Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

1066MHz Front Side iMacs Benchmarked

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
70,389
42,010


Primatelabs.ca published Geekbench scores for the iMacs that were released just this week.


175126-ben.png



These overall scores can be compared to this comprehensive table of results from a wide variety of Mac configurations.

The new iMacs with a faster bus may have a slight edge over the previous generation iMac. When comparing the 2.80GHz (1066MHz front-side) iMac to the 2.80GHz (800MHz front-side) iMac, the overall scores are 3728 and 3674, respectively. with the bulk of the difference in the Memory scores (2877 vs 2530).

Unfortunately, however, as with most benchmarking software, there can be a wide variation in scores even on the same computer that can erase these differences.

Article Link
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2008/05/01/1066mhz-front-side-imacs-benchmarked/
Modest to say the least! I was expecting more but the New video card alone is worth the upgrade for gamers!
 
So no need to bust down the doors and get one.... or sell the 800 mhz version on eBay for the latest and greatest...

Still a step forward.
 
Bottom line is this is a fill-in deployment in anticipation of a full chipset update next revision.

Nice computer, same price, incrementally faster than the last one. A good buy, but not suitable for an upgrade unless you are 3+ updates behind.

OLED iMac in 2009?

Rocketman
 
It's sufficient enough for me to upgrade from my AMD X2 4400+ system. I just hope I don't have any monitor problems like the forums have been going on about apparently. :p

Really, the video card is what did it for me.
 
I don't think this surprising. I'd really like to see some gaming benchmarks, as the new card would be the only reason I'd buy the top-of-the-line 24" model over a cheaper 20".
 
Not a huge upgrade from what could be bought last week, but for me personally, I upgraded to one of the new 24's from a powermac G4. The difference is enormous!

Great machine.
 
So hardly any difference between the new 2.8 and prev gen 2.8. Those who just purchased last week or so shouldn't get upset (especially if you're not that big of a gamer). It's not like the new one has any other cool features like Blu-Ray or the like.
 
MacRumors said:
175126-ben.png
Click to expand...

I've been looking for a comparison like this. I recently bought a just superseded 2.66 Quad Intel Mac Pro with 5GB ram, and wondered how it compared to the other machines I considered (top of the line iMac, mid range Macbook Pro).

Does anybody know if there's a similar comparison of the graphics cards in machines so I know where my machine sits in the heirarchy?

THanks.

nnn
 
What I want to see are these benchmarks

(1) The mac rumers post reading mark: How many forum posts can you read per hour with a 3Ghz imac vs. a 2.16Ghz imac and,

(2) The "DVD Mark" If it takes 2 hours to watch "Titanic" in a 2.16Ghz iMac can you watch it in less time using the 3.0Ghz iMac?

These two new benchmarks would measure the way people actually user their computers in the real world.
 
ChrisA said:
What I want to see are these benchmarks

(1) The mac rumers post reading mark: How many forum posts can you read per hour with a 3Ghz imac vs. a 2.16Ghz imac and,

(2) The "DVD Mark" If it takes 2 hours to watch "Titanic" in a 2.16Ghz iMac can you watch it in less time using the 3.0Ghz iMac?

These two new benchmarks would measure the way people actually user their computers in the real world.
Click to expand...

hmmm those would be very interesting

someone test that out lol
 
ChrisA said:
What I want to see are these benchmarks

(1) The mac rumers post reading mark: How many forum posts can you read per hour with a 3Ghz imac vs. a 2.16Ghz imac and,

(2) The "DVD Mark" If it takes 2 hours to watch "Titanic" in a 2.16Ghz iMac can you watch it in less time using the 3.0Ghz iMac?

These two new benchmarks would measure the way people actually user their computers in the real world.
Click to expand...

Mr Funnyman
 
Lame. No matte screen, no Blu-ray, no quad core... And with ATI 4000 series video cards due in a month or so, a two generation old video card. No surprise there. :rolleyes:
 
Bubba Satori said:
Lame. No matte screen, no Blu-ray, no quad core... And with ATI 4000 series video cards due in a month or so, a two generation old video card. No surprise there. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

so, other than watch blu-ray discs, what do you want to do with your imac that you can't with this model, but you could with your quad core and ati 4000 card?
 
I’m surprised that there is no Blu_ray, especially since Toast just added their Blu-Ray plugin.

Shame since Blu-ray looks way better
 
Bubba Satori said:
Lame. No matte screen, no Blu-ray, no quad core... And with ATI 4000 series video cards due in a month or so, a two generation old video card. No surprise there. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I know that the RV770 desktop variants are going to be out in July but no word on Mobility versions yet. Call me when Apple starts using hardware decoding features.

Rocketman said:
Bottom line is this is a fill-in deployment in anticipation of a full chipset update next revision.

Nice computer, same price, incrementally faster than the last one. A good buy, but not suitable for an upgrade unless you are 3+ updates behind.

OLED iMac in 2009?

Rocketman
Click to expand...
Aren't OLED screens still tiny and expensive? It doesn't sound very iMac to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back