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

[joesegh]

Hey dopes, CPUs and other elements in the traditional laptop/desktop space DO NOT magically receive 2X speed increases from year to year.

These are not smartphones. These are very mature systems using mature components. It's simply unreasonable to expect anything more than 15-20% increases YOY, for both Macs and PCs.

[Nunyabinez]

Originally Posted by MacDarcy

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?

It depends on what you are going to do with it. Rolling your own equivalent out of a Mini may not work as the graphic capability of the iMac vs the Mini is quite substantial.

[zin]

Originally Posted by joesegh

Hey dopes, CPUs and other elements in the traditional laptop/desktop space DO NOT magically receive 2X speed increases from year to year.

These are not smartphones. These are very mature systems using mature components. It's simply unreasonable to expect anything more than 15-20% increases YOY, for both Macs and PCs.

It would’t be unreasonable if Apple didn’t concentrate on thinness in a desktop computer so much. You could have easily made an iMac 2x faster if the concentration was on performance and efficiency of the components, and not on the thinness of the enclosure.

[Kurri]

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.

you nailed it. I am pretty disappointing with this.

[nastri83]

Is everyone here considering upgrading from a 2011 imac to a 2012 imac??

Because if you are, I'm extremely jealous of your money situation.

[Eidorian]

Originally Posted by zin

It would’t be unreasonable if Apple didn’t concentrate on thinness in a desktop computer so much. You could have easily made an iMac 2x faster if the concentration was on performance and efficiency of the components, and not on the thinness of the enclosure.

Not really, this round of updates is just socket drop-ins for LGA 1155 in fancy 22nm. Wait for Haswell to see something impressive.

Originally Posted by nastri83

Is everyone here considering upgrading from a 2011 imac to a 2012 imac??

Because if you are, I'm extremely jealous of your money situation.

Find a sucker to get the 2011 model for just shy of what it runs for refurbished. You can effectively "rent" a Mac for a year doing that and get the latest hardware. That is until you run out of suckers.

[xgman]

Originally Posted by alksion

Everyone needs to stop their moaning & complaining.

I'm doing neither, thank you. . .

[Delegator]

I value upgradeability. Clearly, Apple isn't a fan. But, I think Apple is really just ahead of the curve on this.

The trend for most people is away from desktops and laptops, and towards tablets and smartphones. An iPad with a bluetooth keyboard does everything that most people need, and this will be even more true as Flash goes the way of the dinosaurs. You don't hear people complaining about the lack of upgradeability of their iPad or iPhone, do you? (OK, so I wish the iPad had an SD card slot too)

For people like me who need a real computer, the Retina MBP is troubling because it represents the disposable and non-upgradeable future. But for most consumers, it's not an issue. I don't like it, but I see where Apple is going and why.

[xgman]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

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!

It actually is in some cases. Even in the core weighted Geekbench. Look at the Geekbench chart in 32 and 64 bit. There are a few cases that show a 4 core beats an 8 core here and there.

[iChrist]

.

Wait for retina. That will be the only iMac update worth it.

Looking at the unboxing and profile of the new iMac, the thinness is just an illusion when viewed at certain angles. Cheesy.

[xgman]

Originally Posted by zin

It would’t be unreasonable if Apple didn’t concentrate on thinness in a desktop computer so much.

Oh, god, here we go again . . . . .

[7enderbender]

You gotta love the Japanese-English translation by Google:

"I was exposed to decompose immediately"

There's that.

[xgman]

Originally Posted by 7enderbender

You gotta love the Japanese-English translation by Google:

"I was exposed to decompose immediately"

There's that.

That makes more sense than a lot of what is in here.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by Delegator

For people like me who need a real computer, the Retina MBP is troubling because it represents the disposable and non-upgradeable future. But for most consumers, it's not an issue. I don't like it, but I see where Apple is going and why.

It's genius in the sense that they can now gouge you for components up front that are usually fairly cheap to get later. You can't get the lower end selection with the hopes of upgrading to something a little better on down the road. Now it's all or nothing. Give us $200 for 8GB of ram.

[ronm99]

Originally Posted by WardC

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.

That is true, although I think very few people upgrade the CPU, and I've found that upgrading the video card is risky (because Apple tests its "standard" systems well, and using a non-standard graphics card in my Mac Pro has led to kernel panics).

The drives are the main "expandability feature" that I use with my Mac Pro, although with Thunderbolt and USB 3.0, I think the drive bays is not such a big deal either as these interfaces are faster than most drives.

I'm going to be ditching my 2008 Mac Pro for a new loaded 27" iMac (ordered this morning).

p.s. There is one more thing that the Mac Pro has that the iMac doesn't ... PCI slots for adding custom hardware.

[DrRadon]

My mid 2007 iMac clocks in at 3387 Points. My new iMac will be glorious.

[knemonic]

Originally Posted by WorldTravelBro

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.

Honestly, as much as a 27" is nice, I don't want a giant screen. I have always seen the 27" as more of a htpc than a desktop machine, the screen is just too big.

My justification to keep my older machine is actually quite reasonable. It is one of the few imacs that has the capability of taking on as much memory as some of the mac pros. True, it is not as slick as the new one, but the one thing I am truly not a fan of is not having the ability to upgrade the memory myself. I love Ive, but they should have found a way to make a memory access door in this new design.

The cost of the imacs are pricier and I don't want to have to buy a new every year simply to get more memory. Frankly, if Apple is not going to allow user memory upgrades, then it should come stock with 8gb for the $1300 base price. Considering how cheap memory is, this is not a crazy request. The imac is not an iphone that I can get subsidized for $200, it is a small loan.

[ronm99]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

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!

The number of cores is not relevant for MOST things that MOST users do. Image processing, video processing, and ripping MP3s are some examples of tasks that take good advantage of multiple cores. Some games might be able to as well. However, most applications that people run do not make use of even four cores, so in that case, the number of cores is irrelevant. In that case, the speed of a single core will be a better measure of the CPU's impact on perceived performance, and in that case, the four core machines can easily be faster than the eight core machines (even though Geekbench says the opposite).

[js09]

Originally Posted by ronm99

The number of cores is not relevant for MOST things that MOST users do. Image processing, video processing, and ripping MP3s are some examples of tasks that take good advantage of multiple cores. Some games might be able to as well. However, most applications that people run do not make use of even four cores, so in that case, the number of cores is irrelevant. In that case, the speed of a single core will be a better measure of the CPU's impact on perceived performance, and in that case, the four core machines can easily be faster than the eight core machines (even though Geekbench says the opposite).

yup yup.

edit: and it's worthy to note that image processing/ripping mp3's with 4 cores can EASY be quicker than an 8 core processor. hell, my overclocked quad core that I paid $200 for would destroy an Apple mac pro 8 core for probably every type of professional work.

[N10248]

Originally Posted by nastri83

Is everyone here considering upgrading from a 2011 imac to a 2012 imac??

Because if you are, I'm extremely jealous of your money situation.

Not me. I bought a 2011 a couple of weeks ago, so I wouldn't have to even consider these overpriced "upgrades".

Seeing these benchmarks I'm glad I did, plus i've saved I won't have to buy a superdrive and firewire adapter.

[Luap]

Originally Posted by zin

It would’t be unreasonable if Apple didn’t concentrate on thinness in a desktop computer so much. You could have easily made an iMac 2x faster if the concentration was on performance and efficiency of the components, and not on the thinness of the enclosure.

The irony of that, is that the "speed" of computers is not nearly as important as it used to be, because for the most part, they are already more than fast enough for just about anything you care to use one for. Example. Look at the iPad. It's essentially a computer that does everything a lot of people used a desktop computer for, years ago. Yet the CPU performance of even the latest iPad is completely trounced by any iMac from the past 5 years or more.


That said, I don't much care that the new iMac is thinner either though. But I think the fact it is thin, is of far less consequence than some people assume. It's still fast whichever way you look at it. Not 2 X as fast, but the few people that would actually benefit and be able to afford a computer that is twice as fast would be likely be better of with something like a Mac Pro instead anyway.

[namethisfile]

Originally Posted by knemonic

Honestly, as much as a 27" is nice, I don't want a giant screen. I have always seen the 27" as more of a htpc than a desktop machine, the screen is just too big.

My justification to keep my older machine is actually quite reasonable. It is one of the few imacs that has the capability of taking on as much memory as some of the mac pros. True, it is not as slick as the new one, but the one thing I am truly not a fan of is not having the ability to upgrade the memory myself. I love Ive, but they should have found a way to make a memory access door in this new design.

The cost of the imacs are pricier and I don't want to have to buy a new every year simply to get more memory. Frankly, if Apple is not going to allow user memory upgrades, then it should come stock with 8gb for the $1300 base price. Considering how cheap memory is, this is not a crazy request. The imac is not an iphone that I can get subsidized for $200, it is a small loan.

i would have settled and will probably splash on a 21" imac bto i7, if it had 7200rpm hdd, standard 8 gb ram and 1 gb vram because this is just a hypothical point. for $1800.... yeah. that would be a sweet deal on a sweet mac.

reality is more bittersweet. sweet mac, bitter wallet. even if i was a billionaire, i'd feel the same way. seriousyl.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by ronm99

The number of cores is not relevant for MOST things that MOST users do. Image processing, video processing, and ripping MP3s are some examples of tasks that take good advantage of multiple cores. Some games might be able to as well. However, most applications that people run do not make use of even four cores, so in that case, the number of cores is irrelevant. In that case, the speed of a single core will be a better measure of the CPU's impact on perceived performance, and in that case, the four core machines can easily be faster than the eight core machines (even though Geekbench says the opposite).

Yeah, most people could honestly still get by on dual core machines, as most people spend about 99% of their time in a web browser, looking at Facebook.

And yes, a newer generation quad core can be faster than an older octo core machine at certain tasks that don't leverage the extra CPUs. At that point, the speed of the individual cores is more important.

But that doesn't change the fact that even the newest iMac isn't faster than a Mac Pro at what a Mac Pro is designed for. It might clock faster in benchmarks, but try rendering out a complex scene or splice together a high resolution movie with one. Even the Pro with it's 3+ year old architecture will run circles around the iMac. Why? Because it's utilizing more of those slower cores. In that situation, 8 or 12 slower cores will still outpace 4 faster ones.

[jack92029]

Originally Posted by akbarali.ch

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...

My four Core i7 Mini is approx. 20% faster than the 21.5" iMac, and the Dell U2412M is approx. 11% larger and with a 1920x1200 resolution, I feel it's a better screen than on the iMac.

The Mini is really small, totally quiet, and doesn't get hot. And it is so small that I don't notice any wires. The only thing that uses extra space is the very nice external speakers that I'm using.

What I really liked is that next time I want to upgrade, I don't need to buy a new monitor, just the Mini.
This combo works for me, I do understand the appeal of the iMac...I had one for the last three years.

[xgman]

Here we go:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/...er-predecessor
In their tests, the new high-end 27-inch iMac, with a 3.4-gigahertz Core i7 processor, scored 7.49 points in a multi-core rendering Cinebench test. That bested the 4.85 score of the May 2011 iMac with 3.1-gigahertz Core i5 CPU by more than 54 percent. An image processing test with Photoshop also reduced time necessary from 236 seconds in the 2011 model to 199 seconds in the redesigned 2012 model.

Unfortunately they compare an i7 new to an i5 old.