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

[MacRumors]

Primate Labs today posted a summary of the new iMac benchmarks hitting the company's Geekbench Browser, showing fairly strong performance increases over the previous generation of machines. The analysis focuses on the 21.5-inch models, as the 27-inch models are not launching for several more weeks, and the latest high-end 21.5-inch model scores nearly 25% higher than its 2011 counterpart and even bests the high-end 27-inch model from last year by nearly 10%.

The report also pits the new 21.5-inch iMac against the current generations of Apple's other two desktop lines, the Mac mini and Mac Pro. The comparison to the Mac mini reveals that users can achieve nearly the same performance as the mid-range iMac by purchasing a high-end Mac mini, although customers would obviously have to supply their own displays and other peripherals.

What's interesting here, though, is how the quad-core Core i5 iMacs perform compared to the quad-core Core i7 Mac minis. Since Core i7 has hyper-threading technology (and the Core i5 does not), it can execute more instructions at once, leading to higher performance.

Here this means that the mid-range Mac mini is faster than the mid-range iMac that's almost twice the price. True, you do get a display and a discrete GPU with the iMac, but these Geekbench results show how powerful the new Mac mini is despite its size.

As for the Mac Pro, which is still stuck on older-generation processors rather than adopting Intel's Sandy Bridge E chips, the new iMac is now on par with all but the high-end 12-core Mac Pro models.

As for the new 27-inch iMac, a handful of Geekbench results have already appeared in the database running a special Build 12C2037 of OS X 10.8.2. The results indicate that an early benchmark that appeared in mid-May was indeed accurate and indicate that the new high-end 27-inch model will outperform its 2011 counterpart by nearly 15%.

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

[needfx]

is that all?

[Keniutek]

Not that impressed.

[JaySoul]

Lost too much weight. Not enough calories to run fast.

[Yvan256]

At least the previous generation of Mac minis had one model with a discrete GPU.

[Naimfan]

So in exchange for more money, we get slightly faster performance which will be invisible to almost EVERY user of an iMac, no optical drive, a non-user upgradable machine, and a new design that values form over function.

In short, the new iMac joins the Macbook Air and the retina Macbook Pro as a disposable computer.

Apple, in my view, needs to get over its obsession with thinness.

And why, given the weight reduction and the elimination of the optical drive, does it cost MORE?

[dashiel]

Originally Posted by Keniutek

Not that impressed.

I’m always curious what people who say this do with their computers. I look at people like Louis C.K. who edited the first two seasons his show on a 13" MacBook Pro and then come here and see people moaning about benchmarks … so I’m curious what do you actually do that you need such power?

[robjulo]

Only a 15% improvement while removing key components? No thanks.

[daneoni]

Meh

[krye]

Almost all of the time, the benchmarks only compare the new to the old. What about switchers? I have a 2008 Mac Pro that's growing a little long in the tooth. I'd love to wait for the "new" Mac Pro, but who knows what it's going to be or how much it is. I don't know if I can spend another $3000 on a Mac.

I'm seriously considering switching to a 27" iMac. But I'd like to know on what order of magnitude it'll smoke my 4 year old Mac Pro. I played around with the last gen iMac at the Apple Store for 15 minutes months ago and I wasn't at all impressed with its shoddy multitasking and window/app switching with multiple pro apps open. I had Aperture, Logic and some other stuff open and it really started to bog down. And that was without actually "doing anything". I guess there's something to be said for that $300 ATI card in my Mac Pro.

But if I can get a new iMac for $1000 less that's faster, I might just consider it. I mean, I'd never buy the high end 12-core Mac Pro option anyway. It's just way too expensive.

The benchmarks on the site pretty much show the new iMac as being on-par with the entry-level 2010 Mac Pro. So you guys think it's safe to assume that the new iMac will be the same as my slightly upgraded 2008 Mac Pro with the upgraded ATI card and 8G of RAM?

[wildspin]

Just curious ... are these result with or without the contributions of fusion drives?

[tufinhas]

Not at all surprised. Was holding out for a new iMac since last february but after these overpriced new models, decided on another route. Glad I bough my mid-range late 2012 mac mini with extra ram, then!

T.

[jack92029]

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.

[cgdrennan]

Originally Posted by Naimfan

So in exchange for more money, we get slightly faster performance which will be invisible to almost EVERY user of an iMac, no optical drive, a non-user upgradable machine, and a new design that values form over function.

In short, the new iMac joins the Macbook Air and the retina Macbook Pro as a disposable computer.

Apple, in my view, needs to get over its obsession with thinness.

And why, given the weight reduction and the elimination of the optical drive, does it cost MORE?

You post in ignorance my friend. They have already done tear downs of the new iMac and it is very user upgradable... Hard drive, ram, and even the fact that the CPU is not soldered. The screen is held on by magnets like the previous model but since the LCD is laminated to the glass it is easier to get in to.

[jim.bright17]

Originally Posted by wildspin

Just curious ... are these result with or without the contributions of fusion drives?

AFAIK, Geekbench only tests CPU and RAM performance. So any upgrades in GPU, SSD etc. wont be measured.

[nwcs]

Wow, making me think the Mac mini may really be a good way to go!

[Isengardtom]

I wouldn't expect a hugh performance jump for the CPU

for the 27inch, I'm more interested in GPU performance of the 680MX card

[losthorse]

I can't help but look at the last year and think that Apple is in a decline... so sad.

Tim Cook is said to be an expert at managing the supply chain, so why is it that when I went into my local Apple store this morning there were no iMacs to be seen?

They should not have announced the new iMac until January when they will truly be available.

Apple is still exceptional at setting high expectations, generating buzz about the latest new gizmo, etc. The problem is they are consistently falling short when it comes time to deliver on the hype they created.

Fail.

[Naimfan]

Originally Posted by cgdrennan

You post in ignorance my friend. They have already done tear downs of the new iMac and it is very user upgradable... Hard drive, ram, and even the fact that the CPU is not soldered. The screen is held on by magnets like the previous model but since the LCD is laminated to the glass it is easier to get in to.

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 . . .



Also - my Late 2011 base MBP is faster than all the iMacs listed save the top two. A desktop should smoke a laptop . . .

[GenesisST]

Is actually the same, the results were just divided by the thickness...

[WilliamG]

Originally Posted by cgdrennan

You post in ignorance my friend. They have already done tear downs of the new iMac and it is very user upgradable... Hard drive, ram, and even the fact that the CPU is not soldered. The screen is held on by magnets like the previous model but since the LCD is laminated to the glass it is easier to get in to.

Agreed. This is the most upgradeable iMac yet. Having taken apart my 2009 27" iMac to replace the hard drive, the 2012 model looks like a blessing in this regard.

[Simplicated]

Originally Posted by losthorse

Apple is in a decline... so sad.

Please give me a break.

[bflowers]

Originally Posted by Naimfan

So in exchange for more money, we get slightly faster performance which will be invisible to almost EVERY user of an iMac, no optical drive, a non-user upgradable machine, and a new design that values form over function.

In short, the new iMac joins the Macbook Air and the retina Macbook Pro as a disposable computer.

Apple, in my view, needs to get over its obsession with thinness.

And why, given the weight reduction and the elimination of the optical drive, does it cost MORE?

I agree with Naimfan, even though I stayed up last night to order a top end machine. It is a desktop, and for the once or twice in its life that I have to take it to an Apple Store, or ship it, I don't need it thinner and lighter. I sucked it up and bought the Superdrive, which I might obnoxiously strap the the machine and send a picture to Phil and friends. I know I will use it, but it is ridiculous to exclude it. Make it a BTO option for a second drive bay, but leave an ALL-IN-ONE as a single unit!

It must be that they are located in California, where surgically altered cosmetics are more important than what is on the inside

[xxgilxx]

That will be a significant upgrade...If the iMac were a phallus!!!

[HarryKeogh]

Originally Posted by dashiel

I’m always curious what people who say this do with their computers. I look at people like Louis C.K. who edited the first two seasons his show on a 13" MacBook Pro and then come here and see people moaning about benchmarks … so I’m curious what do you actually do that you need such power?

I do a lot of shopping on Amazon.com so I need the fastest computer I can get my hands on to snag the best deals.

And it's so thin!