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

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Originally Posted by JBZieman

The point that the guy was making is that the vast majority of computer usage is put to low-processor intensity jobs like Facebook, or word processing, or surfing porn. The fact of the matter is that even owning V34

You can do e-mail on a 10-year old Mac or Windows machine. If that's all you do, a new computer shouldn't even be on your radar, let alone giving lectures about how WORTHLESS a "mere" 25% speed increase is (especially to those that can actually use that extra speed). That is my point, but you'd rather toss insults. Ho-hum.

The point is that a 25% speed increase has real value to those that need it and is obviously meaningless to those that don't. If you consider my response condescending, perhaps it's because the original poster I responded to was lumping everyone into the "25% is pointless" boat. It's too bad you don't get that.

[xgman]

Originally Posted by chirpie

People complaining and people complaining about the people complaining are a time honored Mac Rumors tradition.

Allow us our vices. :-)

I get the feeling the forum thread complainers are a paid group of professional complainers that are paid to go on various sites about various topics and simply complain and contradict any and everything they find. I swear I've seen these people on every site on every subject. It takes a great deal of skill and practice to ignore them. It's a conspiracy I tell you!

[kazyctn]

Can't believe I waited so long for such a minimal upgrade. At this point I'm on the fence between:

The base model new iMac + external superdrive
The high end quad-core mini
A refurb 2011 imac (high end)

Based on these scores i'm now leaning towards the mini (seeing as I already have a display), but it looks like the geekbench scores don't take into account GPU performance... I'm not an avid gamer or anything, but I'm wondering how much of a difference I would notice between the Intel integrated graphics and a "real" GPU... Any advice for me?

[monicaholliday]

I have read their comments and it seems they didn't understand your chart or what's your point. And I also noticed that I guess the improving was reversed? I just wanted to realize this. Thanks

[gnasher729]

Originally Posted by H2SO4

Trouble is Geekbench scores mean very little. Which one of those iMacs will beat my Mac Pro, (1st gen), in converting a movie file using Handbrake? None of them? All of them? By how much?

From personal experience, the slowest Retina MBP (2.3 GHz) beats a 2008 eight core Mac Pro (2.8 GHz) in tasks taking several minutes. Not in all subtasks, but overall.

[MacSince1990]

Originally Posted by Naimfan

No, it isn't. It's not going to let someone surf Facebook or eBay any faster, and it's not going to let you read email or the NY Times online any faster. It's like having a car that can do 160 MPH that's been upgraded so it can now go 200 MPH. Since the overwhelming majority of people rarely, if ever, go over 80 or so MPH, they'll never know the difference.

If that's all you do with your computer, you'd be fine with the almost-15 year old upgraded Beige G3 in my signature. Why would you need a new Intel-based Mac?

Your analogy is a complete logical fallacy, and demonstrates an absolute utter lack of rational thought.

Using your logic, computers ought to have stopped increasing in speed two years ago when they were capable of 60-80 "MPH".

I don't drive at 160 or 200MPH. But I would appreciate being able to complete FCP projects, Photoshop work, file conversion and encryption 25% faster.


And for the record... I very often hit 90.

Btw.. Might I also point out that nothing you mentioned requires an optical drive or a dedicated GPU?

[coocooforcocoap]

My upper backlight tube just went out on my iMac8,1. That's after 4 years of "heavy" use daily (Adobe CS, MSOffice, FCPandX, Protools, VMware, VUE&C4D, etc.). The fix is to replace the entire screen assembly according to my mac support dude. I guess there is no way to know, but what I want is longer lasting parts for any new workhorse I buy, and I am not all that concerned about minute differences in speed. To use another bad metaphor, I just want the beast to plow on virtually forever, without dropping dead from exhaustion in the middle of next fall harvest, which Bessy just did. From a purely business standpoint, this horse paid for itself within the first year, so 3 years of return on that investment is pretty darn good I guess...ok, happy, but I retired from my consulting business this year and maybe I can get by now with just a laptop (my 4 year old MBP is still going strong, despite 3 logic boards under the first 2 years of Apple Care) and a thunderbolt. But, at the current crossroad, I am thinking to say the hell with media production and real work, and just live stress-free with a phablet and cheap windows boxes which can be had here in Asia for less than 400 bucks. In my SOHO that's quickly becoming a shrine to working class and a museum of old equipment: media converters, tape cameras, tripods, control surfaces, blabla, all I really need now is something to run PLEX, some large drives, and some wide screens hanging around the hut to watch the super bowl on. By now, I was hoping for translucent sheets of smart glass to do everything / anything I wanted to, but I guess I may have to wait until the next life to actually own some of those. A thinner faster iMac just does not excite as it once did.

[symber]

I bought a refurbished mid-2011 last June, the 27" 3.4GHz i7. It cost me £1529.

If these Geekbench scores are right, the only iMacs that beat it are the BTO i7 ones, so for a superior machine, with a 27" screen and an ODD, you'd have to spend £1924.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

That, to me, makes for a poor update on the product line, regardless of what you think of the new design. These machines should all be outperforming a computer essentially available in 2011, don't you think?