Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 16, 2012, 06:07 AM   #1
Ahheck01
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Question 2012 iMac 3.4 ; Why The Unimpressive Geekbench Scores? 2.3Ghz=11,100; 3.4Ghz=13,100

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?
__________________
Soon: 2012 27" iMac ; 3.4Ghz i7 ; 32GB ; 1TB Fusion ; 2GB 680mx
2012 rMBP ; 2.3Ghz i7 ; 16GB, 256GB SSD ;
iPad 3 16GB Black with Verizon LTE
iPhone 5 ; 16GB ; White
Ahheck01 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 06:37 AM   #2
pubjoe
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
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.
pubjoe is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 07:41 AM   #3
theSeb
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Poole, England
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.
__________________
What is Other on my HDD?
Throttling, overheating and Geekbench
theSeb is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 07:50 AM   #4
cosmicjoke
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahheck01 View Post
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
cosmicjoke is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 09:53 AM   #5
sjz88
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by theSeb View Post
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
sjz88 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 09:57 AM   #6
theSeb
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Poole, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjz88 View Post
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.
__________________
What is Other on my HDD?
Throttling, overheating and Geekbench
theSeb is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 11:02 AM   #7
sjz88
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
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!
sjz88 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 11:41 AM   #8
joe-h2o
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by theSeb View Post
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
joe-h2o is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 03:22 PM   #9
Ahheck01
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
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.
Ahheck01 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 03:35 PM   #10
netdog
macrumors 603
 
netdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjz88 View Post
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.
__________________
We don't see the world as it is. We see it as we are. -Anais Nin
Classical Homeopath and Naturopathic Doctor in London
netdog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 03:39 PM   #11
hfg
macrumors 68030
 
hfg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA. USA
Mmmmmmmm ..... BMW ///M5 .... best car I have ever owned!

You really have to drive one for awhile to really appreciate what they are!
hfg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 03:45 PM   #12
Gelite55
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
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.
Gelite55 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 04:55 PM   #13
namethisfile
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by netdog View Post
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.
namethisfile is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 06:00 PM   #14
Apple souce
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by namethisfile View Post
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
Apple souce is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 07:50 PM   #15
theSeb
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Poole, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahheck01 View Post
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
__________________
What is Other on my HDD?
Throttling, overheating and Geekbench
theSeb is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 08:05 PM   #16
Yougotcarved
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelite55 View Post
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
Yougotcarved is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 08:46 PM   #17
mjoshi123
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelite55 View Post
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.
__________________
My gadgets -
Sony Vaio FW290 CTO, Dell XPS M1330, MBP 13 2.4GHz 2010, iPod Touch 64Gb/8GB, Zune 32GB, HTC Touch Pro-2, Palm Pre (My Favoraite device), Dell Mini 9 Hackintosh
mjoshi123 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2012, 09:19 PM   #18
zhenya
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjoshi123 View Post
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.
zhenya is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 06:54 AM   #19
mjoshi123
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhenya View Post
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.
__________________
My gadgets -
Sony Vaio FW290 CTO, Dell XPS M1330, MBP 13 2.4GHz 2010, iPod Touch 64Gb/8GB, Zune 32GB, HTC Touch Pro-2, Palm Pre (My Favoraite device), Dell Mini 9 Hackintosh
mjoshi123 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Tags
benchmarks, imac

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2012 27" i7 680MX iMac 100+ Celcius in Bootcamp JackTre Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac 24 Sep 9, 2014 04:06 PM
2012 iMac Geekbench scores 21.5" vs. 27" StephenCampbell iMac 2 Sep 27, 2013 02:30 AM
2012 Mac mini Geekbench scores showing up cocacolakid Mac mini 38 Jan 13, 2013 04:36 PM
Maxed Out 27in iMac Geekbench Scores kylepro88 iMac 4 Dec 17, 2012 06:57 PM
Is the $100 2.6GHz CPU upgrade worth it (over the stock 2.3GHz) on the rMBP? pgharavi MacBook Pro 46 Aug 6, 2012 10:45 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:22 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC