2012 iMac 3.4 ; Why The Unimpressive Geekbench Scores? 2.3Ghz=11,100; 3.4Ghz=13,100

[Ahheck01]

32-bit scores

2.3Ghz Ivy Bridge i7 in rMBP = 11,100
3.4Ghz Ivy Bridge i7 in iMac = 13,100

64-bit scores

2.3Ghz Ivy Bridge i7 in rMBP = 12,000
3.4Ghz Ivy Bridge i7 in iMac = 14,300


Why is a processor with the same tech and a 48% faster clock speed only performing with numbers 18% higher in 32-bit mode and 19% higher in 64-bit mode? I'm going off the best results online so far for the iMac, and going off the numbers I just got on the rMBP I'm typing on now. There are numerous 3.4Ghz 2012 iMacs that scored in the mid 13k's in 64-bit mode, which is only about 8-9% better than last years' Sandy Bridge 3.4Ghz.

So the big question is, why? I know there are other variables, but it would seem all the other variables in an iMac vs a rMBP would be in the favor of the iMac? Should the scores be closer to 16-17k in 64-bit mode?

[pubjoe]

The turbo boost speeds are 3.3 vs 3.9 which is an 18% difference in single threaded benchmarks.

Also, for multithreaded benchmarks, there are many features of both chips which don't scale with the clock-speed.

[theSeb]

Comparing actual, real world performance using GB is a pointless endeavour. It only shows you how fast the CPU and memory can sprint, which does not always translate well to real world tasks. You are basically looking at the 0-60 MPH times between sports cars and sports sedans only and not considering everything else. Sure, that shiny two door sports coupe may be 0.5 seconds faster than a BMW M5, but it won't let you take your 4 super model girlfriends with you, like an M5 would.

[cosmicjoke]

Originally Posted by Ahheck01

32-bit scores

2.3Ghz Ivy Bridge i7 in rMBP = 11,100
3.4Ghz Ivy Bridge i7 in iMac = 13,100

64-bit scores

2.3Ghz Ivy Bridge i7 in rMBP = 12,000
3.4Ghz Ivy Bridge i7 in iMac = 14,300


Why is a processor with the same tech and a 48% faster clock speed only performing with numbers 18% higher in 32-bit mode and 19% higher in 64-bit mode? I'm going off the best results online so far for the iMac, and going off the numbers I just got on the rMBP I'm typing on now. There are numerous 3.4Ghz 2012 iMacs that scored in the mid 13k's in 64-bit mode, which is only about 8-9% better than last years' Sandy Bridge 3.4Ghz.

So the big question is, why? I know there are other variables, but it would seem all the other variables in an iMac vs a rMBP would be in the favor of the iMac? Should the scores be closer to 16-17k in 64-bit mode?

that's par for course for the processor... if it was an unlocked version overclocked to say 4.5ghz, it would do about 16k

[sjz88]

Originally Posted by theSeb

Comparing actual, real world performance using GB is a pointless endeavour. It only shows you how fast the CPU and memory can sprint, which does not always translate well to real world tasks. You are basically looking at the 0-60 MPH times between sports cars and sports sedans only and not considering everything else. Sure, that shiny two door sports coupe may be 0.5 seconds faster than a BMW M5, but it won't let you take your 4 super model girlfriends with you, like an M5 would.

You have a thing for BMWs M series apparently

[theSeb]

Originally Posted by sjz88

You have a thing for BMWs M series apparently

It's just a good example on a forum with users from all over the world. We all know how awesome BMW Ms are, but I personally prefer the MB C63 AMG Coupe over the E92 M3.

The M5 on the other hand is just bat-**** crazy.

[sjz88]

I dont really like Bi-Turbos like the M5. I prefer the raw power of AMGs 6,3l engine in the C63 as well. The black series is insane. Back to topic now please!

[joe-h2o]

Originally Posted by theSeb

It's just a good example on a forum with users from all over the world. We all know how awesome BMW Ms are, but I personally prefer the MB C63 AMG Coupe over the E92 M3.

The M5 on the other hand is just bat-**** crazy.

In other words, your features list in order of preference goes:

* Lots and lots and lots of tyre smoke


(many other things)













* ability to corner effectively.

;P

[Ahheck01]

My main desire for the extra speed is encoding hours of AVCHD to Prores, so I assumed this sprint measurement was a pretty direct reflection of time improvements.

[netdog]

Originally Posted by sjz88

I dont really like Bi-Turbos like the M5. I prefer the raw power of AMGs 6,3l engine in the C63 as well. The black series is insane. Back to topic now please!

On a test track (or on winding country roads) the M5 will blow the MB's doors in.

[hfg]

Mmmmmmmm ..... BMW ///M5 .... best car I have ever owned!

You really have to drive one for awhile to really appreciate what they are!

[Gelite55]

We'll you don't ever really buy a Mac for the hardware (besides screeens are awfully nice). For the same amount of a speced out 21.5" or 27" you can get a high end 3970X PC build witch is probably twice as fast as the 3770.
You buy them for the software. Benchmarks aside these things will preform what you need them to do.

[namethisfile]

Originally Posted by netdog

On a test track (or on winding country roads) the M5 will blow the MB's doors in.

i usually hate people who impose car analogies to computers. and i am not doing it here. i am making a car analogy to a car analogy.

2013 porche 911 carrerra 4s



there's a faster porsche available but i like the compromise of the carrerra 4s.

looks like a go cart that can go really fast.

winding roads? what about the winding curves of that thing? you don't need a road for the porsche, you just need an imagination.

in comparison, bmw m3 or m5 looks clunky.



forget everything else. notice the wheel size to body ratio from the pictures.

[Apple souce]

Originally Posted by namethisfile

i usually hate people who impose car analogies to computers. and i am not doing it here. i am making a car analogy to a car analogy.

2013 porche 911 carrerra 4s


there's a faster porsche available but i like the compromise of the carrerra 4s.

looks like a go cart that can go really fast.

winding roads? what about the winding curves of that thing? you don't need a road for the porsche, you just need an imagination.

in comparison, bmw m3 or m5 looks clunky.


forget everything else. notice the wheel size to body ratio from the pictures.

Very clunky indeed. I never did like bmw, always preferred the italians

[theSeb]

Originally Posted by Ahheck01

My main desire for the extra speed is encoding hours of AVCHD to Prores, so I assumed this sprint measurement was a pretty direct reflection of time improvements.

For a quick burst, yes. The mobile CPUs will only be slightly slower. Not when you're doing hours worth and the mobile CPU is throttling back due to heat build up

[Yougotcarved]

Originally Posted by Gelite55

We'll you don't ever really buy a Mac for the hardware (besides screeens are awfully nice). For the same amount of a speced out 21.5" or 27" you can get a high end 3970X PC build witch is probably twice as fast as the 3770.
You buy them for the software. Benchmarks aside these things will preform what you need them to do.

Really? All that extra money just for OSX?! I'm beginning to rethink my choice, I thought iMac hardware was supposed to be good but youre saying all that apple tax is just for OSX? What is it about that OS that makes it worth the apple tax?

Also I think the best thing about iMacs is the way they look, screen and form etc surely thats hardware

[mjoshi123]

Originally Posted by Gelite55

We'll you don't ever really buy a Mac for the hardware (besides screeens are awfully nice). For the same amount of a speced out 21.5" or 27" you can get a high end 3970X PC build witch is probably twice as fast as the 3770.
You buy them for the software. Benchmarks aside these things will preform what you need them to do.

I respectfully disagree on screen part of your post. I saw 27" iMac in Apple store and the screen quality on it was nothing to write home. You could see reflection from store lights on screen and even with low glare screen it was no where as close to IPS LCD screen with matte finish.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by mjoshi123

I respectfully disagree on screen part of your post. I saw 27" iMac in Apple store and the screen quality on it was nothing to write home. You could see reflection from store lights on screen and even with low glare screen it was no where as close to IPS LCD screen with matte finish.

Uh, ok. You realize the 27" iMac screen IS IPS and among the best consumer-level screens available anywhere? Dell sells the same panel in a monitor for something like $1000. The matte finish is a preference, but given that it's an added layer it doesn't generally do anything for the image quality except reduce reflections.

[mjoshi123]

Originally Posted by zhenya

Uh, ok. You realize the 27" iMac screen IS IPS and among the best consumer-level screens available anywhere? Dell sells the same panel in a monitor for something like $1000. The matte finish is a preference, but given that it's an added layer it doesn't generally do anything for the image quality except reduce reflections.

Yep I know Apple is IPS panel but gloss on screen adds to artificial color pop and for professional work I'd not use it as a benchmark. Dell 27" can be had for $700 on sale many times of the year. Having worked on matte screen as well as glossy MBP screens I personally prefer Matte screen over glossy screens any day.