How much bang for my buck? What iMac is the best invest? - Version 2!

[Felias]

Hi guys,

i did put this in the Geekbench-Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=980698), but as adviced i'll create a new thread for it, as it'll otherwise probably parish in there.

As i'm always in for numbers and comparisons, i took the Geekbench-results and compared them with the prices to get some interesting numbers. My biggest question is always "Which iMac will get me mist for my money?"

This approach does make the devices comparable as we have a result for every iMac, even the old ones. Of course Geekbench itself only has a limited significance, but as this is not about the result itself, but it's comparison to others, this does not matter anymore. If you do have any other numbers that is available for all devices, let me know. I'll make a seperate chart for this then.

For prices i only did look at the prices for the relevant CPU-model. I did not include the graphics card, as otherwise it would get confusing. This is one little flaw of the comparison, but it has only minor effect. If you have an idea how to change it, let me know. The other little flaw are the still missing results of the i5 3,6Ghz. I just put it the number that is expected, i'll update it as soon as the first number is there. But whatever it'll be, I strongly doubt it will change any of the conclusion.

Also let me know if you have any idea how to put everything here on the forum in a useful way. Until I have found one, please take the following:

Version 1, only regarding CPU performance:
Results of CPU-speed/price comparisons of all iMacs (new and old) on Google Spreadsheet (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aq9JzER0sdfwdElreDhSZmxkR2xkVjZydldmZHl0Nmc&hl=de&authkey=CJXQwuAP)
(please be aware: a google/gmail account is necessary to open the document)

Update: Version 2, including GPU performance:
Results of CPU+GPU-speed/price comparisons of all iMacs (new and old) on Google Spreadsheet (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aq9JzER0sdfwdDV4SEd3N3VyRjJJMVVfVE5ZMFZPQ2c&hl=en&authkey=COqBvfAF).
Hint: For editing the GPU-field, please download the copy and edit it locally. For now the speed comparisons between the graphics adapters are like (9400M - 0; 4670 - 50; 5670 - 70; 4850 - 70; 5850M - 85). If you have a better idea, let me know :-)
For a HTML-Version (no Google-Account required), please click here (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0Aq9JzER0sdfwdDV4SEd3N3VyRjJJMVVfVE5ZMFZPQ2c&authkey=COqBvfAF&hl=en&output=html).

One request: If you link to this analysis, please link to this thread and not directly to the spreadsheet.


The most interesting results:


The 21,5" i3 gives you the most horsepower compared to the invest, out of all late 2009 / mid 2010 iMacs

The 27" i7 has by far the biggest improvement in performance of all mid 2010-iMacs compared to the price increase towards the smaller mid 2010-model

The 27" i7 horsepower/money ratio of the old and the new iMacs are nearly exactly the same

Both quadcore 27"-iMacs (i5 2,8Ghz and the i7) are the only iMacs where the upgrade did not advance the horsepower/money-ratio

The dualcore i3 and i5 do have an increased horsepower/money-ratio, meaning it does make even more sense to buy now




Conclusion:

If you can live with 21,5", the smalles iMac is by far the best invest. Otherwise go for the 27" i7. Anything between is at some distinct and in drastic words: A waste of money.

(If you have questions about the analysis, please let me know, i'll gladly explain. Same goes for optimization hints.)

[DoFoT9]

This is a pretty great comparison felias! I surely will reference it when making recommendations.

I think it might be better referencing some real world performance increases as well, its likely that these increases wont be seen in the real world. Things like gaming, and some real world applications such as handbrake etc.

Good stuff though :)

[leman]

The problem with your approach is that it uses a flawed synthetic test. Geekbench tends to over-dramatize the hyper-threading of the i7 — most real life applications won't have such benefit with 8 virtual cores. Still, its an interesting table to look at :)

[Felias]

I think it might be better referencing some real world performance increases as well, its likely that these increases wont be seen in the real world. Things like gaming, and some real world applications such as handbrake etc.


I agree, this would be a great addition. It's just that i haven't found a way to easily benchmark real world performance where results are available for all late 2009 - iMacs so that a comparison is possible. Geekbench is "idiotproof", everyone can do it without much effort, thats why we have so many numbers here. If you have an idea about a better benchmark where results are available shoot :-)

The problem with your approach is that it uses a flawed synthetic test. Geekbench tends to over-dramatize the hyper-threading of the i7 — most real life applications won't have such benefit with 8 virtual cores. Still, its an interesting table to look at :)

True... although i think i7-buyers are the ones to use Photoshop/Lightroom/Aperture/iMove/Finalcut or similar apps. Hopefully soon a lot more apps will be able to use the cores.

[DoFoT9]

I agree, this would be a great addition. It's just that i haven't found a way to easily benchmark real world performance where results are available for all late 2009 - iMacs so that a comparison is possible. Geekbench is "idiotproof", everyone can do it without much effort, thats why we have so many numbers here. If you have an idea about a better benchmark where results are available shoot :-)

I can do a 2009 i7 imac test if need be :p I'm surre others could volunteer their computers if need be. Maybe write a lit in the OP and ask for help? Idk.

At least with geekbench you can see performance increases from previous geek benches, even if they are synthetic.

[hl450]

how about updating the spreadsheet with the refurbished price for the old iMacs(late 2009 model)? i think it will make refurbs most appealing

[wordoflife]

If only I had the money I would buy a refurb 27" i5 for 1500 (?)

[Felias]

how about updating the spreadsheet with the refurbished price for the old iMacs(late 2009 model)? i think it will make refurbs most appealing

Thats a great idea! I just updated the list. You were right with your guess, refurbs are interesting, mostly when looking at the i5 and the i7...

[AnimaLeo]

is the 21.5 inch iMac i5 worth the money then? This will be my Mac, and I'd be dropping like £1,500 on this thing which is a lot of money to me (being only 18).

[emaja]

I would love to see the spreadsheet, but when I try to view it, I am asked for login info.

[SiMBa37]

I would love to see the spreadsheet, but when I try to view it, I am asked for login info.

You need a google/gmail account. It takes 2 minutes, just set one up.

[emaja]

I'm on my iPad and wasn't logged in. Thanks. Got it now.

[Felias]

You need a google/gmail account. It takes 2 minutes, just set one up.

Yeah, sorry for that. I found it the best way to share the spreadsheet. If there are better options, please let me know.

[Felias]

is the 21.5 inch iMac i5 worth the money then? This will be my Mac, and I'd be dropping like £1,500 on this thing which is a lot of money to me (being only 18).

We don't have numbers on this yet :-(

But whatever the score will be, a 21,5" i3 should still have a much better performance/money - ratio.

I can do a 2009 i7 imac test if need be :p I'm surre others could volunteer their computers if need be. Maybe write a lit in the OP and ask for help? Idk.

At least with geekbench you can see performance increases from previous geek benches, even if they are synthetic.

Thats another great idea. It will take some time though. First we would need to define the best performance indicator for "real world"-perfomance, then write a little guide and start a seperate thread. After the data is collected, i'm more than happy to set up another spreadsheet for the results.
Would it be okay for you to help with the first part?

edit: sorry for the "double" post.

[emaja]

Yeah, sorry for that. I found it the best way to share the spreadsheet. If there are better options, please let me know.

No big deal. I am usually logged into Google, but not on my iPad. Plus, it was in German (I think).

Maybe a quick edit to mention the Google access is needed.

Thanks for the work on the spreadsheet. It looks to be a nice reference tool.

[Felias]

No big deal. I am usually logged into Google, but not on my iPad. Plus, it was in German (I think).

Maybe a quick edit to mention the Google access is needed.

Thanks for the work on the spreadsheet. It looks to be a nice reference tool.

Done, and the language is changed to english as well. And thanks for the feedback, i'm happy if this helps one person or another in making a decision about what to buy. I myself will probably be going for the 27" i7...

[Bkxmnr]

I think this just cemented my decision to get the base 21.5" iMac. Thanks for posting this.

[hl450]

Felias,

When calculating the geekbenchscore / price for 27inch imac, i think it's fair to knock 200 off from the price since that's where the screen size comes into play.

The reason I am suggesting $200 is because the higher end 21.5 iMac has exact same CPU as the base model 27inch iMac(Even the GPU). so i think that makes the calculation a bit fair.

If you think it's reasonable, Could you update the spreadsheet? Thanks!

[Sammy Cat]

Excellent spread sheet. Thank you very much for posting it for us. That was a great way to simplify everything and it represents my dilemma in choosing one Mac or another:

A. i3 base
B. i5 quad refurb
C. i7

Right now, the i5 refurb seems to be the best choice amongst the 3.

Any thoughts among those 3?

[DoFoT9]

Any thoughts among those 3?
i5 is definetely a good choice, what are your requirements/work load?

[Sammy Cat]

The Mac will be for my lady. Her requirements are a nice clear screen. The i3 would suffice.

We looked at the base i3 and then an i5 with the 1gb video card the other day. The difference between screens was amazing. The 27 inch had better colors and crisper/sharper text (a lot better).

I only now wonder if the refurbished i5 with its 512mb video card will be as sharp and colorful.

[DoFoT9]

The Mac will be for my lady. Her requirements are a nice clear screen. The i3 would suffice.

We looked at the base i3 and then an i5 with the 1gb video card the other day. The difference between screens was amazing. The 27 inch had better colors and crisper/sharper text (a lot better).

I only now wonder if the refurbished i5 with its 512mb video card will be as sharp and colorful.
from what we know - the panels are IDENTICAL in every way, its just the CPU/GPU etc that have been changed. i dont see why you shouldnt go for the refurb if you dont care for gaming.

[mattnotis]

The Mac will be for my lady. Her requirements are a nice clear screen. The i3 would suffice.

We looked at the base i3 and then an i5 with the 1gb video card the other day. The difference between screens was amazing. The 27 inch had better colors and crisper/sharper text (a lot better).

I only now wonder if the refurbished i5 with its 512mb video card will be as sharp and colorful.

I'm currently running a 17'' iMac with an ATI Radeon X1600 (128 MB) so even if I buy the cheapest iMac currently available, how much clearer will everything be?

[Sammy Cat]

I'm currently running a 17'' iMac with an ATI Radeon X1600 (128 MB) so even if I buy the cheapest iMac currently available, how much clearer will everything be?

It is not much to go on, but perhaps can give a slight perspective. My 20' Samsung 204T from 2005 (it was a higher-end lcd at the time, even had DVI), running off of a 128mb Radeon x300 SE is better than the i3 w/256mb video card.

Anybody that does graphic and text work would notice the difference immediately between the 21.5" and 27" screens.

To answer your question though, the new iMac will certainly have a better screen. Below are the following specs for your old iMac and the current 21.5" i3:

17" screen: Resolution of 1440x900, viewing angles of 120° horizontal and 90° vertical, brightness of 200 cd/m, and a contrast ratio of 350:1

21.5" screen: Resolution 1920x1080, viewing angles of 178° horizontal and 178° vertical, brightness of 320 cd/m2, and contrast ration of 1000:1, 16:9 aspect ratio

[hl450]

Felias,

When calculating the geekbenchscore / price for 27inch imac, i think it's fair to knock 200 off from the price since that's where the screen size comes into play.

The reason I am suggesting $200 is because the higher end 21.5 iMac has exact same CPU as the base model 27inch iMac(Even the GPU). so i think that makes the calculation a bit fair.

If you think it's reasonable, Could you update the spreadsheet? Thanks!

Since OP hasn't responded, I just created a new spreadsheet with adjusted price for 27inch model as I described in the quote.

Click here to see the Updated Spreadsheet with few more columns(adjusted price for 27inch and education pricing) (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ak42d4DAhXNFdE1Ta2JaQmNYa05nZlNDbUo3YVJ5aVE&hl=en&authkey=CJ75xws)

And for the (geekbench score / price) ratio, I have added two more columns that might be interesting to some readers here.

1. Performance / Adj. Price - Ratio column:
Same as what OP did but instead, I divided it by the adjusted price(which is same for all 21.5 inch models, 200 less for 27 inch models)

2. Education discount with iPod touch value calculated as 160 column:
This is for ppl who are looking to buy with education discount. When i calculated the price I subtracted 160 more from education discount(-200 more ontop if 27inch model)


Also, I fixed the minor errors in pricing as OP had $1679 for i5 - 3,6Ghz (corrected to 1699) and $2179 for i7 - 2,93Ghz(corrected to 2199)



As we can see on the table, for new 2010 iMacs, the 21.5 base model and 27inch i7 is giving the biggest bang for your buck.
Obviously, the 21.5 base model dominates more for education pricing ( 5.76 vs 5.41 GeekScore/dollar)

Refurb i7 definitely stands out... it would really stand out if they gave iPod touch for refurbs.. :D

However, if you have dollars to spend and access to education pricing, i guess new iMacs(only base 21.5 and core i7 27inch model) aren't bad at all, as their score/dollar values look pretty comparable to those of refurbs. After all refurbs aren't exactly new. (Although some of them might be new as apple may be busy burning the previous generation stock:D)

BTW, the reason why i only subtracted 160 for 200 dollar ipod touch is that i figured many people will sell it on ebay around 170 ~ 180 + shipping then there are fee that ebay charges and paypal charges(EVIL!!!! :( ) so that's why it's 160. :p

[hl450]

When I look at this carefully again, I think some flaws are actually making the 21.5 inch base model more attractive.

Since it only comes with 500GB HD and can't even customize to upgrade!!! :eek:

Also there seems to be a significant difference for GPU for the base model.

[Felias]

Since OP hasn't responded, I just created a new spreadsheet with adjusted price for 27inch model as I described in the quote.

Wow, you are quite fast my friend :-) Let me get at least 7 hours sleep per day please :-)

I've already been working on a new version differentiating between the screen sizes to make it more useful. I'll update ist in the next hours. And i gladly put in your optimization hints, if they are useful, so don't worry.

As much as i respect your activity:
Please give me at least a day before altering the table and loading up your own one. This will only confuse everybody here. Several versions of the same document are not helpful :-)


And for the (geekbench score / price) ratio, I have added two more columns that might be interesting to some readers here.

1. Performance / Adj. Price - Ratio column:
Same as what OP did but instead, I divided it by the adjusted price(which is same for all 21.5 inch models, 200 less for 27 inch models)


As said above, i have a new version that takes care of this issue. Just reducing 200 is a personal choice, depending on what you would pay for the bigger screen. This might be different for others, so the spreadsheet is not objective any more. I thought about this before, but decided against it so far.

Another thing is the graphics card, which also does make a difference, but is not included in the calculations. I'm not sure if changing the prices does really help here. Instead I planned to get Cinebench-results, which include the graphics card performance so you can see a difference.


2. Education discount with iPod touch value calculated as 160 column:
This is for ppl who are looking to buy with education discount. When i calculated the price I subtracted 160 more from education discount(-200 more ontop if 27inch model)


As far as i know there are several education programs (at least here in germany), so which one to take? I'll look into it, thanks for the suggestion.


Also, I fixed the minor errors in pricing as OP had $1679 for i5 - 3,6Ghz (corrected to 1699) and $2179 for i7 - 2,93Ghz(corrected to 2199)


Thanks, i'll change that.


Again, thanks for the dedication, but please let me continue with this and not make 2 seperate "streams" here. Thanks for your understanding :-)

[hl450]

As far as i know there are several education programs (at least here in germany), so which one to take? I'll look into it, thanks for the suggestion.


Well I used the US program prices, since you used dollar value of each models in your first version. :)

[pt0016]

Would the 5670 be a big advancement over the cheaper, 4670model? (21.5")

5670 has 512, and 4670 has 256mb.

Cheers

[Felias]

Well I used the US program prices, since you used dollar value of each models in your first version. :)

Fair deal :-)

Please see my work-in-progress-version here:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aq9JzER0sdfwdDV4SEd3N3VyRjJJMVVfVE5ZMFZPQ2c&hl=en&authkey=COqBvfAF

Maybe we can find a way to work on it together? Let me just finish the corrent edits (will take about 2 hours).

[easepease]

Since OP hasn't responded, I just created a new spreadsheet with adjusted price for 27inch model as I described in the quote.

Click here to see the Updated Spreadsheet with few more columns(adjusted price for 27inch and education pricing) (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ak42d4DAhXNFdE1Ta2JaQmNYa05nZlNDbUo3YVJ5aVE&hl=en&authkey=CJ75xws)

And for the (geekbench score / price) ratio, I have added two more columns that might be interesting to some readers here.

1. Performance / Adj. Price - Ratio column:
Same as what OP did but instead, I divided it by the adjusted price(which is same for all 21.5 inch models, 200 less for 27 inch models)

2. Education discount with iPod touch value calculated as 160 column:
This is for ppl who are looking to buy with education discount. When i calculated the price I subtracted 160 more from education discount(-200 more ontop if 27inch model)


Also, I fixed the minor errors in pricing as OP had $1679 for i5 - 3,6Ghz (corrected to 1699) and $2179 for i7 - 2,93Ghz(corrected to 2199)



As we can see on the table, for new 2010 iMacs, the 21.5 base model and 27inch i7 is giving the biggest bang for your buck.
Obviously, the 21.5 base model dominates more for education pricing ( 5.76 vs 5.41 GeekScore/dollar)

Refurb i7 definitely stands out... it would really stand out if they gave iPod touch for refurbs.. :D

However, if you have dollars to spend and access to education pricing, i guess new iMacs(only base 21.5 and core i7 27inch model) aren't bad at all, as their score/dollar values look pretty comparable to those of refurbs. After all refurbs aren't exactly new. (Although some of them might be new as apple may be busy burning the previous generation stock:D)

BTW, the reason why i only subtracted 160 for 200 dollar ipod touch is that i figured many people will sell it on ebay around 170 ~ 180 + shipping then there are fee that ebay charges and paypal charges(EVIL!!!! :( ) so that's why it's 160. :p

fwi there is no discount, education or free ipod for refurb models. Also like other have said this is incredibly skewed as geekbench is HT biased, and only focuses on memory and CPU, not GPU, not harddrive. That 500 GB drive is small and is not factored in. The GPU is THE limiting factor for all macs especially the upper level ones and will be the first thing to become outdated so going for the i5 to get that GPU is a VERY important upgrade. I think the lack of the GPU being in the chart is a huge over sight as the 1 GB and slight GPU upgrade is a big difference between the old and new imacs

[Felias]

I think the lack of the GPU being in the chart is a huge over sight as the 1 GB and slight GPU upgrade is a big difference between the old and new imacs

As said above: I totally agree. Please take a look at the "work-in-progress"-version to see a GPU-integrated version.

But generally i agree about the GPU-situation: I much more would like to see Cinebench-Benchmarks on the new iMacs.

So if you have an owner of a new iMac at hand: Please ask him to run Cinebench and post the results here. I'll add those results into the chart then to get an even more valid one. For now, we'll just have to add the GPU in a less accurate but still "better-than-now"- way.

[Felias]

Guys, i could use some help here...

We've got the following cards:

gForce 9400M
Radeon 4670
Radeon 5670
Radeon 4850
Radeon 5850M

Im trying to find comparable benchmarks for them, but i haven't really been lucky. You can see the result on the right side of the "work-in-progress"-spreadsheet (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aq9JzER0sdfwdDV4SEd3N3VyRjJJMVVfVE5ZMFZPQ2c&hl=en&authkey=COqBvfAF). After what i found on the web, i personally would give them the following result:

(0-100, whereas 0 is the 9400m of the old series)

9400M - 0
4670 - 50
5670 - 70
4850 - 70
5850M - 85

Do you thing this is realistic? Other proposals?

Thanks in advance...

[DoFoT9]

Do you thing this is realistic? Other proposals?

Thanks in advance...

hmm where are you getting those results from? i think handbrake benchmarks would be good :D actual real world results.

[Felias]

hmm where are you getting those results from? i think handbrake benchmarks would be good :D actual real world results.

I'm just talking about the graphic cards themselves in a comparable environment. So taking the results from "notebookcheck" should do that, as they are indeed testing in the same environment.

I'm just looking at the GPU now, please remind that.

For the future we should work on getting comparable real-world-results like handbrake for all the old and new iMacs. But this will take quite a lot of time, so for now we need something which has the biggest significance...

Offtopic: Dammit, this really is A LOT of work... feels like writing my diploma all over again ;-)


UPDATE: Version 2 (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aq9JzER0sdfwdDV4SEd3N3VyRjJJMVVfVE5ZMFZPQ2c&hl=en&authkey=COqBvfAF)just needs a sanity check. you're welcome to assist.

[Felias]

Version 2 is ready and linked in the original post.

About the GPU-importance: Let me say in advance, that the basic conclusions that are mentioned in the inital post do not change whatever you put in there:

The best iMac for your money will provide the smallest (21,5" i3) and the biggest (27" i7) version. Of course only if you can live with the screen-size :-)

Harddisk is still not relevant in the test. In my opinion it's way less important compared to the rest, but still... just keep that in mind ;-)

----

This has been quite a lot of work already. I'll happily update the chart again as soon as a real-world-comparison method has been found and results of the new and old iMacs are available.

[meat popsicle]

When I look at this carefully again, I think some flaws are actually making the 21.5 inch base model more attractive.

Since it only comes with 500GB HD and can't even customize to upgrade!!! :eek:

Also there seems to be a significant difference for GPU for the base model.


But all of the iMacs now have a discrete graphics card. That helps out comparisons. Plus, it has plenty of room to add ram and if you plug in an external drive you are all set that way too.
Not ideal, but easy enough to work with. I have been thinking about the $1499 iMac, but I am really consindering going with the base instead.

[Pizan]

It's my first time whit Google Spreadsheet.

I can't find how to download the spreadsheet.

I use Safari 5.0.1 and i can't find a download button somewhere in the spreadsheet.

Somebody could tell me what i miss ?

Tanks

[hl450]

fwi there is no discount, education or free ipod for refurb models. Also like other have said this is incredibly skewed as geekbench is HT biased, and only focuses on memory and CPU, not GPU, not harddrive. That 500 GB drive is small and is not factored in. The GPU is THE limiting factor for all macs especially the upper level ones and will be the first thing to become outdated so going for the i5 to get that GPU is a VERY important upgrade. I think the lack of the GPU being in the chart is a huge over sight as the 1 GB and slight GPU upgrade is a big difference between the old and new imacs

I am very well aware of the fact that there is no discount or free ipod for refurbs. That's why I only included such discount in the calculation only for 2010 iMacs. Only if you actually looked at the spreadsheet,.....:rolleyes:

[Felias]

It's my first time whit Google Spreadsheet.

I can't find how to download the spreadsheet.

I use Safari 5.0.1 and i can't find a download button somewhere in the spreadsheet.

Somebody could tell me what i miss ?

Tanks

Click on "File" (at the top left beneath the Google-Logo) -> "Download as" -> Choose your format.

[hl450]

Fair deal :-)

Please see my work-in-progress-version here:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aq9JzER0sdfwdDV4SEd3N3VyRjJJMVVfVE5ZMFZPQ2c&hl=en&authkey=COqBvfAF

Maybe we can find a way to work on it together? Let me just finish the corrent edits (will take about 2 hours).

Of Course we can. haha.. Maybe we should do this for all other Macs(mbp, mac mini, and Mac Pro):cool:

[hl450]

Just reducing 200 is a personal choice, depending on what you would pay for the bigger screen. This might be different for others, so the spreadsheet is not objective any more. I thought about this before, but decided against it so far.


I still think there has to be some adjustment in price for the screen size. :(

[hl450]

It's my first time whit Google Spreadsheet.

I can't find how to download the spreadsheet.

Tanks

On the menu bar, click "File" --> "download as" then choose the whatever the format you want to use. Hope this helps. :cool:

[Pizan]

Click on "File" (at the top left beneath the Google-Logo) -> "Download as" -> Choose your format.

They tell my browser (Safari 5.0.1) is not compatible.

Il flush all of my google coockies and it's still the same situation.

Wich browser do you use?

[Pizan]

On the menu bar, click "File" --> "download as" then choose the whatever the format you want to use. Hope this helps. :cool:

I am sorry, i think i have a big glitch.

I just got i html version. I can not edit this format.

[hl450]

They tell my browser (Safari 5.0.1) is not compatible.

Il flush all of my google coockies and it's still the same situation.

Wich browser do you use?

I virtually use all browsers(safari, firefox, chrome) but for this specific task I use firefox and chrome. I did notice that there is some error message when i try to open it with safari. :eek:

[Felias]

I just added the education prices and an extra column for the adjusted value.

[stonemann]

Just to throw the Macworld benchmarks using Speedmark 6 into the mix...

21.5- and 27-inch iMacs (Mid 2010) (http://www.macworld.com/article/153135/2010/08/mid2010_imacs.html?lsrc=top_1)

http://images.macworld.com/images/reviews/graphics/153135-mid2010imac_chart_original.jpg

[Felias]

Thanks for the hint. I'm anxiously waiting for results for the i7 and the dualcore i5, then i can add the results to the list. Until we don't have results for all of them, it doesn't really make sense to add this information.

But the results of Speedmark match the results from Geekbench basically... The best bang for the buck is the i3 21,5" (and probably the 27" i7).

[TristUK]

Thanks for the hint. I'm anxiously waiting for results for the i7 and the dualcore i5, then i can add the results to the list. Until we don't have results for all of them, it doesn't really make sense to add this information.

But the results of Speedmark match the results from Geekbench basically... The best bang for the buck is the i3 21,5" (and probably the 27" i7).

Just wanted to say thank you for pulling together all of this information and presenting it so neatly to us.

Cheers!!!

[Felias]

Just wanted to say thank you for pulling together all of this information and presenting it so neatly to us.

Cheers!!!

Its always great to get some feedback, especially after having had quite a lot of work with this :-) so thanks a lot! I'm glad it helps others with making their decision.