Here is the speed difference (CPU wise)

Discussion in 'iMac' started by slayerizer, Nov 30, 2012.

  1. slayerizer, Nov 30, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2012

    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    Location:
    Canada
    #1
    Here is the average Geekbench scores of the different cpu configuration

    Imac 21.5" i5 2.7ghz: ~ 8200
    Imac 21.5" i5 2.9ghz: ~ 9100
    Imac 21.5" i5 3.1ghz: ~ 12400
    Imac 27" i5 2.9ghz: unknown
    Imac 27" i5 3.2ghz: unknown
    Imac 27" i7 3.4ghz: ~ 12800

    link

    I tried to be careful not picking up scores of hackintosh machines.
    It doesn't measure the GPU or HDD/SDD.

    The GPU benchmarks are listed in this post: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1499259
     
  2. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    Based on these benchmarks we could assume that the highend 27" i5 -> i7 CPU upgrade would offer very marginal performance gains.
     
  3. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    #3
    Imac 21.5" i5 3.1ghz: ~ 12400---->i7 3.1ghz is the correct
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    #4
    Is that with the 8GB RAM?
    It doesn't seem much more than the Mini i7 at 2.6Ghz...
     
  5. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    Location:
    Canada
    #5
  6. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    #6
    yes not much difference...less than 10%..my mac mini (i7 2.6Ghz) is 11900 with 16Gb Ram
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    #7
    I just followed that link and it is an i7: Intel Core i7-3770S
    Also there are no iMac 2012 with the i5 at 3.1Ghz... It is indeed an i7.
     
  8. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    Location:
    Canada
    #8
    my 2008 imac is around ~ 2900 :eek:
    Not that I have 6GB of ram in it, it's way faster. It doesn't feel slow for basic tasks. Movie editing is the only part where I need to leave the computer because it takes way too long!
     
  9. macrumors member

    Laucian Nailor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    Something appears a little odd about the results.

    i5 0.2ghz increase (2.9 to 3.1) - which is a 7% increase in clock speed gives a 36% increase in the score (12400-9100), however

    architecture upgrade (i5 to i7) plus 9.7% clock speed increase (3.1 to 3.4) only gives a 3.3% score increase (12400 to 12800) :confused:

    Are they really saying the increase in screen size destroys the performance as much as the results appear to be indicating??
     
  10. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    Location:
    Canada
    #10
    screen size should not affect the Geekbench results.. but background tasks can influence.
     
  11. macrumors member

    Laucian Nailor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    In which case, this makes me believe its definitely flawed if its just an architecture v speed comparison. (I wouldn't think that 'clean' install models would have such different background tasks as to effect the % performance by as much as the numbers are stating).

    ----------

    Oh, I get it now. Just looked at the source data......basically anybody can run this (irrespective of what they are also doing on the machine at the same time) and then post a score.

    I see that identical spec machines are showing in some cases a 20% variation in their scores. I thought for a second this may have been a 'controlled' comparison, but guess not :(
     
  12. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    Location:
    Canada
    #12
    well be careful some of them are hackintosh (pc hacked to run OSX).

    You can tell by looking at several items, first indicator is Bios name and model, then you look at the ram, should be DDR1600mhz and the cpu is also an indicator!

    I was careful picking them..
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Location:
    Berlin
    #13
    This is a common misconception...i5 and i7 is the same architecture. The i7 just has a few more featured available such as:

    • integrated HD4000 vice HD2500 on i5
    • SMT - creating a "virtual" core for every physical core essentially appearing as an 8 core machine
    • slightly more L3 cache

    Most people really won't need the small increase of the i7. See this superb Ars Technica article for a more in depth view at the issue.
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    #14
    Are these scores a true measure? I'm wondering if the benchmark software is written to take advantage of hyperthreading and other features of each processor. Probably not.

    Even if it is, someone already pointed out that background tasks will be using cycles, so unless you test everything straight from the box, or manually kill tasks until both are identical at the start.
     
  15. macrumors member

    Laucian Nailor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #15
    Apologies for the tech burp!! Is it permitted to say it's a 'slightly improved' variance on the same architecture?

    Can you tell me then, even assuming the same architecture, why the variation in performance increases (of the 2.9 to 3.1 compared to the 3.1 to 3.4) that I've quoted. If i7 does not contribute anything to the score compared to i5, it makes the results look slightly better but not by a factor of 10.
     
  16. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Location:
    Berlin
    #16
    Please to read the Ars Technica article I've linked in my prior post then...bottom line: the i5/i7 nomenclature is pretty confusing...
     

Share This Page