Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2011 Quad-Core 3.4GHz i7 Unboxing & Geekbench..Over 12,000!

While I appreciate the videos i'm not a fan of synthetic benchmarks. Let's see what it can do in real world tests!
 
It went up almost 2,400 points over lasts years top of the line BTO 2.93.

I want to see what the 2.7 base does at 64 bit. Someone post a score in 32 bit at the mid 7,000's I believe and the 64 bit is usually about 1,500 points more. That would be pretty nice if the 27" base gets around 9,000.
 
Last edited:
archer75 said:
While I appreciate the videos i'm not a fan of synthetic benchmarks. Let's see what it can do in real world tests!
Click to expand...

I completely agree and will have some real world tests over then next couple days. Anything you guys would like to see?
 
MacHead04 said:
I completely agree and will have some real world tests over then next couple days. Anything you guys would like to see?
Click to expand...

For me I want to see:
Gaming at native resolution.
video encoding in handbrake

I'm sure some people would like to see some photoshop/aperture numbers.
 
Jonathan,

What did the 3.4 do at 32 bit? I am just trying to judge the difference in score.
 
Wow .. that's crazy compared to standard i5 3.1Ghz .. :apple: should just make 3.4 Ghz a standard option, i'm okay with $2200 price tag as long as they're standard. Means they're easier to get rather than get yourself an i7 iMac for BTO option

Good job Jonathan, as always .. well how about 2Gb DDR5 GPU, do you think GDDR will increase benchmark score significantly?
 
So it's very comparable to the MBPs, I got 11036 when i benched mine (2.2GHz). Not that synthetic benchmarks are ever reliable.

The Mac Pros still have the edge...well recent models do.
 
The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is that the base iMac seems to be scoring lower than the base Macbook Pro by about 800 points in 32 bit. That is quite a difference. It doesn't make sense that Apple chose these options.
 
mackage said:
The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is that the base iMac seems to be scoring lower than the base Macbook Pro by about 800 points in 32 bit. That is quite a difference. It doesn't make sense that Apple chose these options.
Click to expand...

Hyper-Threading.
 
MacHead04 said:
I completely agree and will have some real world tests over then next couple days. Anything you guys would like to see?
Click to expand...

Could you check "target display mode" in the 2011 iMac's help file, to see if it accepts Thunderbolt display input only, or if it also accepts minidisplayport video/audio in. I looked at the manual on-line, and on page 33, it said to refer to the help file for info on "target display mode".
 
mackage said:
I didn't mean I don't understand why...I mean I don't understand why Apple thinks this is cool.

Normally, and always, the desktops top the laptops. In this case, they really don't.
Click to expand...

Oh right. My bad. To be fair it won't matter in the real-world. Sometimes HT even does more harm than good apparently.
 
MacHead04 said:
I completely agree and will have some real world tests over then next couple days. Anything you guys would like to see?
Click to expand...

Well of course gaming benchmark, Crysis or Crysis2 as usual, GTA IV at maximum settings, BlackOps

Too bad Battlefield 3 not released yet, otherwise that would be a huge milestone for new iMac as an excellent gaming machine
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

mackage said:
The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is that the base iMac seems to be scoring lower than the base Macbook Pro by about 800 points in 32 bit. That is quite a difference. It doesn't make sense that Apple chose these options.
Click to expand...

The iMac desktop CPUs are much faster than the mbp mobile CPUs. Stop worrying about synthetic and pointless benchmarks.

Intel and apple engineers are not as stupid as you seem to think.
 
You said Quad-core twice at the end of the unboxing.

"OMG, duz that mean it can haz double quad-cores!? Octo-core!!?" :p

Great unboxing though, I thoroughly enjoyed it. :D
 
archer75 said:
For me I want to see:
Gaming at native resolution.
video encoding in handbrake

I'm sure some people would like to see some photoshop/aperture numbers.
Click to expand...

+1 to that..

If I were to buy I would only use it for games and ripping/converting video.
 
theSeb said:
The iMac desktop CPUs are much faster than the mbp mobile CPUs. Stop worrying about synthetic and pointless benchmarks.

Intel and apple engineers are not as stupid as you seem to think.
Click to expand...

Hmm some people just love those numbers too much. Maybe they just scared of losing bragging right, you know they've just spend $1000 to $2000 for a computer

So they can't imagine their friends come to see that the new iMac can't even score 10000, that would be embarassing :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back