24" iMac beats out Mac Pro in some tests

Discussion in 'iMac' started by ipoddin, Sep 14, 2006.

  1. ipoddin macrumors 6502a

    ipoddin

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #1
    According to Macworld's just published test results comparing low end mac pro to the high end iMac:

    http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/imac233bench/index.php?lsrc=mwrss

    Been waiting to see some benchmarks on the 24" iMacs.
     
  2. carfac macrumors 65816

    carfac

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
  3. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #3
    Wow, you mean a faster chip beat a slower chip at some things? :rolleyes:
     
  4. amin macrumors 6502a

    amin

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Location:
    Boston, MA
  5. autumn macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    #5
    With a Speedmark score of 259, the beefed up iMac (with 8 percent faster processing cores) was 6 percent faster than the standard configuration 24-inch iMac. More impressive, it was about 2 percent faster than the quad-core 2GHz Mac Pro in Macworld’s overall system performance benchmark. Granted, the clock speed of the optional Core 2 Duo is considerably faster than the Xeon, but doing the math: the iMac’s 4.6GHz of processing power versus the 8GHz of processing power on the Mac Pro, gives the Mac Pro with a 74-percent theoretical speed advantage. The tests do not indicate that the higher-end desktop is always exploiting that advantage.

    :rolleyes:
     
  6. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #6
    Macworld's reputation has just been flushed down the toilet.
     
  7. Chaszmyr macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #7
    Ouch, you're right.
     
  8. sigamy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Location:
    NJ USA
    #8
    They did the exact same thing with the first Intel iMac came out. They compared it to the Quad G5 and concluded that the iMac was nearly as fast on Quicktime encoding...someone ripped apart their review by instead of encoding just one file at a time, encoding multiple files. The Quad G5 crushed the iMac.
     
  9. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #9
    LOL how could they make such a basic mistake?? :eek:
     
  10. nchu429 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
  11. suneohair macrumors 68020

    suneohair

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    #11
    Exactly. This is where the Mac Pro shines and will continue to shine. Even in the single applications once the optimizations are made for multi core action.

    This comparison is by far the worst I have ever seen. In addition, Macworld really made themselves look stupid with the speed of the cores. Macworld has lost credibility with that comment.

    Also, how the heck is 8Ghz a 74 percent more processing power over the 4.66? My calculation shows a 56% increase in processing power.
     
  12. nagromme macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #12
    My calculation shows a 72% increase in Ghz. Split the difference? :)

    Anyway... yes, 4 cores really shine when doing, say, 4 things at once. But not everyone does, so it's not a bad thing to point out that more GHz-per-core can beat more cores, for some usage. Especially since the iMac uses a laptop chip while the Mac Pro uses a server chip. The results DO surprise me, and make me impressed with the iMac. It should all have been better explained though.
     
  13. JAT macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Location:
    Mpls, MN
    #13
    4.66 + 72% = 8
    4.6 + 74% = 8

    Does that explain it? Rounding is annoying.
     

Share This Page