Geekbench-results of the new iMacs (Mid 2010) compared to the old ones (Late 2009)

[PsyD4Me]

Maybe in specs but in GeekBench for example, the iMac is over 50% faster due newer architecture

i'm talking about Geekbench....

i consistently get 1000ish, 16gb ram and ATi 4870

 

[aliensporebomb]

Update

Experimented this afternoon on my 2.80 ghz Corei7 iMac and got this:

How did I do it?

My highest was 9882 previously.

(1) I moved a heavily used (audio related) USB device to its own port and bypassed a hub.
(2) I switched RAM from 2-2-4-4 to 4-4-2-2 (largest chips in the initial slots).

These two got me over 100 higher than I was before. Then a few tweaks got me the rest of the way.

Killing apps running in the background not needed.

Interestingly, on the ramp up to the full 10k I had a few other runs where my memory performance was higher but the CPU performance wasn't as high so there's some evidence I can potentially go even higher on this box.

 

[PsyD4Me]

Experimented this afternoon on my 2.80 ghz Corei7 iMac and got this:

How did I do it?

My highest was 9882 previously.

(1) I moved a heavily used (audio related) USB device to its own port and bypassed a hub.
(2) I switched RAM from 2-2-4-4 to 4-4-2-2 (largest chips in the initial slots).

These two got me over 100 higher than I was before. Then a few tweaks got me the rest of the way.

Killing apps running in the background not needed.

Interestingly, on the ramp up to the full 10k I had a few other runs where my memory performance was higher but the CPU performance wasn't as high so there's some evidence I can potentially go even higher on this box.

yup, i'm on par with 2010...

 

[Ausn]

Hey,

I'am just a few steps away from buying an iMac.

Because this one is going to be my first, i'll got some questions:

1)Tried to Google it, couldn't find it. How much geekbench points difference you'll get comparing an i7 iMac without SSD with an iMac runing on a SSD?
Is arround 600 realistic? That would be my assumption from what I red here

2)Is there a big or even existing difference between producing locations?
I red a few post's that confused me. I thought they build them all at the same place


Thanks in Advance

Ausn

 

[xraydoc]

Hey,

I'am just a few steps away from buying an iMac.

Because this one is going to be my first, i'll got some questions:

1)Tried to Google it, couldn't find it. How much geekbench points difference you'll get comparing an i7 iMac without SSD with an iMac runing on a SSD?
Is arround 600 realistic? That would be my assumption from what I red here

No difference. As far as I know, GeekBench is strictly a CPU & memory bandwidth test. I don't think it benchmarks I/O speed.

 

[Ausn]

No difference. As far as I know, GeekBench is strictly a CPU & memory bandwidth test. I don't think it benchmarks I/O speed.

Ah ok thanks.
Can you explain why there is such a big difference in those Geekbench numbers?

That guy for example:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/278837

Those people with high numbers are using completly different Ram?
Or how can they achieve numbers that much higher than the rest.. i'll see geeknumbers in low 8000 and than those guys over 13k

or 17k... ._.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/256797

 

[xraydoc]

Ah ok thanks.
Can you explain why there is such a big difference in those Geekbench numbers?

That guy for example:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/278837

Those people with high numbers are using completly different Ram?
Or how can they achieve numbers that much higher than the rest.. i'll see geeknumbers in low 8000 and than those guys over 13k

or 17k... ._.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/256797

Neither of those are iMacs, despite what the label says.
The iMac core i7 (at least the 2.93GHz model) uses an Intel Core i7 860 CPU. The ones you link are both running well above 2.93GHz and are not using the same CPUs. Thus, either fake entries or not actual iMacs but home-built hackintosh PCs.

 

[redapple99]

hi just got my 2009 quad core i5 and was wondering what it is closer to in the new imac line. 27" i3? or 27" quad core i5?

thanks

 

[Ausn]

Neither of those are iMacs, despite what the label says.
The iMac core i7 (at least the 2.93GHz model) uses an Intel Core i7 860 CPU. The ones you link are both running well above 2.93GHz and are not using the same CPUs. Thus, either fake entries or not actual iMacs but home-built hackintosh PCs.

Ah ok thanks for patience and clarification

 

[xraydoc]

hi just got my 2009 quad core i5 and was wondering what it is closer to in the new imac line. 27" i3? or 27" quad core i5?

thanks

The '09 Core i5 is quite similar to the '10 Core i5, if that's what you're asking.
2.66 vs. 2.8GHz, but otherwise the processors are the same.
The current graphics chip is a bit faster, but not earth-shatteringly so.

 

[Tigerman82]

hi just got my 2009 quad core i5 and was wondering what it is closer to in the new imac line. 27" i3? or 27" quad core i5?

thanks

Well you can easily see this (at least in terms of Geekbench-scores) from the first post of this thread.

i3 3.2GhZ (2010): 32bit 6000, 64bit 6600
i5 2.66GhZ (2009): 32bit 6200, 64bit 7450
i5 2.8GhZ (2010): 32bit 6800, 64bit 8000

This would suggest that the performance is a little bit closer to the 2010 (they are all pretty even in the 32bit test but the 64bit is another story). However, it is interesting that the i5 3.6GhZ (dual core) is actually almost as good as the i5 2.8GhZ (quadcore) and clearly better than i5 2.66GhZ (quadcore). On the other hand, there has been speculation regarding the usage of multiple cores with the Geekbench-test: no dual core, not even the i5 3.6GhZ, can actually be better than any quacore.

 

[redapple99]

Well you can easily see this (at least in terms of Geekbench-scores) from the first post of this thread.

i3 3.2GhZ (2010): 32bit 6000, 64bit 6600
i5 2.66GhZ (2009): 32bit 6200, 64bit 7450
i5 2.8GhZ (2010): 32bit 6800, 64bit 8000

This would suggest that the performance is a little bit closer to the 2010 (they are all pretty even in the 32bit test but the 64bit is another story). However, it is interesting that the i5 3.6GhZ (dual core) is actually almost as good as the i5 2.8GhZ (quadcore) and clearly better than i5 2.66GhZ (quadcore). On the other hand, there has been speculation regarding the usage of multiple cores with the Geekbench-test: no dual core, not even the i5 3.6GhZ, can actually be better than any quacore.

ok, so i chose well when going for the late 2009 Quad core rather than the 2010 i3 27"?

 

[Tigerman82]

ok, so i chose well when going for the late 2009 Quad core rather than the 2010 i3 27"?

Definately, especially with the low prices (compared to the 2010 lineup) of those refurbished 2009 models. Quadcores are also more futureproof.

 

[redapple99]

Definately, especially with the low prices (compared to the 2010 lineup) of those refurbished 2009 models. Quadcores are also more futureproof.

phew...

 

[aliensporebomb]

Right!

Neither of those are iMacs, despite what the label says.
The iMac core i7 (at least the 2.93GHz model) uses an Intel Core i7 860 CPU. The ones you link are both running well above 2.93GHz and are not using the same CPUs. Thus, either fake entries or not actual iMacs but home-built hackintosh PCs.

Yep, hackintoshes. The dead giveaway is the ram type and bus speed.

The 4 ghz clock speed on both seems unlikely. Nobody has figured out if an iMac can be overclocked yet and it's most likely to be done so on the Windows side rather than the Mac OS side thus far.

 

[87vert]

iMac 21.5" 3.06 i3, 4GB Ram

6475 (64-bit)
5809 (32-bit)

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/279995

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/280013

Looks like I'm on top for this model w/ same specs