on
all cores and see which machine melts and dies first ;-)

kskill
Jun 15, 2011, 01:30 PM
Just bought a 21.5" 2.8GHz i7 with SSD and 2TB HDD. I wonder how this ranks compared to the 27" 3.4GHz i7 w/ SSD?

For some reason, no one seems to be testing it the BTO i7 21.5"...

roland.g
Jun 15, 2011, 01:30 PM
and this is the very iMac I bought. Though slightly peeved that I placed my order about 2 minutes after they went on sale on May 3rd.. and i JUST came 2 days ago.... literally six weeks later. Its a screamer though. The thing boots and is ready to go insanely fast. The only thing is I wish there was a way i could prevent the internal 2TB drive from being unmounted. That, and there was some thunderbolt stuff I can use with it.

Why is the internal HDD unmounting?

iBug2
Jun 15, 2011, 01:30 PM
I was thinking the same thing. Put the 6 core 3.33 with SSD and lets see who wins.

iMac would still win on non-parallel tasks. It has a newer generation CPU +chipset with higher clockspeed. Not to mention Mac Pro's lack of SATA III. So iMac will provide much faster SSD results as long as the SSD used is appropriate, which in this case is an Apple SSD so it isn't though.

robeddie
Jun 15, 2011, 01:31 PM
I was thinking the same thing. Put the 6 core 3.33 with SSD and lets see who wins.

Bingo.

It's just a measure of how the SSD outstrips the standard hard drive (gee, news flash!).

Me, I'll stick with the 2gigs of standard internal hard drive space in my iMac 21.5. I'll take massive hd space over ssd speed any day.

Now ... if only I could have both ... hmmm.

odinsride
Jun 15, 2011, 01:32 PM
iMac would still win on non-parallel tasks. It has a newer generation CPU +chipset with higher clockspeed.

No

iMaci7
Jun 15, 2011, 01:33 PM
Awesome!!!! This is the Mac im planning to get (my first one)!

bwillwall
Jun 15, 2011, 01:34 PM
Holy.......................****

iBug2
Jun 15, 2011, 01:34 PM
No

Yes. If you read the article carefully it says that it beat Mac Pro on iTunes encoding test as well, which has nothing to do with drive speed.

chrmjenkins
Jun 15, 2011, 01:35 PM
No

Yesx2 ^

roland.g
Jun 15, 2011, 01:36 PM
Bingo.

It's just a measure of how the SSD outstrips the standard hard drive (gee, news flash!).

Me, I'll stick with the 2gigs of standard internal hard drive space in my iMac 21.5. I'll take massive hd space over ssd speed any day.

Now ... if only I could have both ... hmmm.

I was planning on getting a 27" standard 2.7 i5. But I keeping thinking the SSD + HDD would be real nice. This just increases the appeal. But several factors. Cost. The thing just sits there most of the day. I don't earn my keep on the thing. It gets tougher to justify spending money on things like that when they spend so much time being idle. Looking to go back to school so educational discounts could lessen the upgrade costs, but it is still more than I would want to spend for the performance.

Apple...
Jun 15, 2011, 01:36 PM
I would really love to get one of these machines (and upgrade from a 2007 Mac Pro), but I'm thinking the 27 inch model is much too big. Any suggestions?

deannnnn
Jun 15, 2011, 01:37 PM
Anyone want to see a video of my 2004 iMac G5 opening all of its apps? It's not quite as exciting.

Sjhonny
Jun 15, 2011, 01:38 PM
It's not the fastest "iMac" ever, it's the fastest "Mac" ever.

arn

In some tasks ... quite misleading title, since it uses a SSD, instead of a HDD like in the mac pro they are comparing with ...

mrfoof82
Jun 15, 2011, 01:38 PM
Bingo.

It's just a measure of how the SSD outstrips the standard hard drive (gee, news flash!).

Me, I'll stick with the 2gigs of standard internal hard drive space in my iMac 21.5. I'll take massive hd space over ssd speed any day.

Now ... if only I could have both ... hmmm.
Uh, you can.

Most of the people who ordered SSD-equipped iMacs on the Shipment Tracker (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1148415) got a 1TB or 2TB internal 3.5" drive with the 256GB SSD (~94% got a 3.5" disk with the SSD). My 27" will have the 256GB Toshiba HG3 and a 2TB 7200rpm internal 3.5" drive.

macnisse
Jun 15, 2011, 01:39 PM
iMac > Mac pro = good value for money!

kazmac
Jun 15, 2011, 01:39 PM
I'd happily wait for the Mac Pro. Great for folks looking for more horse power now and who can deal with Apple's $*(#@# displays etc.

roland.g
Jun 15, 2011, 01:39 PM
In some tasks ... quite misleading title, since it uses a SSD, instead of a HDD like in the mac pro they are comparing with ...

Just to clarify -> from the MacWorld article.

Lab Report: Core i7 SSD iMac is the fastest Mac we've tested

Dagless
Jun 15, 2011, 01:40 PM
I've almost always been behind with my computers till I splashed out on the best 27" iMac the retail Apple Store offered. So glad to see it on that list! It's such a beast of a machine and it's not even an i7 with SSD. I can't imagine a faster machine (with todays OS+apps).

ratzzo
Jun 15, 2011, 01:41 PM
Long gone are the days when you had to wait a minute for a program to open. Ah, the windows 95 days... no, I don't miss them ;)

iMaci7
Jun 15, 2011, 01:42 PM
The 27" iMac also has a very impressive GPU. The HD6970M screams - 28FPS Crysis 1980x1050 on 'Very High'. Thats on-par with a GTX 285.

Sjhonny
Jun 15, 2011, 01:44 PM
Just to clarify -> from the MacWorld article.

Well look at the macrumors title :) there is a BTO option for a SSD in the Six-core mac pro, so this is a misleading title

kevin2i
Jun 15, 2011, 01:45 PM
It's not the fastest "iMac" ever, it's the fastest "Mac" ever.

arn

:eek:
Well, this is really silly, since it does not compare the current Mac Pro.

Faster than a 12 core? In real-life doubtful. Especially if you slap in a few SSD in raid zero.

Benchmarks are not the full story. My MBP is 80% as fast in benchmarks as my Mac Pro, but in real life (such as rendering video) the Pro is better than twice as fast.

cms2
Jun 15, 2011, 01:46 PM
Anyone want to see a video of my 2004 iMac G5 opening all of its apps? It's not quite as exciting.

hah hah hah! Man, I feel you!

That video was very impressive. I even showed it to my wife who is normally pretty non-plussed by the tech stuff I show her, and she said "wow! now that's what I need!"

I'm still pretty happy with my 2007 mbp, but when it comes time to replace it, I'm feeling a 27" iMac...

justinfreid
Jun 15, 2011, 01:49 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Good question. I think the benchmarking should be done by class: base configuration, factory custom configuration, after-market config, Hackintosh, mobile/desktop/server for each of the above, etc.

holmesf
Jun 15, 2011, 01:52 PM
It's the fastest Mac ever, except that it's not.

About 1/2 of the Macworld tests are hard drive intensive tests (duplicating files, importing files, zipping files, etc). Of course the SSD based iMac will outperform the Mac Pro on these tests.

Comparing the CPU/memory performance instead and you'll find that the iMac gets a geekbench score of 11648, while the Mac Pro gets an astounding score of 24262.

What's even more deceptive is that the SSD in the iMac is not even a high performer (220MB/s read 180MB/s write) -- it's simply better than a stock hard drive. For the same price ($500 BTO upgrade vs $550 total cost) you could get a 3rd party SSD from OWC that gets 559MB/s read and 527MB/s write.

Heck, any Mac that supports SATA III and had an OWC Mercury Extreme 6g installed would be declared the "fastest Mac ever" according to these messed up Macworld tests.

edit: Macworld compared the 2011 iMac against the 6-core Mac Pro, making the headline "Fastest Mac Ever" even more ridiculous.

Icaras
Jun 15, 2011, 01:53 PM
:eek:
Well, this is really silly. since it doe not compare the current Mac Pro.

Faster than a 12 core? In real-life doubtful. Especially if you slap in a few SSD in raid zero.

Benchmarks are not the full story. My MBP is 80% as fast in benchmarks as my Mac Pro, but in real life (such as rendering video) the Pro is better than twice as fast.

You need to re-read the article again.

nagromme
Jun 15, 2011, 01:54 PM
I would really love to get one of these machines (and upgrade from a 2007 Mac Pro), but I'm thinking the 27 inch model is much too big. Any suggestions?

Yes:

1. 27 is WAY too big.

2. Which is awesome! Get one! :)

larrylaffer
Jun 15, 2011, 01:55 PM
I'd like to see it take on my dual 6-core Mac Pro I just got, seeing as mine has 3 striped SSDs. :)

captan
Jun 15, 2011, 01:58 PM
If anything, this is is saying that an SSD is a crucial upgrade to any mac, including the Mac Pro.

jonnysods
Jun 15, 2011, 02:01 PM
Put an SSD in a Mac Pro and then test.

Wellsn
Jun 15, 2011, 02:03 PM
Anyone want to see a video of my 2004 iMac G5 opening all of its apps? It's not quite as exciting.

that is Hi-larious.

the8thark
Jun 15, 2011, 02:06 PM
I assume that the 27" 2.7 i5 with SSD would be about the same or slightly better than the 21.5" i5 SSD at about 256. The improvement over the 227 score for the HDD 27" 2.7 i5 might be worth it, but that $600 upcharge is quite steep (sorry but if you are going to go SSD, you might as well include the 1TB HDD along with it internally too).

I think you are wrong. I think the standard high end i5 21.5 would be slightly better then the standard low end i5 27. Why? The 21.5 has less pixels to push out at native resolutions. It's the SSD vs HDD thing that makes these imacs go really fast.

RobQuads
Jun 15, 2011, 02:09 PM
Try putting PCI-E SSD into a MacPro and watch it blast the iMac out of the water. Tis amazing to see what some of those things can do

mbaudis
Jun 15, 2011, 02:09 PM
One of my 2010 MacPros has a 2x512 RAID0 Arrays. Since this was a standard Apple BTO, it would Be up for a comparison?

Ubuntu
Jun 15, 2011, 02:11 PM
Put an SSD in a Mac Pro and then test.

That's not really the point though. I guess this is more about macs officially configured by Apple. Otherwise I'd just one-up your SSD Mac Pro with an iMac that houses a small farm of hamsters or a nuclear plant... staffed by hamsters.

EDIT: Just noticed the Mac Pro can be CTO'd with SSDs, I do apologise. That's pretty silly.

the8thark
Jun 15, 2011, 02:11 PM
Just bought a 21.5" 2.8GHz i7 with SSD and 2TB HDD. I wonder how this ranks compared to the 27" 3.4GHz i7 w/ SSD?

For some reason, no one seems to be testing it the BTO i7 21.5"...

Some 2011 imac Geekbench benchmarks. And yes the geekbench just added in 21.5 i7 results. So you can see how good they are.

http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2011/05/imac-benchmarks-mid-2011/

Sodner
Jun 15, 2011, 02:11 PM
If anything, this is is saying that an SSD is a crucial upgrade to any mac, including the Mac Pro.

Why did I not get an SSD?!?! Kicks self.

toddybody
Jun 15, 2011, 02:20 PM
Clock for clock, SB is showing incredible improvements over previous gen CPUs. The lesson learned is that for all things consumer oriented (non workstation tasking), the SB i7 iMac is the best choice...you cant argue there (especially for the price differential).

That said, different applications/testing criteria could grant wins on either side. Theyre different machines made for different reasons. The Pro certainly has some capabilities the iMac cant touch (More Cores, Desktop Graphics, PCI-E Capable SSC's...though OSX doesnt make booting from them easy)

wiz329
Jun 15, 2011, 02:22 PM
What a dumb article. Sure, an iMac with 16GB of RAM and an SSD will open a bunch of applications faster than a mac pro without an SSD.

Trying shoving a couple of OCZ Vertex 3s in RAID 0 on a hexacore 3.33GHz Mac Pro. See who wins then.

MacPhilosopher
Jun 15, 2011, 02:23 PM
As fast as the i7 core may be, this is more about how slow mechanical drives are for accessing data. Here's to looking forward to TB size SSD and the end of slow drives, crashes and battery power sucking mechanical devices. For the younger members out there, imagine accessing data off of tape or 5 1/2 floppy disks. My first Apple had a 20MB hard drive. An upgrade to 80 MB was a couple of thousand dollars. The future looks bright.

toddybody
Jun 15, 2011, 02:27 PM
Im still in awe of all the Dual Hexacore MP owners with SSD in raid.

It's totally a mark of geek honor when your computer costs more than your car.

CWallace
Jun 15, 2011, 02:28 PM
Anyone want to see a video of my 2004 iMac G5 opening all of its apps? It's not quite as exciting.

Doesn't YouTube have like a 10 minute video runtime limit? :p :D

I have a 2.8GHz i7 27" iMac and it's still mighty fast for what I do (which is just fluff), but I have to admit this looks tempting.

ARobinson
Jun 15, 2011, 02:28 PM
Sure this was said, but the above MacPro is a quad-core...well i guess technically a 3.33GHz 6-Core processor, but still not a 12-Core. Besides how practical of a test is this anyway. Who needs to open every application they have? Not a professional that invest in a 12-core machine that requires a lot of ram, shared storage, render farms, external peripherals, etc. Seems like a great computer for a consumer, like my 80yr old grandmother, who never closes anything...or even shutdowns for that matter. Lol:) Not meant to be a harsh response, but essentially what I want to say is an iMac is great, but not the best. Booting apps is not a test of overall comparability to a real beast, like the soon to be outdated 12-Core :( Unless opening apps a few seconds faster really makes a difference in your workflow. That may change in a years tho as SSD's really get battle tested.

Michael73
Jun 15, 2011, 02:28 PM
Not to mention the MP has 4 internal drive bays for RAID arrays, more slots for powering graphics cards, more RAM capability and dual drives. I love being able to rip from two sources at once or rip and burn or dual burn.

Possibly my favorite MP aspect is what it lacks...a display. I loves me my matte 30" ACD. I'd go nuts with the glossy 27" iMac. Doing color work on that would be really difficult in my type of lighting environment.

RawBert
Jun 15, 2011, 02:29 PM
Awesome specs. :cool:
Is also has a "FaceTime HD camera (http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac?mco=MTcyMTgwNTQ)." Hopefully the iDevices will get the same treatment soon. iPhone 5 perhaps. :)

iBug2
Jun 15, 2011, 02:34 PM
Try putting PCI-E SSD into a MacPro and watch it blast the iMac out of the water. Tis amazing to see what some of those things can do

Unless you want to do SSD raid, PCI-E is unnecessary and too expensive. Get a SATA III controller for cheaper price and attach a OCZ Vertex 3.

But then again, you are paying a lot of money for something the iMac already has.

nxent
Jun 15, 2011, 02:35 PM
impressive video... i never thought of my mbp as being slow... until now.

iBug2
Jun 15, 2011, 02:36 PM
Sure this was said, but the above MacPro is a quad-core...well i guess technically a 3.33GHz 6-Core processor, but still not a 12-Core. Besides how practical of a test is this anyway. Who needs to open every application they have? Not a professional that invest in a 12-core machine that requires a lot of ram, shared storage, render farms, external peripherals, etc. Seems like a great computer for a consumer, like my 80yr old grandmother, who never closes anything...or even shutdowns for that matter. Lol:) Not meant to be a harsh response, but essentially what I want to say is an iMac is great, but not the best. Booting apps is not a test of overall comparability to a real beast, like the soon to be outdated 12-Core :( Unless opening apps a few seconds faster really makes a difference in your workflow. That may change in a years tho as SSD's really get battle tested.

You really need to read the article again. The tests were not just opening apps. iMac performs faster on several CPU tasks such as iTunes encoding which has nothing to do with SSD.

And the article again states that when it comes to paralleled tasks such as rendering, a hexacore will obviously perform faster.

Anyway, this is not the first time an iMac performs faster than the fastest Mac Pro on unparalleled tasks. The same thing happened last summer before Mac Pro's were updated as well.

milo
Jun 15, 2011, 02:37 PM
What a giant misinterpretation and idiotic headline from MR. It's not the fastest mac EVER, it's the fastest mac they've ever TESTED. And it's obvious from looking at this graph that they're only comparing it to the SIX core MP when there's a TWELVE core version available. Gee, you think that one might be a bit faster, having twice as many cores?

And the MP is also available with SSD, the fair test would be to include it for that model as well. Yeesh, can't believe you guys blew it in such a big way on this one, is it really that hard to understand what they posted or did you just forget there's a 12 core machine available?

bobobenobi
Jun 15, 2011, 02:38 PM
Im still in awe of all the Dual Hexacore MP owners with SSD in raid.

It's totally a mark of geek honor when your computer costs more than your car.

Maybe their computer cost more than *your* car, but possibly not more than theirs. :cool:

rovex
Jun 15, 2011, 02:39 PM
Awesome specs. :cool:
Is also has a "FaceTime HD camera (http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac?mco=MTcyMTgwNTQ)." Hopefully the iDevices will get the same treatment soon. iPhone 5 perhaps. :)

To be honest will it make much difference seeing as the iphone can't output 720p?

Nevertheless when will the Imac have a touch screen? With Windows 8 looming Apple better get their act together.

Seanozz
Jun 15, 2011, 02:42 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)

Holy woah!!! It opened all that faster then i can even open garage band alone on my new iMac.

wiz329
Jun 15, 2011, 02:43 PM
What a giant misinterpretation and idiotic headline from MR. It's not the fastest mac EVER, it's the fastest mac they've ever TESTED. And it's obvious from looking at this graph that they're only comparing it to the SIX core MP when there's a TWELVE core version available. Gee, you think that one might be a bit faster, having twice as many cores?


I agree with you that its an idiotic headline. BUT, I think they're right about testing the hexacore instead of the 12-core. I think the six core is actually faster at unparalleled tasks bc its clock speed is 3.33 GHz vs. the 12 core's 2.93 GHz. Thus, unless you're using an application that will actually use all 12 cores, the processor with the high clock speed is actually going to be faster.

weckart
Jun 15, 2011, 02:43 PM
You really need to read the article again. The tests were not just opening apps. iMac performs faster on several CPU tasks such as iTunes encoding which has nothing to do with SSD.


Uh huh. And those encoded tracks that the benchmark is picking up - where exactly are they being written to?

Scarpad
Jun 15, 2011, 02:44 PM
I gave up a little on the speed to get the storage of a 1tb drive, i'm in no hurry, plenty fast for me

milo
Jun 15, 2011, 02:50 PM
It's not the fastest "iMac" ever, it's the fastest "Mac" ever.

But it's not. It's the fastest mac they've TESTED. Do they make that claim in their article? No. Do they even mention the 12 core MP, which likely trounces the top iMac on this benchmark? Again, no.


its the fastest mac ever? by standard configuration or how do they judge that?
12-Core Mac Pro with SSD 16-32gb of memory?

:confused:

It's not even by standard config since they tested the iMac with SSD.

I'm pretty sure it's actually beating a 12-core Mac Pro, which is rather impressive.

Based on what? Their graph and the article itself clearly say 6 core repeatedly with no mention of the 12 core.

Yes. If you read the article carefully it says that it beat Mac Pro on iTunes encoding test as well, which has nothing to do with drive speed.

What is iTunes supposed to prove? iTunes is horribly encoded and only uses one core to do anything. Get a real audio/video rendering app that uses all cores and you'll see a big difference.


You need to re-read the article again.

Actually no, turns out he was the first one to figure out that apple ships a 12 core and MR is making the "fastest mac ever" assumption based on a comparison to a 6 core. Re-read his post again.

wiz329
Jun 15, 2011, 02:54 PM
st one to figure out that apple ships a 12 core and MR is making the "fastest mac ever" assumption based on a comparison to a 6 core. Re-read his post again.

Again, all of their tests were based on applications that don't use all 12 cores. In that case, a 3.33 GHz 6-core will beat a 2.93 GHz 12-core in tasks like iTunes encoding, which as you said, only uses 1 core.

But I agree. Its a dumb claim.

scottsjack
Jun 15, 2011, 02:58 PM
But it's not. It's the fastest mac they've TESTED. Do they make that claim in their article? No. Do they even mention the 12 core MP, which likely trounces the top iMac on this benchmark? Again, no.

It's not even by standard config since they tested the iMac with SSD.

Based on what? Their graph and the article itself clearly say 6 core repeatedly with no mention of the 12 core.

What is iTunes supposed to prove? iTunes is horribly encoded and only uses one core to do anything. Get a real audio/video rendering app that uses all cores and you'll see a big difference.

Actually no, turns out he was the first one to figure out that apple ships a 12 core and MR is making the "fastest mac ever" assumption based on a comparison to a 6 core. Re-read his post again.

So in conclusion the article was a total waste of time and space. It really said nothing other than that the latest xxx is faster than the previous xxx. Now that's a shocker!

milo
Jun 15, 2011, 02:58 PM
BUT, I think they're right about testing the hexacore instead of the 12-core. I think the six core is actually faster at unparalleled tasks bc its clock speed is 3.33 GHz vs. the 12 core's 2.93 GHz.

For something that tries to pass itself off as a publication, wouldn't it make the most sense to compare both?

Lone Deranger
Jun 15, 2011, 03:04 PM
Put an SSD in a Mac Pro and then test.

Or run a properly multi-threaded task on it like rendering in almost any current day 3D application and the Mac Pro will run circles around the iMac.

It's nice to see the iMacs are doing so well overall, but let's not kid ourselves here. The Mac Pro still reigns supreme when it comes to raw performance potential.

WestonHarvey1
Jun 15, 2011, 03:04 PM
I have a 2.53 GHz i5 MBP with 4GB of RAM... why is it that doing the exact same test on mine is like *16* times slower? I wouldn't expect it to quite compete, but I figured it might be half as fast, even a quarter as fast...

I think I have some kind of human-to-computer communicable virus that makes every machine I own rapidly deteriorate in performance.

macpro2000
Jun 15, 2011, 03:07 PM
Funny, that when you have a 30" Apple Cinema Display, 27" seems small.



Yes:

1. 27 is WAY too big.

2. Which is awesome! Get one! :)

ARobinson
Jun 15, 2011, 03:13 PM
I'm glad everyone seems to be on the same page. The new X is faster than the old X. This was a pointless article intended for views and really stirred us up. First time I posted on Mac Rumors...just fueled my hatred toward the notion that the Mac Pro is dead.

FroMann
Jun 15, 2011, 03:17 PM
Its awesome to see an all in one computer to have this speed, but computer component manufactures are putting out new components every 4-6 months making computers faster while Apple updates their products every 8-12 months.

So in short this is the fastest Mac ever, for a few months. Good job everyone at Apple! :D

JackAxe
Jun 15, 2011, 03:18 PM
Nothing new. Macworld's tests as long as I can recall have always been heavily skewed towards hard-drive performance.

mdriftmeyer
Jun 15, 2011, 03:18 PM
It's not the fastest "iMac" ever, it's the fastest "Mac" ever.

arn

Actually, it's the fastest iMac with SSD. The latest iMac with a standard SATA HDD is slower than the Mac Pro which only has an SATA drive.

Nowhere in the testing does it show the performance against a Mac Pro with SSD.

Flawed test.

ARobinson
Jun 15, 2011, 03:22 PM
Nothing new. Macworld's tests as long as I can recall have always been heavily skewed towards hard-drive performance.

Thats my immediate thought concerning speed. Throughput. How many uncompressed HD streams can I run. Lol. The iTunes audio encoding threw me!

ghostlyorb
Jun 15, 2011, 03:29 PM
I thought the Mac Pro could have dual 6-core?

WestonHarvey1
Jun 15, 2011, 03:29 PM
Funny, that when you have a 30" Apple Cinema Display, 27" seems small.

I still find the move from the 30 to the 27 heartbreaking. I don't understand what was gained there.

Keebler
Jun 15, 2011, 03:31 PM
Well, I knew that SSDs were faster given other videos out there, but seeing this was just WOW!

Me, i'm not concerned if it's the fastest mac ever b/c i'm not delusional enough to realize the next iMac rendition will be faster etc..etc.

BUT, as someone who has been hedging on removing my main internal sata drive for an SSD Drive. I'm not sold. I have a 2009 MPro and it's slower on opening files. To be honest, SSDs are still more expensive / GB, but if I can launch apps that much faster, it means I start work faster. Sure, it may be seconds, but over time, that adds up.

Add speed to the new features of Lion and my work productivity will go up.

I'm sold now.

mzeb
Jun 15, 2011, 03:31 PM
Had to try this on my MBP 2011 with a crucial M4. All I can say is wow, that's pretty cool. 57 Apps opened in about 30 seconds...

chrmjenkins
Jun 15, 2011, 03:36 PM
Again, all of their tests were based on applications that don't use all 12 cores. In that case, a 3.33 GHz 6-core will beat a 2.93 GHz 12-core in tasks like iTunes encoding, which as you said, only uses 1 core.

But I agree. Its a dumb claim.

Not a whole lot of applications use 12 cores, much less 4. It's not a dumb claim, it's just pointless. Wow, a new cpu architecture with a higher clockspeed is faster than an older architecture at a lower clock speed in some tests? I never would have guessed.

AidenShaw
Jun 15, 2011, 03:38 PM
The Mac Pro still reigns supreme when it comes to raw performance potential.

For those rare "properly threaded" tasks. ;)

The problem is that "properly threaded" somewhat implies that it's the skill of the programmers. Some applications have serial dependencies in their data which makes arbitrary multi-threading impossible.

A "properly threaded" application could be a video encoder. Many (most?/all?) video codecs have the concept of "keyframes" - a complete frame without any dependencies. These typically are placed every few handfuls of seconds in the stream. From one keyframe to the next, temporal compression is used to reduce the data rate.

Such a data flow is easy to parallelize to an arbitrary number of cores. You break the input into chunks based on the keyframe interval (if you have keyframes every 5 seconds, a one hour video is 720 chunks). You then start 720 threads to encode, and combine the results. (Realistically, you'll schedule the 720 threads a small number at a time, based on the number of cores that your have.)

Other applications are very serial. If you have a spreadsheet cell that uses the standard deviation of a set of cells as an input - regardless of how many cores you have you must wait for the standard deviation to be computed before you can start the next set.

Sometimes a "properly threaded" application is a "single core serial" application, because each bit of the application depends on an earlier calculation - and it cannot be sped up by adding cores. (Or, a huge amount of programming complexity can be added that produces a barely noticeable improvement in the overal speed.)

istyles
Jun 15, 2011, 03:46 PM
i would have said that the mac pro 12 core, 3.33 Ghz with 64 Gb ram, and 2 TB of SSD would have been faster

wiz329
Jun 15, 2011, 03:49 PM
Not a whole lot of applications use 12 cores, much less 4. It's not a dumb claim, it's just pointless. Wow, a new cpu architecture with a higher clockspeed is faster than an older architecture at a lower clock speed in some tests? I never would have guessed.

I'm pretty sure a pointless claim is pretty dumb. But I'm pretty sure its also incorrect. Even a MP with a westmere processor with a couple of striped vertex 3s will beat a sandy bridge imac. Its pointless to compare an SSD equipped imac with a MP that only has a regular HD. Especially using a benchmark that relies heavily on drive speed.

jasonxneo
Jun 15, 2011, 03:49 PM
mexican jumping beans in dock! :D

greentree_uk
Jun 15, 2011, 03:53 PM
Anyone want to see a faster iMac? I have a 3.4 i7 with an OWC Mercury Extreme PRO SSD in it. SATA III and over 500MB Sec Reads and Writes! will have 16GB RAM Next week. I know an aftermarket job but it is all possible

vincenz
Jun 15, 2011, 03:56 PM
Holy %$#@! :eek:

usptact
Jun 15, 2011, 03:59 PM
Oh my... oh my... this test is just pure nonsense. What is the baseline? What do they compare to? 27inch display with MacPro gray metal casing?

If you compare processors then launch comparison on applications that are mostly processor hungry. Don't show that your macX starts faster than macY.

If you compare hard drives then do benchmarks with file operations. There are many parameters to compare to. Just showing application opening is the last test to do...

In comparison one should be super precise about what is compared! First making sure that apples and oranges are comparable!

chrmjenkins
Jun 15, 2011, 04:02 PM
I'm pretty sure a pointless claim is pretty dumb. But I'm pretty sure its also incorrect. Even a MP with a westmere processor with a couple of striped vertex 3s will beat a sandy bridge imac. Its pointless to compare an SSD equipped imac with a MP that only has a regular HD. Especially using a benchmark that relies heavily on drive speed.

Which only underscores how pointless it is. Given that the mac pro is infinitely more configurable than the iMac, the CPU is the only basis of comparison. The fact that the CPU is faster is a foregone conclusion and the fact that they didn't attempt to match storage medium only adds insult to injury.

wiz329
Jun 15, 2011, 04:09 PM
Which only underscores how pointless it is. Given that the mac pro is infinitely more configurable than the iMac, the CPU is the only basis of comparison. The fact that the CPU is faster is a foregone conclusion and the fact that they didn't attempt to match storage medium only adds insult to injury.

Haha well I'm glad we'll we're all pretty much agreed on how pointless this test was =)

AppleScruff1
Jun 15, 2011, 04:14 PM
Try an i7 990X.

saschke
Jun 15, 2011, 04:16 PM
*holy guacamole* :eek:

mabaker
Jun 15, 2011, 04:17 PM
Still rocking a G5 here. It's laughing all the way. :D that new one is smoking though!

Lone Deranger
Jun 15, 2011, 04:35 PM
For those rare "properly threaded" tasks. ;)

The problem is that "properly threaded" somewhat implies that it's the skill of the programmers. Some applications have serial dependencies in their data which makes arbitrary multi-threading impossible.

A "properly threaded" application could be a video encoder. Many (most?/all?) video codecs have the concept of "keyframes" - a complete frame without any dependencies. These typically are placed every few handfuls of seconds in the stream. From one keyframe to the next, temporal compression is used to reduce the data rate.

Such a data flow is easy to parallelize to an arbitrary number of cores. You break the input into chunks based on the keyframe interval (if you have keyframes every 5 seconds, a one hour video is 720 chunks). You then start 720 threads to encode, and combine the results. (Realistically, you'll schedule the 720 threads a small number at a time, based on the number of cores that your have.)

Other applications are very serial. If you have a spreadsheet cell that uses the standard deviation of a set of cells as an input - regardless of how many cores you have you must wait for the standard deviation to be computed before you can start the next set.

Sometimes a "properly threaded" application is a "single core serial" application, because each bit of the application depends on an earlier calculation - and it cannot be sped up by adding cores. (Or, a huge amount of programming complexity can be added that produces a barely noticeable improvement in the overal speed.)

All very true AidenShaw. The 3D applications in my arsenal that I alluded to (Maya, modo, Mudbox, etc.) certainly do not completely escape the problems you speak of. Many modeling operations conducted in 3D are still (frustratingly) in the land of single threads.
Dynamics and fluid simulations are also notoriously difficult to multi-thread (if possible at all). In that case a faster single core will indeed outperform a meatiest of multi-core systems.
Rendering on the other hand scales very nicely indeed, which is where a Mac Pro shines brightly in the glossy face of an iMac.

Hellhammer
Jun 15, 2011, 04:35 PM
Quite the usual - MR is misleading people. It's only the fastest Mac MacWorld has tested. That does not mean that it's the fastest Mac that has ever been manufactured, especially when considering all aspects.

2.93GHz 12-core Mac Pro with 3 SSDs in RAID 0, NVIDIA Quadro 4000, 96GB RAM etc. would bash this iMac in everything else besides single-threaded app performance.

iSee
Jun 15, 2011, 04:40 PM
The iMac vs. Mac Pro comparison is pretty pointless.

The iMac has an SSD in it and the Mac Pro doesn't.

Is it really notable that the file copy test is faster on an SSD than a HDD?

C'mon Mac Rumors, *think*

zephonic
Jun 15, 2011, 04:48 PM
Not impressed. Stick an SSD in the MacPro hexacore and try again.

RedTomato
Jun 15, 2011, 04:58 PM
Wirelessly posted (This odd thing that I hold: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Huh, my 4 year old 2007 white MacBook can get pretty near this video, and it doesnt even have a SSD.

Just reboot, open all the apps, close them, start recording the video and reopen. All the apps will still be in memory and should reopen pretty fast.

Did i mention I have 4GB ram in my MacBook? That can hold several dozen apps with some tweaking (ie no content in the apps).

A slightly newer 2008 MacBook with 8GB should be able to reopen all the apps from the video at more or less the same speed. RAM's wonderful :)

likegadgets
Jun 15, 2011, 05:12 PM
Kind of makes me wish I was patient enough to wait for the SSD model rather than just getting a standard HDD. Hopefully there will be some bootable Thunderbolt drives soon that will achieve the same effect.

I too have the 2011 27" 3.4GHZ without the factory SSD (have a 2TB). I am just waiting for the dust to settle on either external Thunderbolt or the best third party SSD, many of which claim to be much faster than the 256GB one Apple uses. Once the temperature issues, TRIM, cables, etc. are clearer, I will have an Apple authorized service center add a 512GB SSD to my iMac.

La Porta
Jun 15, 2011, 06:16 PM
Why is it that they don't compare it to the mid-2010 i7 iMac? I'd like to see those numbers.

Cavepainter
Jun 15, 2011, 06:20 PM
Not impressed. Stick an SSD in the MacPro hexacore and try again.

Not a fair comparison either. That Mac Pro is $800 more expensive. (And that's not even including taxes.)

That article is terribly done though.... they should have emphasized something more along the lines that an imac with a SSD can beat a comparably priced Mac Pro. Not as good headlines, however.

Lesser Evets
Jun 15, 2011, 06:35 PM
Semi-ridiculous. However, despite the oft observed problems with the tests here, it is impressive nonetheless. Can't wait for prices on SSDs to drop, because I am sick of having slower drives that bottom-out yearly.

Geekbench rates that same iMac at half the processing power of the top Pro. I'd consider that a better benchmark. Again, it is impressive nonetheless. Being well over twice as fast as my tower impresses me greatly, since this 2006 tower is still extremely capable.

captain kaos
Jun 15, 2011, 06:49 PM
Sorry, i blinked and missed that!! :)

Digital Skunk
Jun 15, 2011, 06:50 PM
Can't wait to see the next Mac Pro revision.

It's either going to be the maxed out 27" or a nicely spec'd Mac Pro. The next Mac Pro being an option ONLY because of it's expandability.

Bozola
Jun 15, 2011, 06:53 PM
I just got this machine.. and I am going to verify.. it looks FF'ed.

itsPhil
Jun 15, 2011, 07:05 PM
I don't understand why this is impressive. Is it really that fast?

I did the same thing on my Macbook and the results were very similar.

Watch the video I made:

http://www.flipcreative.me/super-fast-macbook/

wiz329
Jun 15, 2011, 07:14 PM
Not a fair comparison either. That Mac Pro is $800 more expensive. (And that's not even including taxes.)

That article is terribly done though.... they should have emphasized something more along the lines that an imac with a SSD can beat a comparably priced Mac Pro. Not as good headlines, however.

Price isn't in the picture at all. You can "fairly" compare an imac and a mac pro, even if the price points are completely different. But if you're going to, you should at least put the same drive in both of them. Or, if you're looking to find the "fastest mac ever", at least put the best BTO configs possible in both of them.

TimeArrow
Jun 15, 2011, 08:24 PM
Looking forward to getting mine. My last Mac was a 24" 2.16ghz core2duo iMac so this beast sounds like it'll run just a little bit quicker ;)

Agree. By fast, it's simply mean the launch time brought by SSD. Apple does NOT use the best SSD, so they compare SSD with HDD. For those who have no patience waiting for a SSD version, just buy an HDD one and upgrade the hard drive yourself. Cheaper and even faster.

TimeArrow
Jun 15, 2011, 08:28 PM
I don't understand why this is impressive. Is it really that fast?

I did the same thing on my Macbook and the results were very similar.

Watch the video I made:

http://www.flipcreative.me/super-fast-macbook/

Yeah. Good video. The "fast" is just a sell point, a trick they do everytime when they are starting selling something.

Cavepainter
Jun 15, 2011, 08:36 PM
Lab Report: Core i7 SSD iMac is the fastest iMac we've tested

There. Fixed.

NinjaHERO
Jun 15, 2011, 08:43 PM
I feel the need, the need for speed????


No, is Top Gun too far gone?

DouglasDolde
Jun 15, 2011, 10:20 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

I'd rather buy a better monitor for my Nehalem Mac Pro, I don't need the speed and glossy displays bother me with all the reflections

Bozola
Jun 15, 2011, 10:49 PM
I tried on my brand new iMac i7 with SSD.

The video is real.

Just amazing... it is fast fast fast.

Geekbench score: 11835

caspersoong
Jun 16, 2011, 01:11 AM
This is cool. Wonder how much the leap would be for the Macbook Air and Macbook plus Mac Mini.

krazzix
Jun 16, 2011, 02:31 AM
Nice, i just bought one :D

holmesf
Jun 16, 2011, 02:47 AM
For an alternate perspective, let's check in with Barefeats.com.

Oops, looks like the 6-core 2010 Mac Pro beat the "fastest Mac ever" in 3/4 of the "Pro App" tests:

Barefeats Pro Apps Benchmarks (http://barefeats.com/imac11d.html)

How about gaming? Oops, the 6-core Mac Pro (upgraded to Radeon 5870) won out against the "Fastest Mac Ever" on all 6 games tested.

Barefeats Gaming benchmarks (http://barefeats.com/imac11c.html)

And here's a hodge-podge of results showing the 6-core Mac Pro beating the "fastest Mac Ever" at Cinebench, Geekbench, Luxmark, Portal, and OpenGL Extensions viewer (in fact, in everything tested).

Barefeats Various Benchmarks (http://barefeats.com/imac11b.html)

So that was the 6-core Mac Pro. Now imagine the 12 Core.

wazgilbert
Jun 16, 2011, 03:45 AM
For an alternate perspective, let's check in with Barefeats.com.

Oops, looks like the 6-core 2010 Mac Pro beat the "fastest Mac ever" in 3/4 of the "Pro App" tests:

Barefeats Pro Apps Benchmarks (http://barefeats.com/imac11d.html)

How about gaming? Oops, the 6-core Mac Pro (upgraded to Radeon 5870) won out against the "Fastest Mac Ever" on all 6 games tested.

Barefeats Gaming benchmarks (http://barefeats.com/imac11c.html)

And here's a hodge-podge of results showing the 6-core Mac Pro beating the "fastest Mac Ever" at Cinebench, Geekbench, Luxmark, Portal, and OpenGL Extensions viewer (in fact, in everything tested).

Barefeats Various Benchmarks (http://barefeats.com/imac11b.html)

So that was the 6-core Mac Pro. Now imagine the 12 Core.

^^ This

and given that Barefeats did nost of their testing at the beginning of May, is this even news anymore?

Icaras
Jun 16, 2011, 04:03 AM
actually no, turns out he was the first one to figure out that apple ships a 12 core and mr is making the "fastest mac ever" assumption based on a comparison to a 6 core. Re-read his post again.

it's important to note, however, that for massively parallel tasks like handbrake encoding, cinebench, mathematica, and geekbench benchmarks the mac pro still outperforms the imac because it has more cores, especially with hyper-threading

but...

but, for individual application tests like encoding an mp3, importing a movie to imovie, or importing photos to iphoto, the imac beats all.

Lone Deranger
Jun 16, 2011, 06:45 AM
For an alternate perspective, let's check in with Barefeats.com.

Oops, looks like the 6-core 2010 Mac Pro beat the "fastest Mac ever" in 3/4 of the "Pro App" tests:

Barefeats Pro Apps Benchmarks (http://barefeats.com/imac11d.html)

How about gaming? Oops, the 6-core Mac Pro (upgraded to Radeon 5870) won out against the "Fastest Mac Ever" on all 6 games tested.

Barefeats Gaming benchmarks (http://barefeats.com/imac11c.html)

And here's a hodge-podge of results showing the 6-core Mac Pro beating the "fastest Mac Ever" at Cinebench, Geekbench, Luxmark, Portal, and OpenGL Extensions viewer (in fact, in everything tested).

Barefeats Various Benchmarks (http://barefeats.com/imac11b.html)

So that was the 6-core Mac Pro. Now imagine the 12 Core.

Haha... well there you go! Thanks for posting this. :)

Digital Skunk
Jun 16, 2011, 07:16 AM
For an alternate perspective, let's check in with Barefeats.com.

Oops, looks like the 6-core 2010 Mac Pro beat the "fastest Mac ever" in 3/4 of the "Pro App" tests:

Barefeats Pro Apps Benchmarks (http://barefeats.com/imac11d.html)

How about gaming? Oops, the 6-core Mac Pro (upgraded to Radeon 5870) won out against the "Fastest Mac Ever" on all 6 games tested.

Barefeats Gaming benchmarks (http://barefeats.com/imac11c.html)

And here's a hodge-podge of results showing the 6-core Mac Pro beating the "fastest Mac Ever" at Cinebench, Geekbench, Luxmark, Portal, and OpenGL Extensions viewer (in fact, in everything tested).

Barefeats Various Benchmarks (http://barefeats.com/imac11b.html)

So that was the 6-core Mac Pro. Now imagine the 12 Core.

Haha... well there you go! Thanks for posting this. :)

Nice . . . too bad they aren't comparing raw processing speed with SSD additions. Too bad none of those machines listed gave any inclination that they were equipped with SSD. And too bad those gaming benchmarks included the use of the GPU which is far better on the Mac Pro than iMac.

Lastly too bad that the Mac Pro was equipped with 24GB of RAM in the pro apps tests.

Once again, we are comparing the the speed of the iMac to the Mac Pro based on SSD and apps that use raw clock speed.

We all know that the Mac Pro will have the advantage with multi-core apps via the info on the previous pages. Other pages are putting forth info about how many apps are truly core aware and actually benefit from the cores.

aliensporebomb
Jun 16, 2011, 07:22 AM
I tried on my brand new iMac i7 with SSD.

The video is real.

Just amazing... it is fast fast fast.

Geekbench score: 11835

Is that in 32-bit Geekbench mode or 64? My 2.8 ghz i7 iMac gets 10064 with HDD, 12-gigs of PC1033 ram (should have swapped it for PC1333) and it's no slouch at processing demanding tasks quickly. Still, that's an impressive video.

G4er?
Jun 16, 2011, 08:03 AM
I would really love to get one of these machines (and upgrade from a 2007 Mac Pro), but I'm thinking the 27 inch model is much too big. Any suggestions?

Well Apple could offer a headless iMac so people could get the fastest processor without it being tied to the largest display. But that would mean giving buyers a choice.

iScott428
Jun 16, 2011, 09:01 AM
That video was a thing of beauty! My god that was fast!!

Ryth
Jun 16, 2011, 09:43 AM
Just put the damn thing in a SFF case...many of us want the specs of these top of the line iMacs but don't want the monitor (since we have one) and don't need the expandability of a MacPro except the video card.

So tired of them missing the mid/high end user.

scottwaugh
Jun 16, 2011, 11:37 AM
Man that was quick (the video). Seeing it in action really gets the point across, those SSD's are bloody fast.

I will want an SSD as my boot drive on the next new machine I get now - didn't know I needed one till watching that. Wow.

losta
Jun 16, 2011, 11:55 AM
Mine arrives tomorrow. It's replacing a 2007 Mac Pro and 30" cinema display. I am wondering how to migrate as I only want apps on the SSD and data on the HDD.

Man9z0r
Jun 16, 2011, 12:08 PM
I must say I am very impressed by this video although why do you need that much speed.

I feel like when you need that much speed it is time to take a break. :D

Cavepainter
Jun 16, 2011, 01:59 PM
Price isn't in the picture at all. You can "fairly" compare an imac and a mac pro, even if the price points are completely different. But if you're going to, you should at least put the same drive in both of them. Or, if you're looking to find the "fastest mac ever", at least put the best BTO configs possible in both of them.

I see what you're saying, but for the vast majority of users, price is always an issue.

BTW, in the interest of fairness and all, should we even be comparing a six-core Mac Pro to a four-core imac?

Digital Skunk
Jun 16, 2011, 02:54 PM
Just put the damn thing in a SFF case...many of us want the specs of these top of the line iMacs but don't want the monitor (since we have one) and don't need the expandability of a MacPro except the video card.

So tired of them missing the mid/high end user.

Tell me about it. We all know Apple sees the market, but just wants to push us to the un-expandable iMac or server toting Mac Pro.

I see what you're saying, but for the vast majority of users, price is always an issue.

BTW, in the interest of fairness and all, should we even be comparing a six-core Mac Pro to a four-core imac?

Sure, we can compare them as long as it's based on single threaded apps or apps that won't use more than two cores. A majority of the everyday apps we use don't use that much power. Those apps that do, tend to be far into the high end (sorry folks, Final Cut isn't far into the high end) and truly do benefit from having 4 or more cores with hyper threading.

An iMac makes a fantastic video editing rig on the cheap. it's just a PITA to repair the thing.

milo
Jun 16, 2011, 05:30 PM
It was pointed out repeatedly that the headline is flat out false. And yet MR never bothered to correct it? Sad.

patohi
Jun 16, 2011, 05:40 PM
Hackintosh beats the imacs in cpu speed=i7 2600k overclocked
graphics= latest 6000 series amd graphics
and ssds

Apple needs to stop with the all in ones(imacs) and give us a mid range desktop.
How many times does it have to be said!

dannys1
Jun 16, 2011, 05:56 PM
Since January 2010 ive had dual Intel X-25m G2 160gb SSD's running as Raid 0 in my 27" i7 iMac - it doesn't quite have the grunt of the new i7's iMacs but day to day its still faster than this with the stock SSD in.

The Intels are still fantastic 18 months later...being an early adopter rocks sometimes, 18 months of an insane Raid 0 system and people are still blow away but something not quite as good...I think my system will be impressive for another 3-4 years yet but i'll probably upgrade it as soon as the new iMac design is released...:apple:

Blue Fox
Jun 16, 2011, 06:20 PM
My 27" i3 iMac is just as fast opening the same programs with an aftermarket intel 80GB SSD, AND I have stuff in iPhoto and iMovie it needs to load as well. SSD really does transform any machine into a beast!

On a side note, my i3 with the SSD does start up from a cold start and loads ALL programs in under 90 seconds.....including Aperture, ALL Adobe CS3 programs (Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, Flash, InDesign, Premier, AfterEffects, etc.), and also the Final Cut Studio suite (Final Cut, Soundtrack Pro, Compressor, etc.).

Anyone on the fence about upgrading to SSD, I highly recommend it. I changed the root directory to point to my external 2TB FireWire 800 drive so only the OS and programs are on the SSD, but the entire User folder points to the external.

pechspilz
Jun 17, 2011, 03:15 PM
That's pretty fast indeed! I'm just wondering why 2-year old, less expensive (non-Apple) hardware easily beats the new iMac in the same test.

Check out the vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjQLFm66aJc

mattbatt
Jun 17, 2011, 04:54 PM
iMac would still win on non-parallel tasks. It has a newer generation CPU +chipset with higher clockspeed. Not to mention Mac Pro's lack of SATA III. So iMac will provide much faster SSD results as long as the SSD used is appropriate, which in this case is an Apple SSD so it isn't though.

hmmm, maybe.

But, I know for a fact my mac 6 core is faster than this iMac and any Mac out there.

3.7 Ghz 6 core, 24 GB 1600 mhz Ram, SSD SATA III. hmm :)

(gotta love hackintosh)

Hellhammer
Jun 18, 2011, 02:15 AM
hmmm, maybe.

But, I know for a fact my mac 6 core is faster than this iMac and any Mac out there.

3.7 Ghz 6 core, 24 GB 1600 mhz Ram, SSD SATA III. hmm :)

(gotta love hackintosh)

iMac is still faster in single-threaded tasks and 12-core Mac Pro would be faster in multi-threaded tasks.

ARobinson
Jun 18, 2011, 02:22 AM
3.7 GHz?? What? Not a processor that Apple ships I assume...?

barrym
Jun 23, 2011, 08:28 PM
The video is very impressive -- mine opens 44 apps in a blistering 25 seconds, and lets me play music & type without a glitch while they open -- however the comparisons are much more fun when you put it next to a 2006-era white iMac (the last one before they switched to glossy screens).

http://yrrab.com/reviews/iMac/

In general, for my $3k I got an average of 4x speedup; however some Lightroom operations (such as Web Preview) are an order of magnitude quicker.

And with 12GB RAM it *never* swaps...

Barry.

arogge
Jul 30, 2011, 06:42 AM
If that's the fastest Mac ever, it's time to get a new Xeon tower with SAS and SATA SSD support.

Mac2012
Jan 28, 2012, 12:38 PM
iMac would still win on non-parallel tasks. It has a newer generation CPU +chipset with higher clockspeed. Not to mention Mac Pro's lack of SATA III. So iMac will provide much faster SSD results as long as the SSD used is appropriate, which in this case is an Apple SSD so it isn't though.

That's what I was saying to myself reading this guys reply like "my brothers going to beat up your brother" he he... some funny people on this forum.
The new iMacs scream man. You don't need a Mac Pro anymore I'm sorry, and when Apple releases a 6 Core model. look out! If you have a video post suite fine, get a MP but for everything else, iMac works well and with TB, it's even better.

----------

Quite the usual - MR is misleading people. It's only the fastest Mac MacWorld has tested. That does not mean that it's the fastest Mac that has ever been manufactured, especially when considering all aspects.

2.93GHz 12-core Mac Pro with 3 SSDs in RAID 0, NVIDIA Quadro 4000, 96GB RAM etc. would bash this iMac in everything else besides single-threaded app performance.

For roughly 10 grand... IT BETTER buddy!
Better take the trash out too!

----------

For an alternate perspective, let's check in with Barefeats.com.

Oops, looks like the 6-core 2010 Mac Pro beat the "fastest Mac ever" in 3/4 of the "Pro App" tests:

Barefeats Pro Apps Benchmarks (http://barefeats.com/imac11d.html)

How about gaming? Oops, the 6-core Mac Pro (upgraded to Radeon 5870) won out against the "Fastest Mac Ever" on all 6 games tested.

Barefeats Gaming benchmarks (http://barefeats.com/imac11c.html)

And here's a hodge-podge of results showing the 6-core Mac Pro beating the "fastest Mac Ever" at Cinebench, Geekbench, Luxmark, Portal, and OpenGL Extensions viewer (in fact, in everything tested).

Barefeats Various Benchmarks (http://barefeats.com/imac11b.html)

So that was the 6-core Mac Pro. Now imagine the 12 Core.
Yeah... roughly $2000 more, it better! But single threaded tasks, NO!

hankatten
Jan 28, 2012, 01:20 PM
Dear MacRumours friends,

I have just entered the MAC world from PC and I am pleased to see the level of expertice and dedication which is shown by you to IMAC.

I hope some of you can help an old man being a beginner at MAC modding.

I would like to upgrade my computer by replacing the present drive (2.5" or 3.5" ?) with two 250 GB SSD running RAID 0/1.

1. I consider 2*250 GB OCZ OCTANE drives.

2.Can the frame of IMAC accomodate two drives ?Is cabling and power for two drives already installed?

3. OCTANE drives being 2.5" ,do I need two adaptors if the present drive is 3.5" ?.

4 There seem to be a problem with fan control after replacing the original (Western Digital type ?). A previous posting on MacRumours mentioned ,that shorting two pins ,marked HDD, on the main board would override fan control and the fan would be silent. Replacing a disc drive with two SD`s presumably running cooler. Should I worry?.

5. The two OCTANES will have no operating system or programs already installed on the present HD.Is there an easy way to copy the full contents
to an optical dicc and install from that. The computer came without LION installation disc.

Thanking you in advance, I hope some of you will help me get along.

Sincerely yours, steen.baaring@gmail.com

Michaelgtrusa
Jan 28, 2012, 02:00 PM
Dear MacRumours friends,

I have just entered the MAC world from PC and I am pleased to see the level of expertice and dedication which is shown by you to IMAC.

I hope some of you can help an old man being a beginner at MAC modding.

I would like to upgrade my computer by replacing the present drive (2.5" or 3.5" ?) with two 250 GB SSD running RAID 0/1.

1. I consider 2*250 GB OCZ OCTANE drives.

2.Can the frame of IMAC accomodate two drives ?Is cabling and power for two drives already installed?

3. OCTANE drives being 2.5" ,do I need two adaptors if the present drive is 3.5" ?.

4 There seem to be a problem with fan control after replacing the original (Western Digital type ?). A previous posting on MacRumours mentioned ,that shorting two pins ,marked HDD, on the main board would override fan control and the fan would be silent. Replacing a disc drive with two SD`s presumably running cooler. Should I worry?.

5. The two OCTANES will have no operating system or programs already installed on the present HD.Is there an easy way to copy the full contents
to an optical dicc and install from that. The computer came without LION installation disc.

Thanking you in advance, I hope some of you will help me get along.

Sincerely yours, steen.baaring@gmail.com

Welcome.

twoodcc
Jan 29, 2012, 06:14 AM
apple needs to update the mac pro and change this