New Low-Cost iMac Nearly 50% Slower in Multi-Core, 10% Slower in Single-Core Benchmarks

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jun 18, 2014.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    Following today's launch of a new entry-level iMac model featuring an ultra-low voltage Intel processor actually used in the MacBook Air, the new iMac appears to have shown up in Geekbench's benchmarking database. The use of an ultra-low voltage chip in the iMac is a somewhat curious move for Apple, as the company has traditionally used much more powerful desktop processors in the line.

    [​IMG]
    As expected, the new machine posts relatively low 64-bit scores of 2820 in single-core mode and 5435 in multi-core mode. These scores are marginally better than the 2690/5254 scores posted by the current-generation MacBook Air running the same chip and roughly 10% slower than the 3168 single-core score from the previous low-end iMac model, which remains available.

    But where this new low-end iMac falls far short of the previous low-end model is in multi-core performance, where the older model clocks in at 10253. This major difference is due primarily to the chip used in the new low-end model being a dual-core chip, while the older low-end chip is quad-core.

    The new low-end iMac comes in $200 cheaper than the previous entry-level model, but for that savings users will sacrifice some CPU and graphics performance and will have a 500 GB hard drive rather than the 1 TB drive included in the more expensive low-end model.

    Update 12:25 PM: Primate Labs' John Poole has shared a blog post putting the new low-end iMac's performance in perspective compared to other iMac models and highlighting a Tweet from Ars Technica's Andrew Cunningham noting that Apple's decision to use a chip from its MacBook Air line may have been made for graphics reasons.
    Update 2: The initial benchmarks for the new low-end iMac were taken in 64-bit mode, while the data was compared to 32-bit results from other machines. This article has been updated to compare 64-bit scores across all machines.

    Article Link: New Low-Cost iMac Nearly 50% Slower in Multi-Core, 10% Slower in Single-Core Benchmarks
     
  2. macrumors 603

    Michaelgtrusa

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Location:
    Everywhere And Nowhere
    #2
    That is way to slow. like back to the old core2duo's
     
  3. macrumors 68020

    gmanist1000

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
  4. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    #4
    Yuck. If you need to save $200, better idea to get a refurb.
     
  5. nerdAFK, Jun 18, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2014

    macrumors regular

    nerdAFK

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
  6. macrumors 65816

    JaySoul

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
  7. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    #7
    $200 isn't worth this much of a performance hit. This is an $899 computer.
     
  8. losthorse, Jun 18, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2014

    macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
  9. macrumors 601

    Yvan256

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    #9
    I really don't understand why they went with an ULV CPU for a desktop computer as big as an iMac, especially if they had to put a HDD half the size and still weren't able to lower the price by more than 200$USD. :confused:
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    Sandstorm

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Location:
    Riga, Latvia
    #10
    I don't like this Apple trend of marginally "cheaper" devices with ridiculously reduced parameters. 8GB iPhone 5c version instead of just dropping the price of 16GB. Entirely new, slower version of iMac instead of just dropping the price of the existing lowest config. These just look like bean-counter moves. :confused:
     
  11. Editor emeritus

    longofest

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Location:
    Falls Church, VA
    #11
    "somewhat curious move"

    I have other words, but I suppose that works as well :)
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    inscrewtable

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    #12
    First new hardware release after WWDC and it's a ...wait for it...new super slow iMac. I am completely and utterly underwhelmed.
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    miniroll32

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    #13
    I'd rather they just make the screen 17", include a 256GB SSD, 8GB RAM, the above CPU and sell it for £700.
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    Gudi

    Joined:
    May 3, 2013
    Location:
    Berlin
    #14
    Going from Quad to Dual core?
    Didn't expect that when Tim Cook talked about "incredible stuff, the kind of innovation only Apple can do!".
     
  15. macrumors 68000

    Lancetx

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Texas
    #15
    It's not at all uncommon to see the current $1,299 model on sale at retailers for $100-150 off, not to even mention that refurbs are only $1,099 direct from Apple right now. Much better to go with one of those than this new model that was released today, which should have been priced at $999 for what it offers.
     
  16. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Location:
    Milton Keynes, UK
    #16
    Gotta be aimed at the schools surely, eMac style. :confused:
     
  17. macrumors 6502a

    miniroll32

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    #17
    Most likely so that if they are bought in bulk for an institution, the power savings would hold some significance.
     
  18. Editor emeritus

    longofest

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Location:
    Falls Church, VA
    #18
    From a benchmark perspective, yes, however at least they support updated instruction sets like the core i-series virtualization instructions... though on a second thought, I wouldn't be caught dead trying to visualize with that machine.

    Still, if you had to... it would do better than a core2 series. much better actually.
     
  19. macrumors 68000

    Reason077

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    #19
    Huh? This is the same CPU that's in the current MacBook Air.

    Much, much faster than the "old core2duo's".
     
  20. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    #20
    Finally a desktop computer whose performance is on par with a smartphone.
     
  21. macrumors 6502a

    bwillwall

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    #21
    I have no interest in buying an iMac but I am legitimately angry that they would do this... AND THEY COULDN'T EVEN MAKE IT 1000... I hope nobody buys this Apple. I hope you never do something this greedy again.
     
  22. macrumors 68000

    Reason077

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    #22
    Relax. A premium, retina iMac is on the way. And I'm sure it'll have a price tag to match.
     
  23. macrumors regular

    UnionVGF

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2013
    #23
    I guess it's a good thing they didn't announce this during WWDC?
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    RightMACatU

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Location:
    192.168.1.1
    #24
    Too bad that they don't have an i3 processor downgrade to save another $100
    Heck, how about a 64GB SSD for additional savings :rolleyes:
     
  25. macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #25
    Yep, obscenely overpriced for what it offers . . .

    Back to the bad old days!
     

Share This Page