New iMac Benchmarks Show 10-25% Improvement Over Previous Generation

ifraaank said:

Am I the only one who thinks this is great? Probably because it is my first iMac, and my MacBook Pro scores about 4-5000...

Click to expand...

I am with you. Its just people that don't have enough to purchase a fully loaded 27 inch iMac (even though they want one so bad and wish they did have one and would trade their old one for a new one in a blink of an eye) and try to justify and make themselves feel better about keeping an old/fat/outdated/prehistoric/antique iMac.


Then you have the ones that want an apple computer but can only afford a mac mini with an old dell or lg monitor with massive black wires all over their desk.

I would hope so. Since it took so long to refresh them.

WardC said:

The one I just posted IS a maxed-out 3.4GHz model, albeit a 2011 one.

The difference is Sandy Bridge vs. Ivy Bridge.

Click to expand...

Would the extra 16GB RAM make any difference in your score? Your maxed out was 16GB RAM, new iMac 27"'ers can have 32?
/
/
/

Just some random thoughts on speed. In addition to my iMac 27" I have a Hackintosh that has an i7 2600k, which is the same processor as in the iMac, but unlocked for overclocking. Stock, it gets the same GB score as does my iMac (obvious). I have been able to OC it to a score of 15000+, but as it gets up there it gets slightly unstable. I am now back to running it stock.

The reason I took it back is that the only time it made any difference was when I was using handbrake to encode a video. And then, it was not that huge of a difference and I was always worried that I would KP in the middle. My point is, for most of us (granted there are some of you who have edge case usage needs) you would never notice 15% or even 25% speed increases in 90+% of what you are doing. I keep a little app in my menu bar that shows how the machines is using the cores and, my iMac is barely moving the menus during typical computer use (word processing, browsing, listening to music).

I am a benchmark junkie as much as anyone, but really, I think it's mostly for bragging rights. It's similar to talking about how many horse power your Ferrari has. It likely won't get you from your house to work much faster than someone's Prius since you don't have a chance to use those horses. Now if you're a racer, it's a different story.

WorldTravelBro said:

I am with you. Its just people that don't have enough to purchase a fully loaded 27 inch iMac (even though they want one so bad and wish they did have one and would trade their old one for a new one in a blink of an eye) and try to justify and make themselves feel better about keeping an old/fat/outdated/prehistoric/antique iMac.


Then you have the ones that want an apple computer but can only afford a mac mini with an old dell or lg monitor with massive black wires all over their desk.

Click to expand...

yeah. i call this the cute-i-like-shiny-apple-stuff-user who can't afford to be a power-user.

Nunyabinez said:

J
I am a benchmark junkie as much as anyone, but really, I think it's mostly for bragging rights. It's similar to talking about how many horse power your Ferrari has. It likely won't get you from your house to work much faster than someone's Prius since you don't have a chance to use those horses. Now if you're a racer, it's a different story.

Click to expand...

Again, the voice of reason creeps in . . . . .

xgman said:

That only proves how weighted the bench is to multi cores. We should be running something more real world rounded.

Click to expand...

I do so on a daily basis. Though large portions of my job (rendering in particular) are heavily dependent on CPU performance, to the point where it literally comes down to the more CPU power you have, the sooner you can go home and/or the better the work looks.

The very thought of rendering (for days on end) on these anorexic laptops on a stick (beautiful though they are) gives me the creeps.

Nunyabinez said:

Just some random thoughts on speed. In addition to my iMac 27" I have a Hackintosh that has an i7 2600k, which is the same processor as in the iMac, but unlocked for overclocking. Stock, it gets the same GB score as does my iMac (obvious). I have been able to OC it to a score of 15000+, but as it gets up there it gets slightly unstable. I am now back to running it stock.

The reason I took it back is that the only time it made any difference was when I was using handbrake to encode a video. And then, it was not that huge of a difference and I was always worried that I would KP in the middle. My point is, for most of us (granted there are some of you who have edge case usage needs) you would never notice 15% or even 25% speed increases in 90+% of what you are doing. I keep a little app in my menu bar that shows how the machines is using the cores and, my iMac is barely moving the menus during typical computer use (word processing, browsing, listening to music).

I am a benchmark junkie as much as anyone, but really, I think it's mostly for bragging rights. It's similar to talking about how many horse power your Ferrari has. It likely won't get you from your house to work much faster than someone's Prius since you don't have a chance to use those horses. Now if you're a racer, it's a different story.

Click to expand...

you mean, the final cut pro x, motion x racetrack? been there with my dual-core macs. i can finish, but it feels core-starved or maybe i just race harder than my "car" can handle.

Lone Deranger said:

I do so on a daily basis. Though large portions of my job (rendering in particular) are heavily dependent on CPU performance, to the point where it literally comes down to the more CPU power you have, the sooner you can go home and/or the better the work looks.

The very thought of rendering (for days on end) on these anorexic laptops on a stick gives me the creeps.

Click to expand...

This is a reality for many of us that some refuse to accept. The mobile market is a fantastic sector that is changing everyday and has much potential, however this doesn't change the fact we need power. The Mac Pro is a must for many of us, without it, well, we're up a creek and the iOS paddles aren't helping.

Since when have desktop computer updates ever really been that big of a deal? It's been a long time. 25% faster than blazing fast is.. um.. really frickin' fast. What a bunch of whiners.

Lone Deranger said:

I do so on a daily basis. Though large portions of my job (rendering in particular) are heavily dependent on CPU performance, to the point where it literally comes down to the more CPU power you have, the sooner you can go home and/or the better the work looks.

Click to expand...

I here you. My (admitted non rendering use) list of priorities goes like this:

1) Speed, Speed, Speed
2) Memory
3) Number of Cores
4) Graphics Card Specs

I should have put a "drive"" in there (as SSD), but that's a given no matter what. Biggest bang for the buck speed bump anyone can get.

namethisfile said:

you mean, the final cut pro x, motion x racetrack? been there with my dual-core macs. i can finish, but it feels core-starved or maybe i just race harder than my "car" can handle.

Click to expand...

Yeah, my wife can't understand why I need so many different machines. Each excels in different ways. My favorite machine right now is my 13" MBA. It is the most practical for me. In fact, half the time that I "use" my Hackintosh I am screen sharing it from my MBA. But there is no way I would give up my desktops, because once-in-a-while I need the speed (and the screen real estate), but getting the new iMac I wouldn't likely notice any difference between my old one. That's not Apple's fault, it's just that I'm only tapping out my machines once in a great while.

which do you guys think is a better BTO option to go with on the top end 27" imac?

i7 CPU or 680 mx?

let's say, i want to use this machine for apple pro x apps....

Naimfan said:

No, it isn't. Apple specifies that there are no user-serviceable parts inside (RAM on the 27" excepted). So if you want to void the warranty, have at it.

You post in ignorance, my friend . . .

Click to expand...

He's not posting in ignorance.
Fact is, they are more upgradeable than many people assumed. The warranty is important of course. But many people may not consider upgrades until long after that has expired anyway.
And look at the mini's. Apple suggests you can only upgrade the ram yourself. Yet heaps of folks are changing out the HD on those themselves regardless.

Anyway, 10-25% improvement seems decent enough to me. And it's what i'd expect given that the same CPU's in a PC would of course give very comparable results. What did you complainers really expect? 2 X i7's in there? If they did go with 2 X i7's then you'd all be whining at the cost of it..

bahahahah at the imac as the same speed as the mac pro.

the new imac is already outdated for the price and still beats the mac pro.

those of you who bought into the fact you need 8 cores.. SUCKERS!!!

jack92029 said:

The Late 2012 Mac Mini with a Geek Benchmark of 10,500 (mine with 8gb of Ram did better) is better than the 21.5" iMac.

Yes the iMac has more features than a Mini, but the Mini is now More than competitive. I added a Dell Ultra 24" screen (half way between the 21.5" & the 27") for a total out the door cost of $1100. Interesting alternative and my mouse and keyboard from the Late 2009 iMac (sold for $400) still works fine.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be better if you would've paid a bit extra to get the mini and del monitor smashed, gelled and squeezed together in a thin profile which would've also got you wireless keyboard and mouse, which is what iMac IS basically, with 2 less cord dangling...i mean, i would...

Everyone needs to stop their moaning & complaining.

First off, for people coming from an iMac 3+ years old, this will be a huge improvement. It's not like most people upgrade their $2000 computer every year.

Secondly, every component (especially the 680MX) used in the new iMac line are fairly substantial upgrades. I saw people from PC/Laptop gaming forums drooling over the 680MX, something probably only the iMac will get. What else was Apple suppose to use? An Nvidia 7 series or Haswell? Oh wait, they're not out yet!

Lastly, I'm tired of hearing about the loss of the optical drive and how bad the new design is because it's "too thin." The absence of the optical drive was a long time coming, don't act surprised because it got removed. If you're still the person burning DVD's of your family vacation for your parents, then know you're one of the few and there are still options to accommodate those needs. Now, if you're a professional, you're probably authoring to Blu-Ray anyways. Loosing the optical drive shouldn't be a big deal because you probably own a Blu-Ray external burner already.

Yes it is THINNER! We can all see that. I am confident that Apple Engineers who make 200,000K+ a year figured out a proper way to cool these or they probably wouldn't have released them.

To me, you sound just like a bunch of babies. By all means though, stick with your iMacs with optical drives. It'll just help those of us who want one, get one quicker.

js09 said:

bahahahah at the imac as the same speed as the mac pro.

the new imac is already outdated for the price and still beats the mac pro.

those of you who bought into the fact you need 8 cores.. SUCKERS!!!

Click to expand...

Wow… so clueless!

Lone Deranger said:

Wow… so clueless!

Click to expand...

no.. I know exactly what i'm talking about and it definitely doesn't apply to certain professionals but in general i'm pretty much right

Hmm, the base 21.5 is not that much better than my mid 2011 base 21.5.

Was thinking about upgrading but doesn't seem to be worth it. I can still put another 8gb of memory in mine before I decide to move on up. Where with these new ones to get 16gb you have to slap down another 200 bones.

That's one thing I like about the mid 2011, they had dual slots. And if I remember correctly, OWC proved you can dump 32gb in it as well. This might be the best imac for another year or two, considering its rating and expansion ability.

Maybe next year the speed bump will be worth it.

I love hearing you people complain but still buy this **** anyway.

js09 said:

no.. I know exactly what i'm talking about and it definitely doesn't apply to certain professionals but in general i'm pretty much right

Click to expand...

Oh, do you now?

So how is it that a 4 core is faster than an 8 core? Please. Do tell.

OH YOU KNOW! JUST CUZ!

knemonic said:

Hmm, the base 21.5 is not that much better than my mid 2011 base 21.5.

Was thinking about upgrading but doesn't seem to be worth it. I can still put another 8gb of memory in mine before I decide to move on up. Where with these new ones to get 16gb you have to slap down another 200 bones.

That's one thing I like about the mid 2011, they had dual slots. And if I remember correctly, OWC proved you can dump 32gb in it as well. This might be the best imac for another year or two, considering its rating and expansion ability.

Maybe next year the speed bump will be worth it.

Click to expand...

My previous post I made:

Its just people that don't have enough to purchase a fully loaded 27 inch iMac (even though they want one so bad and wish they did have one and would trade their old one for a new one in a blink of an eye) and try to justify and make themselves feel better about keeping an old/fat/outdated/prehistoric/antique iMac.


Then you have the ones that want an apple computer but can only afford a mac mini with an old dell or lg monitor with massive black wires all over their desk.

akbarali.ch said:

Wouldn't it be better if you would've paid a bit extra to get the mini and del monitor smashed, gelled and squeezed together in a thin profile which would've also got you wireless keyboard and mouse, which is what iMac IS basically, with 2 less cord dangling...i mean, i would...

Click to expand...

That might be true if Apple hadn't gone to integrated graphics on the Minis. That's one reason why you have to be careful with Geekbench results, they are synthetic and don't test graphics or drives. There was virtual wailing about the lack of discrete graphics in the new Minis. I think I would have bought one, but I fear that the graphics will be too slow.

I was gonna get the 27" iMac....but I'm thinking that the best option going forward is to get a thunderbolt apple display with a Mac mini or MacBook Air.

As much as I love the iMac. My last few desktops were iMacs.....I just think that upgrading the whole iMac gets to be pricey in the future. Once the innards start to lag, ya gotta get rid of the screen as well since its attached. Duh.

But if you get a thunderbolt Cinema Display, you'll have it forever. All ya gotta do is upgrade the computer part, which will cost you far less each time.

Gonna miss the all in one form factor....but I think I'm gonna pass on the iMac this time.

My only question is...will Apple upgrade the thunderbolt cinema displays into the thinner form factor of the new iMacs? Would stand to reason that they would. I care less about the thinness tho, and more about the 75% less reflective glass being used.

Any rumors on this?