PDA

View Full Version : Geekbench-results of the new iMacs (Mid 2010) compared to the old ones (Late 2009)




Felias
Jul 30, 2010, 01:31 AM
Hi there,

i know Geekbench only has a limited significance, but still is an interested value for comparison.

When browsing through the Geekbench-results of the last 24 hours there are several entries of iMacs with the CPU-numbers of the new iMacs.

From what i can see there average results are:

NEW iMACs:

32bit

i3 - 3,06Ghz - 5700 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i3+540&commit=Search)
i3 - 3,2Ghz - 6000 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i3+550&commit=Search)
i5 - 3,6Ghz - 6900 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i5+680&commit=Search)
i5 - 2,8Ghz - 6800 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i5+760&commit=Search)
i7 - 2,93Ghz - 9300 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i7+870&commit=Search)


64bit:

i3 - 3,06Ghz - 6400 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i3+540&commit=Search)
i3 - 3,2Ghz - 6600 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i3+550&commit=Search)
i5 - 3,6Ghz - 7804 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i5+680&commit=Search)
i5 - 2,8Ghz - 8000 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i5+760&commit=Search)
i7 - 2,93Ghz - 10700 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i7+870&commit=Search)



OLD iMACs

32bit

C2D - 3,06Ghz - 4212 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+E7600&commit=Search)
C2D - 3,33Ghz - 4654 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+E8600&commit=Search)
i5 - 2,66 - 6200 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i5+750&commit=Search)
i7 - 2,8 - 8500 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i7+860&commit=Search)


64bit

C2D - 3,06Ghz - 4750 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+E7600&commit=Search)
C2D - 3,33Ghz - 5100 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+E8600&commit=Search)
i5 - 2,66 - 7450 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i5+750&commit=Search)
i7 - 2,8 - 9800 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i7+860&commit=Search)


How much performance do I get for my dollars? --> see here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=10711915)

I'll try to keep the list updated, as more results are probably coming in today and in the next days to come.

Please be aware: In Geekbench there always are some very strange readings, as people can give the name of the system themselves. The only relevant facts is the CPU used. Only the average number is relevant, which does not proof anything before there is a reasonable high number of results are available.



MathijsDelva
Jul 30, 2010, 01:56 AM
So you mean the difference between the i3 3.20 & i5 2.8 Quad is only 800 points?

Felias
Jul 30, 2010, 02:08 AM
There were about 4-5 entries for both the CPU-classes, but: yes, thats what the current results are saying. I find this strange as well, as i expected the new i5 to be closer to the old i7... lets just wait for more results maybe.

Update: First result of a 2,93Ghz i7 added. About 500 points more than the average "old" i7. But this is just the first number, so it's just a hint, nothing more.

Update2: All results are 32bit.

tturland
Jul 30, 2010, 02:38 AM
Have just searched on Geekbench and found a 600 point difference between the new i7 and a previous iMac i7....is it really worth the difference for a new i7 vs a refurb i7??

iamthedudeman
Jul 30, 2010, 03:38 AM
Both 32 bit and 64 bit. Both of the Core i3 540 3.06 and Core i3 550 3.2.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+core+i3

Seems to be a 300 point difference between the i3 540 and i3 550. Some say Core i3 530?

New Core i5 760 results.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+core+i5&commit=Search

MathijsDelva
Jul 30, 2010, 03:42 AM
Very impressive 64 bit geekbench.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/272397

Hey, can you tell me why the difference in 32bit & 64bit benchmarks? I don't mean the real difference in points; just why there ARE 32bit & 64bit benchmarks. Aren't all these computers 64bit with Leopard and/or Snow Leopard?

Hellhammer
Jul 30, 2010, 03:44 AM
Hey, can you tell me why the difference in 32bit & 64bit benchmarks? I don't mean the real difference in points; just why there ARE 32bit & 64bit benchmarks. Aren't all these computers 64bit with Leopard and/or Snow Leopard?

32-bit cannot utilize more than ~3.3GB of RAM and AFAIK cannot take the full advantage of 64-bit CPU so we need 64-bit to get good result with no other apps open

MathijsDelva
Jul 30, 2010, 03:46 AM
And how do you 'set' it to 64bit? That's automatically i guess? Then why are there so many 32bit benchmarks?

Hellhammer
Jul 30, 2010, 03:49 AM
And how do you 'set' it to 64bit? That's automatically i guess? Then why are there so many 32bit benchmarks?

You have to pay for the 64-bit version of GeekBench ;)

MathijsDelva
Jul 30, 2010, 03:53 AM
Ooooh :)

Felias
Jul 30, 2010, 04:34 AM
-list updated-

I don't know how the guys from Geekbench summarized the numbers for the late 2009-model, but it doesn't match the readings i can see in the results browser... i've put my own readings in there instead.

Update: Okay, screw my own list, i've linked the results from the browser. I haven't found a way to differ between 32bit and 64bit in the search, so both are combined.

Felias
Jul 30, 2010, 05:03 AM
So you mean the difference between the i3 3.20 & i5 2.8 Quad is only 800 points?

I guess we can say now that the 32bit-results are indeed poor... but when running 64bit (which will be the situation), the difference is a lot higher (1400 points)

Queso
Jul 30, 2010, 05:06 AM
I take it nobody has yet received a 21.5" i5 machine then. Impressive improvements all the same. Certainly knocks on the head this idea that the i3 offers no extra performance over a C2D.

stonemann
Jul 30, 2010, 05:51 AM
At first glance, the i3 results are certainly impressive compared to the previous generation. Although the performance difference between the 3.06 and 3.2 processors does seem a bit marginal. Not sure it justifies the increased asking price if all you're after is speed...

Spurk
Jul 30, 2010, 07:47 AM
Hmm, so how are these scored compared to other computers then mac?
And what seems to be the best buy here?

dexthageek
Jul 30, 2010, 07:57 AM
How is there iMac i7-870 in that list tested 8 months ago? They only came out last week.

Felias
Jul 30, 2010, 08:05 AM
How is there iMac i7-870 in that list tested 8 months ago? They only came out last week.

Probably someone created a hackintosh and put in an i7-870 and called it an "iMac"... as the name can be set freely. Maybe even a Windows-System that has been named "iMac" by the user.

dexthageek
Jul 30, 2010, 08:09 AM
Probably someone created a hackintosh and put in an i7-870 and called it an "iMac"... as the name can be set freely. Maybe even a Windows-System that has been named "iMac" by the user.

Ok thats what I figured.

azza2988
Jul 30, 2010, 09:06 AM
lets just say on average the refresh i7 has 800 better benchmark than pre-refresh i7 is that a big different i dont know much about benchmark stuff? because i really debating if not i should try get upgraded to the refresh version or stick with my current i7 2.8

Eastend
Jul 30, 2010, 09:23 AM
Do not place too much emphasis on 400 or even 600 points difference in Geekbench. I have a Dual G5 that scored 2500 and an old iMac Core 2 Duo that scored 2900 points and I'll swear that the G5 seemed faster to me. You probably need a difference of 700 or even a 1,000 points before you can see any real difference with your eyes and even then it's probably got to be processor or memory intensive process.

Felias
Jul 30, 2010, 09:32 AM
lets just say on average the refresh i7 has 800 better benchmark than pre-refresh i7 is that a big different i dont know much about benchmark stuff? because i really debating if not i should try get upgraded to the refresh version or stick with my current i7 2.8

The benchmark is just a hint.

If you have a flawless iMac and/or you're out of the time to give it back, i would keep it. All the current issues with the iMacs (noise, yellow-tint, gray banding,...) are more important than a 5-10% speed bump.

SiMBa37
Jul 30, 2010, 09:33 AM
So back to the ultimate question for people interested in the 21.5" models. Is the i5 3.6 worth it, or is it better to stick to the i3 3.2.

FYI, if you have an educational discount, the apple store discounts the i5 upgrade from $200 to $180. Not a whole lot but appreciated.

Felias
Jul 30, 2010, 09:41 AM
So back to the ultimate question for people interested in the 21.5" models. Is the i5 3.6 worth it, or is it better to stick to the i3 3.2.

FYI, if you have an educational discount, the apple store discounts the i5 upgrade from $200 to $180. Not a whole lot but appreciated.

buy it, benchmark it, and let us know :-) Then we'll tell you.

Or wait until someone else does...

Queso
Jul 30, 2010, 09:49 AM
buy it, benchmark it, and let us know :-) Then we'll tell you.

Or wait until someone else does...
Someone in one of the other threads was waiting for theirs to be delivered today. A bit of gentle persuasion by bombarding them with PMs linking to Geekbench might get them to post some results :)

Gregintosh
Jul 30, 2010, 10:04 AM
Hmmm so new i5 versus old i5 is about an 8% to 9% difference in ideal conditions. Not worth paying an extra $470 for, IMO, but it is a good bump.

I got a feeling the next Mac revision will be early to mid 2011 and contain a similar small bump, followed by a major revision late 2011 or early 2012.

azza2988
Jul 30, 2010, 01:09 PM
my current i7 has maybe 2 flaws, thats just high pitch brightness problem i quite used to now plus brightness on quite low so don't notice as much my preferred brightness as well and maybe noisy hdd, but looking around problem just seem practically the same in the new refresh model just been debating to self is it worth messing round for the slight bump and chance of getting a machine that may have more problems like the yellow tinting which would just pee me off current i had 2 imacs altogether first one was marked but no yellow tinting and current one no yellow tinting.

juicedropsdeuce
Jul 30, 2010, 01:13 PM
my current i7 has maybe 2 flaws, thats just high pitch brightness problem i quite used to now plus brightness on quite low so don't notice as much my preferred brightness as well and maybe noisy hdd, but looking around problem just seem practically the same in the new refresh model just been debating to self is it worth messing round for the slight bump and chance of getting a machine that may have more problems like the yellow tinting which would just pee me off current i had 2 imacs altogether first one was marked but no yellow tinting and current one no yellow tinting.


Longest. Sentence. Ever.

thehalokid
Jul 30, 2010, 05:53 PM
concerning the gpu this shows a significant increase in performance at native resolution for portal.

http://barefeats.com/imac10.html

wirelessness
Jul 30, 2010, 06:43 PM
concerning the gpu this shows a significant increase in performance at native resolution for portal.

http://barefeats.com/imac10.html


Can someone explain the very last part where they compare the 09 i7 and 10 i7 on 'Steam Portal' with the following results:

We received our 2010 Core i7 and are busily running tests. Here's a tidbit to chew on: Steam's Portal at 2560x1440, High Quality, 4X AA
2009 Core i7 = 19 fps
2010 Core i7 = 59 fps

I don't know anything about this test but I am surprised to see such a huge difference in fps considering how minor of an upgrade the GPU is supposed to be.....

TMRaven
Jul 30, 2010, 06:52 PM
That shows driver difference, not hardware difference. It's been known that the graphics drivers under osx have bad problems with aa.

cluthz
Jul 30, 2010, 08:12 PM
I would have expected the 3GHz i3 to perform better.
Seems the 2.40GHz MacBook Pro i5 is as fast as the 3Ghz i3

iamthedudeman
Jul 30, 2010, 11:09 PM
I would have expected the 3GHz i3 to perform better.
Seems the 2.40GHz MacBook Pro i5 is as fast as the 3Ghz i3

How so?

The difference between the the low end i5 in the macbook pro and the base imac with the i3 3.06 is about 700 points. The difference between the core i5 540M and the i3 550 is almost a 1000 points.

The difference between the last generation C2D and the i3 are huge. So how did you expect it to perform better? 6400 for the 3.06 and 6700 points for the 64 bit geek bench is not impressive?

So what do you consider impressive.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+core+i3

Here is my machine. 6644

My old C2D E8600 3.33 has a top score of 5130. The Core i3 is a big improvement. I can feel the difference in day to day use.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=MacBook+Pro+i5&commit=Search

Now compare the i3 results with these. Not impressive?

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i5+&commit=Search

Alonzo84
Jul 31, 2010, 12:43 AM
Forgive me, but how much of an improvement is the 1333mhz RAM over the previous 1066mhz? I am eying a refurb quad core i5 but am curious if the difference between the new and previous RAM is significant. And if upgrading RAM yourself, can you mix and match 1066 with 1333mhz?

mozy18
Jul 31, 2010, 05:27 AM
The product page for apple states that the entry level processor for the imac is the i3 3.06Ghz

However, at the geekbench results page (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i3&commit=Search)

there are imacs with i3 @ 2.93 or 2.97Ghz

Can anybody explain why is this the case? Thank you

Hellhammer
Jul 31, 2010, 06:08 AM
The product page for apple states that the entry level processor for the imac is the i3 3.06Ghz

However, at the geekbench results page (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i3&commit=Search)

there are imacs with i3 @ 2.93 or 2.97Ghz

Can anybody explain why is this the case? Thank you

They seem to be Hackintoshes, look at the model number. 11,2 for real iMac and 11,1 or 11,3 for hacks

axma
Jul 31, 2010, 07:12 AM
Can someone explain the very last part where they compare the 09 i7 and 10 i7 on 'Steam Portal' with the following results:

We received our 2010 Core i7 and are busily running tests. Here's a tidbit to chew on: Steam's Portal at 2560x1440, High Quality, 4X AA
2009 Core i7 = 19 fps
2010 Core i7 = 59 fps

I don't know anything about this test but I am surprised to see such a huge difference in fps considering how minor of an upgrade the GPU is supposed to be.....

Cant wait full results on the gap between new 27" vs old 27" in games.

I also wonder what are the impact of CPU with 5850M (which choose between dual i5, quad i5 and quad i7)

mozy18
Jul 31, 2010, 07:15 AM
11,3 shoud be real as they have the 3.2ghz i3, which is in the more expensive 21.5 and the 27-inch.

If the i3 @ 2.93 and 2.97 are hackintosh, isnt it too coincidental that so many hackintosh are using that processor, the i3 530?

Hellhammer
Jul 31, 2010, 07:38 AM
11,3 shoud be real as they have the 3.2ghz i3, which is in the more expensive 21.5 and the 27-inch.

If the i3 @ 2.93 and 2.97 are hackintosh, isnt it too coincidental that so many hackintosh are using that processor, the i3 530?

But there are 11,2 with i3-550 as well. It doesn't matter though. i3-530 is the cheapest iX CPU available so it's pretty common plus it could be the same machine but just ran several times

Felias
Jul 31, 2010, 07:39 AM
i'm anxiously waiting for the i5 3,2Ghz, i think we'll see a surprise there in performance...

barefeats
Jul 31, 2010, 07:44 AM
Can someone explain the very last part where they compare the 09 i7 and 10 i7 on 'Steam Portal' with the following results:

We received our 2010 Core i7 and are busily running tests. Here's a tidbit to chew on: Steam's Portal at 2560x1440, High Quality, 4X AA
2009 Core i7 = 19 fps
2010 Core i7 = 59 fps

I don't know anything about this test but I am surprised to see such a huge difference in fps considering how minor of an upgrade the GPU is supposed to be.....

The advantage in 3D games is not that dramatic in most cases. It will be interesting to how much of the Portal improvement is due to drivers (since the latest OS X updater won't work on the 2009 iMac). The documentation says it "Resolves ... performance-related graphics issues," among other things:
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1065

Hopefully Apple will release that update for all Macs soon so we can see.

Felias
Jul 31, 2010, 10:24 AM
First i7-64bit-number by barefeats made it into the database.. 10700 is quite impressive if you ask me!

Thanks for running the test :-)

Felias
Jul 31, 2010, 06:39 PM
As the question has been coming up a lot lately, i did some mathematics to give an answer to the question "How much performance do I get for my dollars?"

Please see the analysis based on the numbers of this thread in the separate thread here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=10711915).

Queso
Aug 3, 2010, 05:35 AM
iMac i5-680 3.6GHz results now beginning to appear on Geekbench (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=iMac+core+i5) site. Two results posted so far, both in 32-bit mode.

6896
6830

Not too shabby at all :)

Felias
Aug 3, 2010, 07:49 AM
iMac i5-680 3.6GHz results now beginning to appear on Geekbench (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=iMac+core+i5) site. Two results posted so far, both in 32-bit mode.

6896
6830

Not too shabby at all :)

Thanks for the hint, i updated the initial post.

This was to be expected though, as the difference between the dualcore i5 and the quad-core will come to play when running apps using all 4 cores. 64-bit-tests should also be better on the 4core i5.

Queso
Aug 3, 2010, 07:57 AM
Thanks for the hint, i updated the initial post.

This was to be expected though, as the difference between the dualcore i5 and the quad-core will come to play when running apps using all 4 cores. 64-bit-tests should also be better on the 4core i5.
Oh definitely. I still suspect the 680 is going to pull up around the 7400 mark though in 64-bit, which you have to admit is pretty impressive for a dual-core processor.

Tigerman82
Aug 3, 2010, 01:37 PM
That is an amazing score for the iMac i5-680. I'm one of those who are thinking about paying the extra $200 for it for the high-end iMac 21.5". Every "expert" has been saying that the difference between the i3 and i5 (dual core) is so tiny that one shouldn't even think about it. I do not know how a Geekbench-score compares to real-life use, but if the iMac i5-680 looks to be pretty much as good or even better than last year's quad core i5 2.66GhZ, the extra $200 offers great bang for the buck.

What do you think? Have these scores just proven every "if you choose i5 dual core over i3, you are only adding inches to your ePenis" wrong?

Tigerman82
Aug 3, 2010, 05:01 PM
I took a closer look at the Geekbench scores of the new 21.5" iMac models, i3 550 and i5 680. I realized that the scores posted on this thread were avarages only. For example, the avarage score for the i3 was 6000 and the i5 score was 6800. When taking a closer look at the i3 scores, you see that many people got a score of 6600-6700. One such person did have 8 gigs of RAM but most seemed to have only 4 gigs. I wonder why one person can score 5900 and the other 6600 with the same model and with the same amount of RAM.

Anyway, I guess this, once again, evens things out and makes the i5 look not so super great -- especially since the tested model has 12 gigs of RAM.

Queso
Aug 3, 2010, 05:09 PM
Well if we don't have a better answer by the weekend my i5-680 should hopefully have arrived by then, so I'll post my own benchmark as a comparison.

GyroFX
Aug 3, 2010, 05:30 PM
on my i5 2.8 Quad w/ 4gig ram i got 32bit - 6849 and 64bit - 8018

SiMBa37
Aug 3, 2010, 05:33 PM
on my i5 2.8 w/ 4gig ram i got 32bit - 6849 and 64bit - 8018

holy smokes! add that to the GeekBench website for archiving

EDIT = just realized that's i5 2.8 quad, not the i5 3.6 dual core that I though I had read. Oh well. Good numbers though

GyroFX
Aug 3, 2010, 05:39 PM
holy smokes! add that to the GeekBench website for archiving

EDIT = just realized that's i5 2.8 quad, not the i5 3.6 dual core that I though I had read. Oh well. Good numbers though

yeah, sorry, forgot to add 2.8 quad.

mrwonkers
Aug 3, 2010, 10:37 PM
Hmmm so new i5 versus old i5 is about an 8% to 9% difference in ideal conditions. Not worth paying an extra $470 for, IMO, but it is a good bump.

I got a feeling the next Mac revision will be early to mid 2011 and contain a similar small bump, followed by a major revision late 2011 or early 2012.

My crystal scrotum says NO....

iamthedudeman
Aug 3, 2010, 11:51 PM
That is an amazing score for the iMac i5-680. I'm one of those who are thinking about paying the extra $200 for it for the high-end iMac 21.5". Every "expert" has been saying that the difference between the i3 and i5 (dual core) is so tiny that one shouldn't even think about it. I do not know how a Geekbench-score compares to real-life use, but if the iMac i5-680 looks to be pretty much as good or even better than last year's quad core i5 2.66GhZ, the extra $200 offers great bang for the buck.

What do you think? Have these scores just proven every "if you choose i5 dual core over i3, you are only adding inches to your ePenis" wrong?

The i5 680 as good as the i5 750 quad core. Not on your life.

Geekbench is not the end all of tests. Geekbench does not use all four cores of the i5 750, only stresses two of them. So you are not going to get realworld results.

As for speaking for the so called "experts' that say that the i5 680 is not worth it. Guess what, it isn't judging by the benchmarks.

Say it scores 7400, and the highest score for the i3 3.2 is 6700 in 64 bit mode, that would make the i5 680 about 10% faster than the i3 3.2 judging by the geekbench scores alone.

Exactly what I said it probably would be. I guess I am a expert. :)

If a 10% performance increase is worth it to you and your 200.00 go for it. It is all a matter of how much that extra 10% makes a difference to you.

geekbench doesn't tell the whole tale. Most people not recommending I cannot say. But I back up what I say with benchmarks and make a opinion based on that. But at the end of the day thats all it is a opinion. Read these articles and judge for yourself.

The difference between the i3 540 and the i5 661 is about the same as the i3 550 vs the i5 680.

"There isn't a single Core i5 I'd recommend, but the i3s are spot-on. "

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2901

Here you can see the difference between the i5 550 and the i5 660.

The difference between the two is about 7% in all bench marks. The difference between the i5 660 and i5 680 is about three percent. That would make the difference between the i3 550 and i5 680 just judging by the bench marks give or take a few percentage points around %10 percent.

Which is what the geekbench scores indicate. A 10 % difference.

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2010/2010052401_Core_i3-550_mini-review.html

pthofman
Aug 4, 2010, 01:37 AM
So I'm new here and thinking about getting an iMac. Which is the better buy/better performance referb quad i5 or new c2d i5?

tedus
Aug 4, 2010, 02:55 AM
My crystal scrotum says NO....

:eek: I hate it when that happens. :eek:

Tigerman82
Aug 4, 2010, 03:54 AM
If a 10% performance increase is worth it to you and your 200.00 go for it. It is all a matter of how much that extra 10% makes a difference to you.

I guess we need the experts to tell us what this 10% increase in performance means in real-life. For example, people have been using that Youtube-clip of a person playing Crysis with his 21.5" i3 550 iMac (native resolution, everything on high except shadows on medium) as an example -- in that clip the game lagged. Had this guy opted for the i5 680 iMac.... Do you think the 10% increase in performance would mean no more lagging in Crysis?

Tigerman82
Aug 4, 2010, 04:04 AM
I may have made a mistake in looking into the results of the Geekbench scores of i3 550. I previously said that it can get scores as low as 5800-5900 and as high as 6600-6700 in the 32-bit test. Well that turns out to be wrong. For some reason I thought those 6600-6700 scores were 32-bit as well when in fact they were 64-bit scores.

This means that, after all, i3 550 scores are around 6000 and the variotion is not that big (I previously wondered why one person can get 5800 and the other 6700 from the same test with the same model). Anyway, this would again mean that at least in Geekbench the i5 is bang for the buck (the difference between the two i3 cpus is around 300 points while the difference between i3 550 and i5 680 seems to be around 800-1000 points.

Felias
Aug 4, 2010, 05:15 AM
So I'm new here and thinking about getting an iMac. Which is the better buy/better performance referb quad i5 or new c2d i5?

Take a look at this thread. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=982099)

Macfr3d
Aug 4, 2010, 05:55 AM
Has anyone tested the speed of the SSD vs the standard 1TB drive? It would be even more interesting to see how the performance gain relates to the price increase for the SSD in the i7.

diegobgr
Aug 4, 2010, 06:02 AM
Will the 21'5" i5 upgrade worth for games and photos?

Felias
Aug 4, 2010, 07:08 AM
Will the 21'5" i5 upgrade worth for games and photos?

This thread is about Geekbench-results and related talk only, nothing else... There are so many "will the imac ix fit my usage?"-threads out there, you'll surely find your answer elsewhere.

aliensporebomb
Aug 4, 2010, 09:18 AM
Here's my Corei7 2009 27" iMac:

http://pod.ath.cx/geekbench.jpg
[updated 8/13/10]

UPDATED ATI drivers (for the mid 2010 refreshed models but works fine in mine).

2560x1440:
http://pod.ath.cx/video/4850/HD4850-After-MaxedOut.jpg

Big improvement. I recommend everyone do this.

1920x1080:
http://pod.ath.cx/video/4850/HD4850-After-HD.jpg

Likewise.

See the gaming benchmark thread for the before/after shots of these specs. These are the after of course.

diegobgr
Aug 4, 2010, 09:22 AM
This thread is about Geekbench-results and related talk only, nothing else... There are so many "will the imac ix fit my usage?"-threads out there, you'll surely find your answer elsewhere.

Well, a difference of 600-800 points in Geekbench, will be noticeable in games or photo editing?

rkahl
Aug 4, 2010, 09:34 AM
This benchmarking thing is totally new to me, so I decided to give the geekbench test a try. I submitted my score a few hours ago and can be seen with the poll results in this thread for a 2010 27" iMac 3.2 i3. So can someone actually tell me what these values mean? I take alot of photos with my Nikon D90 in raw mode. Right now I use Photoshop Elements 8.0, but I'm considering giving Aperture 2.1 a try (only $99 on newegg.com). I've also been playing around with iMovie. I'm not a serious gamer, but I'd like to know if this machine will be able to play all these new games. If you check out the results page, my score is at the top with a score of 6025 on a 32bit scale.

aliensporebomb
Aug 4, 2010, 12:05 PM
My old G5 2.5 dual benched 2312 which was the highest bench of any 2.5 - it benched as high as the dual 2.7 machines.

In contrast the Corei7 iMac is VASTLY faster - it's immediately perceivable. 9882 is the highest bench I've gotten thus far and I started around 9650 with this machine. I haven't really started with my optimization but I feel it's possible to break 10,000 with tight optimization.

That being said, I felt a HUGE and IMMEDIATE difference when I used Pascifist to upgrade the ATI drivers from the originals bought with this machine in June 26, 2010 to the new ones for the Mid-2010 updates. Cinebench showed immediate improvements.

One immediate effect was X-Plane seems extremely fluid at full resolution.

Does anyone have any benchmarking or testing apps they want me to download if you're curious? Point me to some links and I'll be happy to help.

dan5.5
Aug 5, 2010, 12:27 AM
Here's my Corei7 2009 27" iMac:

http://pod.ath.cx/geekbench.jpg

UPDATED ATI drivers (for the mid 2010 refreshed models but works fine in mine).

2560x1440:
http://pod.ath.cx/video/4850/HD4850-After-MaxedOut.jpg

Big improvement. I recommend everyone do this.

1920x1080:
http://pod.ath.cx/video/4850/HD4850-After-HD.jpg

Likewise.

See the gaming benchmark thread for the before/after shots of these specs. These are the after of course.


how did you install those drivers?
Any guide?

thanks!

Felias
Aug 5, 2010, 02:55 AM
@aliensporebomb: Thanks, the result is one of the higher ones of the old i7 2.8. But still with the tweaking, it's just 88 above average, so no wonders are happening here :-)

GyroFX
Aug 5, 2010, 03:51 AM
for comparison, here's my mid 2010 i5 quad 27" with "5750" in OpenGL Viewer

http://www.bootie.org/~xiao/misc/2560.jpg

http://www.bootie.org/~xiao/misc/1920.jpg

aliensporebomb
Aug 5, 2010, 12:26 PM
-list updated-

I don't know how the guys from Geekbench summarized the numbers for the late 2009-model, but it doesn't match the readings i can see in the results browser... i've put my own readings in there instead.

Update: Okay, screw my own list, i've linked the results from the browser. I haven't found a way to differ between 32bit and 64bit in the search, so both are combined.

I just took a look at some of the models and you can tell the hackintoshes from the real machines by looking at the FSB. If the FSB isn't 4.8 ghz on the iMacs it's probably a hackintosh. Some of the over 10,000 machines were not real. Some of them were though.

WilliamG
Aug 5, 2010, 01:46 PM
Just ran Geekbench on my 2009 i7 iMac, and also the OpenGL tests with the original ATI drivers for my 2009 iMac...

How do you get the 2010 iMac display drivers on the 2009 iMac?

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a127/wgrose/Screenshot2010-08-05at114313AM.png

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a127/wgrose/Screenshot2010-08-05at114309AM.png

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a127/wgrose/Screenshot2010-08-05at114212AM.png

aliensporebomb
Aug 5, 2010, 02:40 PM
@aliensporebomb: Thanks, the result is one of the higher ones of the old i7 2.8. But still with the tweaking, it's just 88 above average, so no wonders are happening here :-)

Not yet. I'm still working on it. Someone clued me into a potential boost so stay tuned.

aliensporebomb
Aug 5, 2010, 02:44 PM
I should mention by the way to anyone running geekbench that the improved updated ATI drivers aren't going to change your geekbench number - your graphics don't come into play there - in fact the only things that do seemingly are memory (how fast is it?) and processor (how good was the fab that day?).

How to install the new ATI drivers?

Here we go again:

1. Download the Mid 2010 iMac update.
2. Download Pacifist.
3. Locate System/Library/Extensions in the iMac update.
4. Highlight all ATI kexts.
5. Select "install" in the masthead of Pacifist.
6. Reboot.
7. You're done.
8. If you bricked your machine it's not my fault.

MathijsDelva
Aug 5, 2010, 02:54 PM
I got 6680 with an i3 @ 3.20Ghz @ 64bit. Is this good?

CXsjr
Aug 5, 2010, 03:28 PM
My beauty arrived today (finally, after much ado with UPS, it got left behind in the depot and when I called chasing it, they discovered their error and sent a van especially, a 90 mile round trip!).

The screen is looking fine and there are virtually no sounds from it at all, it's almost like I've gone deaf since unplugging my aged G5 :(

I've transferred almost all my files from the old girl and run my first Geekbench test .... results below:

Two words: well pleased!

Felias
Aug 6, 2010, 04:06 AM
My beauty arrived today (finally, after much ado with UPS, it got left behind in the depot and when I called chasing it, they discovered their error and sent a van especially, a 90 mile round trip!).

The screen is looking fine and there are virtually no sounds from it at all, it's almost like I've gone deaf since unplugging my aged G5 :(

I've transferred almost all my files from the old girl and run my first Geekbench test .... results below:

Two words: well pleased!

Thanks!

blinkin182
Aug 6, 2010, 05:13 AM
Just ran Geekbench on my 2009 i7 iMac, and also the OpenGL tests with the original ATI drivers for my 2009 iMac...

How do you get the 2010 iMac display drivers on the 2009 iMac?

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a127/wgrose/Screenshot2010-08-05at114313AM.png

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a127/wgrose/Screenshot2010-08-05at114309AM.png

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a127/wgrose/Screenshot2010-08-05at114212AM.png

How come the OpenGL 2.1 tests have such low results and the OpenGL 3.0 fail?

Otherwise, impressive changes! I've ordered my i7 Refurb, so will hopefully be posting my results soon :D

Flea24
Aug 6, 2010, 05:36 AM
My beauty arrived today (finally, after much ado with UPS, it got left behind in the depot and when I called chasing it, they discovered their error and sent a van especially, a 90 mile round trip!).

The screen is looking fine and there are virtually no sounds from it at all, it's almost like I've gone deaf since unplugging my aged G5 :(

I've transferred almost all my files from the old girl and run my first Geekbench test .... results below:

Two words: well pleased!

not far behind you on that one!. i7 27" but only 4GB of ram and standard HDD: 10701

Tigerman82
Aug 6, 2010, 10:12 AM
I just wanted to let you guys know that someone has finally tried the 64-bit Geekbench with iMac 21.5" i5 and the score was 7801 (which is about 400 points better than previous-gen quad core i5 and only 200 points worse than current-gen quad core i5). Impressive!

My first iMac just arrived; 21.5" i5, 1TB Seagate & 512MB 5670HD. The screen is the perfect size, fits perfectly on my desk.

Whisper quiet, I'd say on a pure white screen 90% white with only minor discoloring near the bottom. This has no effect on me as I don't stare at a white screen. Normal usage, it's looking beautiful. So overall, very happy with the purchase.

Quick Geekbench scores after turning it on are in the expected range.
32 bit - 7021
64 bit - 7801

I went and did the software updates and there were a few. iTunes, java, Safari 5.0.1, something else like 6mb in size. There was no 10.6.4 Update (mid 2010) which I think I've seen someone else have a picture of.

Do you think it was already done? How can I tell what patch level I am running at?

WilliamG
Aug 6, 2010, 02:04 PM
I should mention by the way to anyone running geekbench that the improved updated ATI drivers aren't going to change your geekbench number - your graphics don't come into play there - in fact the only things that do seemingly are memory (how fast is it?) and processor (how good was the fab that day?).

How to install the new ATI drivers?

Here we go again:

1. Download the Mid 2010 iMac update.
2. Download Pacifist.
3. Locate System/Library/Extensions in the iMac update.
4. Highlight all ATI kexts.
5. Select "install" in the masthead of Pacifist.
6. Reboot.
7. You're done.
8. If you bricked your machine it's not my fault.


Thank you for that. Just installed the newer drivers on my 2009 i7 iMac and here are my results...

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a127/wgrose/Screenshot2010-08-06at120310PM.png

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a127/wgrose/Screenshot2010-08-06at120220PM.png


I really do think the 2010 iMac is a big disappointment after almost a year...

Queso
Aug 6, 2010, 02:17 PM
Mine has now arrived and going through the Transferring Information... stage of Setup. Hopefully won't be too much longer until I can run a test or two :)

tyche
Aug 6, 2010, 03:20 PM
Let the new baby sit for a few hours to make sure things have settled down and run my final tests again and uploaded the results. No tweaking or optimizing, if that's even possible. This is a 4GB machine.

iMac i5 3.6GHz

32bit - 7023
64bit - 7804

Results (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i5+3.6&commit=Search)

Felias
Aug 6, 2010, 05:29 PM
Let the new baby sit for a few hours to make sure things have settled down and run my final tests again and uploaded the results. No tweaking or optimizing, if that's even possible. This is a 4GB machine.

iMac i5 3.6GHz

32bit - 7023
64bit - 7804

Results (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i5+3.6&commit=Search)

Thanks a lot! I'll add the numbers.

LAPTOPODO
Aug 6, 2010, 06:07 PM
My conclusions at the moment:

1.- the i7 it's a great processor :)

2.- There is more difference i3-500 vs i5-680 than what the most of us supposed days ago.

3.- The i5 Quadcore it's not so good compared with the i5-680 (even in the 64bits tests where the quadcore should had been much better)

My plans:

Getting i7-860 refurb ... and if (I cross my fingers) I would get a yellow lemon .... sending it back, money refunding and get a 27'' i5-680

madmonkeys
Aug 7, 2010, 01:12 AM
I just wanted to let you guys know that someone has finally tried the 64-bit Geekbench with iMac 21.5" i5 and the score was 7801 (which is about 400 points better than previous-gen quad core i5 and only 200 points worse than current-gen quad core i5). Impressive!

My late 2009 quad core i5 2.66 750 clocks in at 7664 in 64bit. How is a dual core i5 beating it by so much? I thought Ghz was a myth?

And does this actually mean it the dual core i5 will be faster at completing multi-thread tasks then the 750 i5 in real world tasks?

How much (if any) of a difference would it make switching the ram from 1066 to 1333 as the i5 750 supports that speed according to Intel?

GyroFX
Aug 7, 2010, 01:26 AM
I thought Geek Bench only tests up to 2 physical cores, that's why you're not seeing better results with your quad core i5 compared to dual core i5 at a higher Ghz?

LAPTOPODO
Aug 7, 2010, 03:48 AM
I thought Geek Bench only tests up to 2 physical cores, that's why you're not seeing better results with your quad core i5 compared to dual core i5 at a higher Ghz?

Would be interesting to confirm that, for giving GeekBench the proper importance.

iamthedudeman
Aug 7, 2010, 06:37 AM
Let the new baby sit for a few hours to make sure things have settled down and run my final tests again and uploaded the results. No tweaking or optimizing, if that's even possible. This is a 4GB machine.

iMac i5 3.6GHz

32bit - 7023
64bit - 7804

Results (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i5+3.6&commit=Search)

Wow. Was I wrong. I am surprised. I was one of the early doubters. A 1000 point difference is impressive. It looks like the extra 200.00 is worth it after all.

Hellhammer
Aug 7, 2010, 06:51 AM
Wow. Was I wrong. I am surprised. I was one of the early doubters. A 1000 point difference is impressive. It looks like the extra 200.00 is worth it after all.

Yeah, it seems to be a nice bump. It costs ~13.3% more than 3.2GHz i3 does (1499$ vs 1699$) but provides 12.5% better multi-threaded performance (3.6GHz vs 3.2GHz) and ~20,6% better single-threaded performance (3.86GHz vs 3.2GHz). In 32bit GB, i5-680 is ~15% faster and in 64-bit it's ~18% faster than i3-550 is so mathematically and theoretically, it's definitely worth the extra $.

GyroFX
Aug 7, 2010, 06:58 AM
Would be interesting to confirm that, for giving GeekBench the proper importance.

well, geekbench states that it's multicore aware so i guess what I heard isn't true. For the most part i gathered that 3.6 i5 dual will out perform 2.8 i5 quad in general use till more, newer software is able to harness the raw power of more physical cores. I think that's right? please correct me if I'm wrong

kernkraft
Aug 7, 2010, 07:47 AM
Yeah, it seems to be a nice bump. It costs ~13.3% more than 3.2GHz i3 does (1499$ vs 1699$) but provides 12.5% better multi-threaded performance (3.6GHz vs 3.2GHz) and ~20,6% better single-threaded performance (3.86GHz vs 3.2GHz). In 32bit GB, i5-680 is ~15% faster and in 64-bit it's ~18% faster than i3-550 is so mathematically and theoretically, it's definitely worth the extra $.

In that case, can I just have half the performance for half the price?

I don't think that some performance benchmarks could justify the entry level price. From that point, matching performance and pricing only misleads.

Hellhammer
Aug 7, 2010, 08:01 AM
In that case, can I just have half the performance for half the price?

What does this have to do with what I said? Apple does not offer something like that

I don't think that some performance benchmarks could justify the entry level price.

Of course not, it's a Mac. You can get a PC with same power for half of the price but I was simply comparing the i3-550 and i5-680 what Apple offers and is the upgrade worth it or not. I never talked about is the iMac worth the price, only about the i5 upgrade.

From that point, matching performance and pricing only misleads.

So you think performance and price shouldn't be compared? I simply provided some mathematical figures to show is the i5 upgrade worth it or not. It's completely normal to compare price and performance to see are you overpaying for minor upgrade and to get the biggest bang for your buck. People like numbers as they are easy to understand. 13% price increase for 10-20% performance increase, that sounds like a decent deal.

I don't really get what you mean....

corvus32
Aug 7, 2010, 08:08 AM
I think the i5 680 is a good upgrade for the 21.5" imac, but for the 27" imac it's not.

The 27" imac starts at $1699. Add $200 for the i5 680, and you're at $1899. Add $150 more the 5750 GPU, and you're looking at $2049. At those prices, your into i5 760 and i7 870 territory both of which already come with 5750 graphics.

kernkraft
Aug 7, 2010, 08:52 AM
What does this have to do with what I said? Apple does not offer something like that



Of course not, it's a Mac. You can get a PC with same power for half of the price but I was simply comparing the i3-550 and i5-680 what Apple offers and is the upgrade worth it or not. I never talked about is the iMac worth the price, only about the i5 upgrade.



So you think performance and price shouldn't be compared? I simply provided some mathematical figures to show is the i5 upgrade worth it or not. It's completely normal to compare price and performance to see are you overpaying for minor upgrade and to get the biggest bang for your buck. People like numbers as they are easy to understand. 13% price increase for 10-20% performance increase, that sounds like a decent deal.

I don't really get what you mean....

Don't take it seriously, my point was purely about having pretty much the same functionality and the same physical attributes apart from a marginal price difference. Personally, I think the best strategy with iMacs is to buy the cheapest possible one with the feature that you require. If you need the smaller screen, get the basic one and if you want the larger screen, get that. 10 or 20% price increase for similar or even slightly better speed increase in my opinion is not a good deal at all.

I wouldn't go as far as using mathematics, but to me it seems that in the overwhelming majority of the cases, what most people use is not even close to the capabilities of the entry-level models. By the time that your hardware meets its match in software and workload (usually not in a few years); the higher value of the stronger models almost completely disappear.

Personally, for an extra 12-15% in price, I would expect much better performance or some really useful extra features. Otherwise I wouldn't even hesitate to go for the cheapest. It's the same with the RAM upgrades. As long as the memory can be upgraded, I tend to stick within reasonable range. Anything above 4GB and any SSD at this stage would be an overkill for the overwhelming majority. Which is what the iMac is aimed at. Graphic designers, web developers, software engineers and geeks should get something else.

Hellhammer
Aug 7, 2010, 09:04 AM
*snip*

Of course if you don't need speed, any Intel Mac is fine for you but there are people who can really benefit from that extra 10-20% in performance. If you use the machine for work, 15% shorter waiting time means more work can be done thus more money can be made. Graphic designers, web developers, software engineers and geeks do use iMacs too, it's not just for people who read their email and use Safari. No upgrade is worth it unless you can take advantage of the extra speed it offers

For you and for an average Joe, the i5 won't make a difference but that doesn't mean that it won't for anyone. For majority of people it isn't worth it but as this thread and discussion is based on how much faster it is, I didn't think it's needed to mention that it's not worth it unless you can take advantage of it.

xraydoc
Aug 7, 2010, 10:54 AM
I think the i5 680 is a good upgrade for the 21.5" imac, but for the 27" imac it's not.

The 27" imac starts at $1699. Add $200 for the i5 680, and you're at $1899. Add $150 more the 5750 GPU, and you're looking at $2049. At those prices, your into i5 760 and i7 870 territory both of which already come with 5750 graphics.

I agree in part, but if the user will do nothing that takes advantage of those 4 cores, then he's better off getting two faster cores than 4 slower ones.

Personally, I think for email, web, 3D games and iLife, the average user would be better off with the upgraded 3.6GHz dual-core i5 plus the 5750 upgrade rather than the base 2.8GHz quad i5. But I suppose we have to wait for benchmarks to prove one way or the other.

The main reason the quads aren't available in the 21" iMac is heat management in the smaller case.

Felias
Aug 8, 2010, 04:06 AM
I thought Geek Bench only tests up to 2 physical cores, that's why you're not seeing better results with your quad core i5 compared to dual core i5 at a higher Ghz?

On their webpage they write (http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/):

Multicore

Whether you're running Geekbench on a single-core Pentium, a quad-core Mac Pro, or a sixteen-core Sun server, Geekbench is able to measure the performance of all the processor cores in your system. Every processor benchmark is multi-threaded and multi-core aware to show you the true potential of your computer.

So i guess it should be... although it seems that the difference between 1,2,4,8 cores really does show in the 64bit-test only.

beeinformed
Aug 9, 2010, 07:05 PM
Hi!

I would appreciate it if there are any members who have not posted their geekbench tests results for their I5 3.6 processor and would kindly do so. Thanks. :)

Sammy Cat
Aug 9, 2010, 10:41 PM
After buying my lady the base model i3, I am thinking of getting the dual core i5 for myself, selling her i3 in two years, and then giving her my i5.

It is either that or just buying myself an i3. My P4 3.0ghz is starting to feel very slow.

Somehow my gut instinct told me that the i5 3.6 would fly. It reminds me of my P4 3.0ghz, which at the time was a very good processor. I've been using it the past 6 years, albeit with older software.

PsyD4Me
Aug 13, 2010, 01:06 PM
top of the line i7 matches my Early 2008 Quad-Core MacPro....
i guess i'll hold on to it for at least another year....

Hellhammer
Aug 13, 2010, 01:14 PM
top of the line i7 matches my Early 2008 Quad-Core MacPro....
i guess i'll hold on to it for at least another year....

Maybe in specs but in GeekBench for example, the iMac is over 50% faster due newer architecture

PsyD4Me
Aug 13, 2010, 05:45 PM
Maybe in specs but in GeekBench for example, the iMac is over 50% faster due newer architecture

i'm talking about Geekbench....

i consistently get 1000ish, 16gb ram and ATi 4870

aliensporebomb
Aug 13, 2010, 06:21 PM
Experimented this afternoon on my 2.80 ghz Corei7 iMac and got this:

http://pod.ath.cx/geekbench.jpg

How did I do it?

My highest was 9882 previously.

(1) I moved a heavily used (audio related) USB device to its own port and bypassed a hub.
(2) I switched RAM from 2-2-4-4 to 4-4-2-2 (largest chips in the initial slots).

These two got me over 100 higher than I was before. Then a few tweaks got me the rest of the way.

Killing apps running in the background not needed.

Interestingly, on the ramp up to the full 10k I had a few other runs where my memory performance was higher but the CPU performance wasn't as high so there's some evidence I can potentially go even higher on this box.

PsyD4Me
Aug 15, 2010, 12:43 PM
Experimented this afternoon on my 2.80 ghz Corei7 iMac and got this:

http://pod.ath.cx/geekbench.jpg

How did I do it?

My highest was 9882 previously.

(1) I moved a heavily used (audio related) USB device to its own port and bypassed a hub.
(2) I switched RAM from 2-2-4-4 to 4-4-2-2 (largest chips in the initial slots).

These two got me over 100 higher than I was before. Then a few tweaks got me the rest of the way.

Killing apps running in the background not needed.

Interestingly, on the ramp up to the full 10k I had a few other runs where my memory performance was higher but the CPU performance wasn't as high so there's some evidence I can potentially go even higher on this box.

yup, i'm on par with 2010...:D

Ausn
Aug 16, 2010, 02:53 PM
Hey,

I'am just a few steps away from buying an iMac.

Because this one is going to be my first, i'll got some questions:

1)Tried to Google it, couldn't find it. How much geekbench points difference you'll get comparing an i7 iMac without SSD with an iMac runing on a SSD?
Is arround 600 realistic? That would be my assumption from what I red here

2)Is there a big or even existing difference between producing locations?
I red a few post's that confused me. I thought they build them all at the same place :)


Thanks in Advance

Ausn

xraydoc
Aug 16, 2010, 03:00 PM
Hey,

I'am just a few steps away from buying an iMac.

Because this one is going to be my first, i'll got some questions:

1)Tried to Google it, couldn't find it. How much geekbench points difference you'll get comparing an i7 iMac without SSD with an iMac runing on a SSD?
Is arround 600 realistic? That would be my assumption from what I red here

No difference. As far as I know, GeekBench is strictly a CPU & memory bandwidth test. I don't think it benchmarks I/O speed.

Ausn
Aug 16, 2010, 03:06 PM
No difference. As far as I know, GeekBench is strictly a CPU & memory bandwidth test. I don't think it benchmarks I/O speed.

Ah ok thanks.
Can you explain why there is such a big difference in those Geekbench numbers?

That guy for example:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/278837

Those people with high numbers are using completly different Ram?
Or how can they achieve numbers that much higher than the rest.. i'll see geeknumbers in low 8000 and than those guys over 13k o_O

or 17k... ._.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/256797

xraydoc
Aug 16, 2010, 03:20 PM
Ah ok thanks.
Can you explain why there is such a big difference in those Geekbench numbers?

That guy for example:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/278837

Those people with high numbers are using completly different Ram?
Or how can they achieve numbers that much higher than the rest.. i'll see geeknumbers in low 8000 and than those guys over 13k o_O

or 17k... ._.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/256797

Neither of those are iMacs, despite what the label says.
The iMac core i7 (at least the 2.93GHz model) uses an Intel Core i7 860 CPU. The ones you link are both running well above 2.93GHz and are not using the same CPUs. Thus, either fake entries or not actual iMacs but home-built hackintosh PCs.

redapple99
Aug 16, 2010, 03:21 PM
hi just got my 2009 quad core i5 and was wondering what it is closer to in the new imac line. 27" i3? or 27" quad core i5?

thanks

Ausn
Aug 16, 2010, 03:23 PM
Neither of those are iMacs, despite what the label says.
The iMac core i7 (at least the 2.93GHz model) uses an Intel Core i7 860 CPU. The ones you link are both running well above 2.93GHz and are not using the same CPUs. Thus, either fake entries or not actual iMacs but home-built hackintosh PCs.

Ah ok thanks for patience and clarification

xraydoc
Aug 16, 2010, 03:38 PM
hi just got my 2009 quad core i5 and was wondering what it is closer to in the new imac line. 27" i3? or 27" quad core i5?

thanks

The '09 Core i5 is quite similar to the '10 Core i5, if that's what you're asking.
2.66 vs. 2.8GHz, but otherwise the processors are the same.
The current graphics chip is a bit faster, but not earth-shatteringly so.

Tigerman82
Aug 16, 2010, 03:41 PM
hi just got my 2009 quad core i5 and was wondering what it is closer to in the new imac line. 27" i3? or 27" quad core i5?

thanks

Well you can easily see this (at least in terms of Geekbench-scores) from the first post of this thread.

i3 3.2GhZ (2010): 32bit 6000, 64bit 6600
i5 2.66GhZ (2009): 32bit 6200, 64bit 7450
i5 2.8GhZ (2010): 32bit 6800, 64bit 8000

This would suggest that the performance is a little bit closer to the 2010 (they are all pretty even in the 32bit test but the 64bit is another story). However, it is interesting that the i5 3.6GhZ (dual core) is actually almost as good as the i5 2.8GhZ (quadcore) and clearly better than i5 2.66GhZ (quadcore). On the other hand, there has been speculation regarding the usage of multiple cores with the Geekbench-test: no dual core, not even the i5 3.6GhZ, can actually be better than any quacore.

redapple99
Aug 16, 2010, 03:59 PM
Well you can easily see this (at least in terms of Geekbench-scores) from the first post of this thread.

i3 3.2GhZ (2010): 32bit 6000, 64bit 6600
i5 2.66GhZ (2009): 32bit 6200, 64bit 7450
i5 2.8GhZ (2010): 32bit 6800, 64bit 8000

This would suggest that the performance is a little bit closer to the 2010 (they are all pretty even in the 32bit test but the 64bit is another story). However, it is interesting that the i5 3.6GhZ (dual core) is actually almost as good as the i5 2.8GhZ (quadcore) and clearly better than i5 2.66GhZ (quadcore). On the other hand, there has been speculation regarding the usage of multiple cores with the Geekbench-test: no dual core, not even the i5 3.6GhZ, can actually be better than any quacore.

ok, so i chose well when going for the late 2009 Quad core rather than the 2010 i3 27"?

Tigerman82
Aug 16, 2010, 04:02 PM
ok, so i chose well when going for the late 2009 Quad core rather than the 2010 i3 27"?

Definately, especially with the low prices (compared to the 2010 lineup) of those refurbished 2009 models. Quadcores are also more futureproof.

redapple99
Aug 16, 2010, 04:03 PM
Definately, especially with the low prices (compared to the 2010 lineup) of those refurbished 2009 models. Quadcores are also more futureproof.

phew... :)

aliensporebomb
Aug 16, 2010, 04:40 PM
Neither of those are iMacs, despite what the label says.
The iMac core i7 (at least the 2.93GHz model) uses an Intel Core i7 860 CPU. The ones you link are both running well above 2.93GHz and are not using the same CPUs. Thus, either fake entries or not actual iMacs but home-built hackintosh PCs.

Yep, hackintoshes. The dead giveaway is the ram type and bus speed.

The 4 ghz clock speed on both seems unlikely. Nobody has figured out if an iMac can be overclocked yet and it's most likely to be done so on the Windows side rather than the Mac OS side thus far.

87vert
Aug 18, 2010, 11:53 AM
iMac 21.5" 3.06 i3, 4GB Ram

6475 (64-bit)
5809 (32-bit)

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/279995

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/280013

Looks like I'm on top for this model w/ same specs :D