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

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Ahheck01, Dec 16, 2012.

  1. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #1
    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?
     
  2. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    #2
    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.
     
  3. macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #3
    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.
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #4
    that's par for course for the processor... if it was an unlocked version overclocked to say 4.5ghz, it would do about 16k
     
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    #5
    You have a thing for BMWs M series apparently :D
     
  6. macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #6
    :D 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.
     
  7. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    #7
    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! ;)
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    #8
    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
     
  9. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors 603

    netdog

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #10
    On a test track (or on winding country roads) the M5 will blow the MB's doors in.
     
  11. hfg
    macrumors 68030

    hfg

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Location:
    Cedar Rapids, IA. USA
    #11
    Mmmmmmmm ..... BMW ///M5 .... best car I have ever owned!

    You really have to drive one for awhile to really appreciate what they are!
     
  12. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2012
    #12
    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.
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    #13
    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

    [​IMG]

    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.

    [​IMG]

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

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    #14
    Very clunky indeed. I never did like bmw, always preferred the italians:cool:
     
  15. macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #15
    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
     
  16. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    #16


    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
     
  17. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    #17
    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.
     
  18. macrumors 68040

    zhenya

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #18
    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.
     
  19. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    #19
    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.
     

Share This Page