Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New iMac Benchmarks Show 10-25% Improvement Over Previous Generation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nice analogy.
Meanwhile, my old, fat, 2010 Mac Pro still runs circles around these new anorexic iMacs, when and where it matters.
Not true at all, unless you are running video editing or the like. My sig MP computer should be in the same neighborhood as the top 27" BTO, only the new 27" will have better video, usb 3, faster drive throughput and better cpu performance, albeit less cores.
My guess is the 27" will show around 13500 on Geekbench for the 3.4GHz model. That is what I am guessing.
a 3.33GHz 6-core Mac Pro is about 16500 to give you perspective.
a 3.33GHz 6-core Mac Pro is about 16500 to give you perspective.
This is one example of how Geekbench is misleading. Hyperthreading helps when you have eight threads running (which is true for most of the Geekbench tests), but does not help when running four threads or less (which is true for most people most of the time).
More interesting than Geekbench would be benchmarks that show typical operations such as boot time, starting up Safari, Mail, Photoshop, Aperture, etc. That would be more meaningful for most people, and would show very different results than Geekbench.
I love the design of the new iMacs, but I think it's a couple of years ahead of the hardware inside. It'll be fine when we've got micro SSDs with 1TB of storage that can be swapped in and out, and two slots for up to 2x 32GB SODIMMs, but we're not there yet.
The PC component sizes need an overhaul as futuristic designs clearly aren't working with old component sizes.
The PC component sizes need an overhaul as futuristic designs clearly aren't working with old component sizes.
i think anyone using apple pro apps, photoshop, serious imaging, even as a hobby or aspiration and especially if it is one's work will benefit from extra cores and extra VRAM memory.
looking at apple's computer lines, there is a clear line btwn these products that apple doesn't like to talk about. it is the use of antiquate hdd technology called 5400 rpm hdd's and miniscule vram amounts on some of their computer lines. i don't think it is between a budget buyer vs. a buyer with deeper pockets. it is simply power-user vs. cute-i like shiny apple stuff-users.
i belong in the cute-i like shiny apple stuff-user but want to be a power-user.
The iMac will also have less expandability, no drive bays to add drives, it must be bought with the monitor, and you cannot upgrade the processor or change the video card.
The iMac is a locked box...the Mac Pro is an expandable power machine.
The geek bench number is nice, but not a qualifier when comparing dual to single core Macs. That said, these speed bumps are dismal. Buy a mini--save a dollar or two.
Tell me about it. I just ordered $1700 worth of TB drive enclosures and drives to compensate. Ouch!
However, the Mac Pro is still MIA and I am not convinced if, and and when etc..
Late 2009 iMac
Not sure if this helps, but I have a late 2009 iMac and my geekbech score with a 16gb ram upgrade was about 4200. The new 27" is going to be about 13000. Pretty solid upgrade.
Not sure if this helps, but I have a late 2009 iMac and my geekbech score with a 16gb ram upgrade was about 4200. The new 27" is going to be about 13000. Pretty solid upgrade.
I agree, but for me it depends on what Apple does with the Mac Pro.
If they somehow decide to split the model into two lines Core i / Xeon Then I am fine with an AIO that is not user expandable. It would cover those that do not need it and still have the option of getting an iMac class machine that does have expansion...
my guess? Apple is not going to do that.
AMEN!! Thinness alone is NOT innovation. I am waiting to find out the temperature of the back of this thing. My 2011 iMac is scalding hot on just normal usage.
except the mini uses integrated grafx
I would like to see Apple could just make mini a bit larger in size and clear out the heating issue with the dedicated graphics card.
Question
I have a 2010 27" i7 with 16GB ram.
I use it for email, internet, music and a LOT of photos.
Also have a mid 2007 20" 2.0 dual core 2 with 3GB ram that we use for email, internet, our household music library and some photos. (Mountain Lion installed)
Day to day use I see little difference in these two machines other than screen size. (love my 27")
Question: I know I am not a power user, but when people say such and such model is 15% faster....faster at doing what?
You can't read emails faster, surf faster or play music faster. I'll grant you, that the person who works in the studio who makes videos or perhaps some engineer with a souped up Cad Cam program might notice a difference, I just think the normal person would see little to no difference and the difference comes at a high cost.
(I have an iPad 3 and they say the iPad 4 is twice as fast and I have the same question)
I have a 2010 27" i7 with 16GB ram.
I use it for email, internet, music and a LOT of photos.
Also have a mid 2007 20" 2.0 dual core 2 with 3GB ram that we use for email, internet, our household music library and some photos. (Mountain Lion installed)
Day to day use I see little difference in these two machines other than screen size. (love my 27")
Question: I know I am not a power user, but when people say such and such model is 15% faster....faster at doing what?
You can't read emails faster, surf faster or play music faster. I'll grant you, that the person who works in the studio who makes videos or perhaps some engineer with a souped up Cad Cam program might notice a difference, I just think the normal person would see little to no difference and the difference comes at a high cost.
(I have an iPad 3 and they say the iPad 4 is twice as fast and I have the same question)
Last edited:
I do heavy lifting 3D CGI work for film and television (Visual Effects) where apps like Maya, Mental Ray, ZBrush, NukeX, etc. actually use all the cores Intel provides these machines with. So I repeat, The 2010 Mac Pro runs circles around these new iMacs, when and where it matters.
One thing I do is produce/edit music videos. A 4 minute video probably has more cuts/edits/effects than an entire season of Louis CK.
I'm going to guess that half of the complaints come from people not paying attention what is actually being compared. This is the new 21.5-inch iMac vs. previous iMacs, the 27-inch included.
There will be more significant gains when the 2012 27-inch iMac is tested.
There will be more significant gains when the 2012 27-inch iMac is tested.
Please see my previous post above yours and also....why not just keep your computer if it is still meeting your needs?
Did you see all the empty space in the tear down? I would assume that would help with cooling.
my 2nd mac was an imac (mid-2007 model) which i have handed down to my sibling. i bought it at the time because my 12" powerbook was too slow and the new 15" mbp's started at 2 grand. the 2007 middle imac was $1500 and had the same specs as the mbp which was $500 more. i sacrifice portability but got a bigger screen.
i wonder how many people buy imacs for the same reason. meaning power-users that buy imacs because it's one of the more powerful apple computers but cheaper than either mac pro or mbp line.
looking at this year's imac's the middle imac at $1500 is less powerful than the $1800 15" MBP since it comes with i7 and same gpu.
so over the yrs, the value-performance ratio of the imac compared to the mbp has gone down in my view.