1066MHz Front Side iMacs Benchmarked

[macrumorino]

According to Wikipedia, the quad-core Penryn is scheduled for September, 2008, but it will only be 2.53 GHz. Which one will people want, a dual-core at 3.06 GHz or a quad-core at 2.53 GHz that costs more?

Good question. I guess we're all waiting for the software industry to parallelize their algorithms!

Apparently, for a while to come, it's going to be a lot easier to clump together reasonably fast CPUs than to ramp up the speed on individual CPUs. OTOH, it's harder to write parallel code--it remains to be seen just how much harder it'll be.

 

[daneoni]

First, the "attitude": you merely repeated what the OP stated. Since I had already read that, I needed further information of your meaning.

Now to your reply: perhaps you did not read my reply to him very well either? As I recall, the Apple Cinema Display, in all its matte glory, also has some metal case.

Now it would probably be "retarded" to put a shiny glass on top of a matte finish (although I fear that the OP would then proceed to defend it with the same vehemence)... would it also not be "retarded" to assume that those of us that insist on a matte finish a-la white iMac want that?

My point here is that there is an essential singularity at the vortex of the Apple Fanboy, because he has to simultaneously defend the glossy iMac and the matte Cinema Display. Feel free to address that.

Yes the demand for a matte screen is perfectly legitimate but Apple is a company looking to focus their attention/resources where there's a lot of money to made and the numbers tell them more people like glossy screens in the iMac than not as evident in macbook (and i'd argue MBPs with glossy screens) and last gen iMac sales

The question might then be why not offer matte as an option?...My guess is thats where this comes in:

A matte screen on the current imac would look retarded...

A matte screen doesnt work in the Aluminum/glass design and since more people buy glossy anyway...i guess they scrapped a matte option rather than scrap the design itself

So they decided to go with all glossy in the current iMac design AND stuck with that choice in this revision as well because consumers still bought the iMac...in large numbers despite the Glossy screen suggesting they like it or dont mind it that much

It all boils down to majority of consumers liking the glossy screen. It sucks for matte fans but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

Also, insulting the guy's intelligence? just because he voiced an opinion that contradicts your 'right-thinking'...seriously?

Now it would probably be "retarded" to put a shiny glass on top of a matte finish (although I fear that the OP would then proceed to defend it with the same vehemence)...

Whatever

 

[macrumorino]

Also, insulting the guy's intelligence? just because he voiced an opinion that contradicts your 'right-thinking'...seriously?

Whatever

Ahem. Please refer to whom originally referred to those that disagreed with him as "retarded". It sure wasn't me.

The rest of your points are well taken, but I don't see why we have to put up like happy campers with Apple's decision to rake in more money by cutting corners at the expense of our ability to choose something that we can put up with. Shouldn't a company also have some obligation to fulfill the users' needs?

On the other hand, they could just open up OSX to whichever manufacturer is willing to produce that which they choose not to produce themselves.

At the moment, yes, Apple is happy to just rake it in and turning an obnoxiously deaf ear to the customers that are disgusted by the lack of choice. But one significant reason that they are raking it in is that people hear about how great these machines are, and not about the shortcomings. So, if they start to hear about those shortcomings as well, then that's an incentive for Apple to do better.

 

[Analog Kid]

The rest of your points are well taken, but I don't see why we have to put up like happy campers with Apple's decision to rake in more money by cutting corners at the expense of our ability to choose something that we can put up with. Shouldn't a company also have some obligation to fulfill the users' needs?

On the other hand, they could just open up OSX to whichever manufacturer is willing to produce that which they choose not to produce themselves.

At the moment, yes, Apple is happy to just rake it in and turning an obnoxiously deaf ear to the customers that are disgusted by the lack of choice. But one significant reason that they are raking it in is that people hear about how great these machines are, and not about the shortcomings. So, if they start to hear about those shortcomings as well, then that's an incentive for Apple to do better.

Here's the question to ask yourself-- are you giving voice to the silent majority, speaking truth to power, or simply derailing a thread about CPU benchmarks?

 

[ukmacmonster]

At the moment, yes, Apple is happy to just rake it in and turning an obnoxiously deaf ear to the customers that are disgusted by the lack of choice

Apple only offer 4 iMac choices, all pretty much fixed in a spec that their customers are most likely to buy. If you are "disgusted" by the lack of choice, then iMacs are probably not for you. I'm still staying on the iMac bandwagon this time around as I quite like the 24" glossy, it's just a personal choice. If in the future Apple go in a different direction to my own needs I'll buy something else.

 

[DesignerOnMac]

Amen brother.....

Geez, its not a glossy screen, its friggin glass people, when have you ever seen a matt window, you dont get them, you only get frosted glass and i somehow get the idea that that would not be terribly good for a monitor. Remember good ol' CRT's they were glossy cos they were made of glass and people complained when they got one of these new fangled TFT's that didnt look as shiny.

Been saying that now for a long time. Even posted similar comments. I love my 24" 2.8 extreme with glossy screen! In fact I like it much better than the ADC I had previously!

 

[macrumorino]

Here's the question to ask yourself-- are you giving voice to the silent majority, speaking truth to power, or simply derailing a thread about CPU benchmarks?

Maybe all of the above?

Thread-drift is yet another malady of our times.

 

[macrumorino]

If in the future Apple go in a different direction to my own needs I'll buy something else.

So, just out of curiosity, which OS will you switch to then, windows or linux?

 

[stevieapollo]

New or old?

what's a better computer. The new 2.8Ghz, or the old 2.8Ghz, and how much better is the new 3.06Ghz vs 2.8Ghz? I will be editing with final cut and recording with logic. THE BIG ISSUE IS THE MONEY. SHOULD I SAVE $380 OR WILL IT PAY OFF DOWN THE LINE.

 

[Analog Kid]

what's a better computer. The new 2.8Ghz, or the old 2.8Ghz, and how much better is the new 3.06Ghz vs 2.8Ghz? I will be editing with final cut and recording with logic. THE BIG ISSUE IS THE MONEY. SHOULD I SAVE $380 OR WILL IT PAY OFF DOWN THE LINE.

Well, this one set of benchmarks suggest that the 3GHz is about 7% faster than the 2.8GHz. At standard Apple Store prices, the 3GHz is about 22% more expensive.

That's only one measure though, and these benchmarks aren't aimed at the kind of work you're doing.

There have also been indications that the high end Nvidia cards aren't as good at handling the pro apps, so you may find the more expensive video card slower for your final cut work. Barefeats has some numbers on the cards for the MP and people who know more about video cards than me can probably tell you how closely those numbers will relate to the iMac cards.

You can apply similar logic to the distinctions between current gen and previous gen 2.8 machines.

 

[ukmacmonster]

So, just out of curiosity, which OS will you switch to then, windows or linux?

Windows, as I use it already extensively at work. But I'm still on the Apple bandwagon at home and certainly prefer OSX. Actually it's not the OS I'm that bothered about, it's the integrated software apps that I'd miss most. I just prefer the Apple hardware/software package and Apple haven't done anything to piss me off yet.

Also if the high end iMacs eventually disappear i.e crap displays in every model, I may consider a switch to a low spec Mac Pro. But this is all hypothetical. I'm looking forward to my new 24" iMac arriving next week, OSX and all

 

[xbjllb]

How DARE you?

How DARE you complain to the great Apple that blu-ray isn't available yet, and won't be because they will wait until they can claim it's obsolete? (They NEVER wait to get ANYTHING right but rush it right out to be beta-tested by early adopters. How DARE you complain about THAT?)

How DARE you complain about glossy screens you can't use in rooms with windows?

How DARE you complain about video cards, support, and the lack thereof?

How DARE you complain about Mac technology being behind what you can do on a CHEAPER windows machine? (Author blu-ray discs, for starters).

How DARE you complain about Apple beta-testing versions of the OS until X.X.4 or X.X.5, and then screwing all the rest up until the last version as they create demand (accidentally or conveniently on purpose) for the NEXT big cat down the line?

How DARE you complain about Apple pandering to gamers and iGadgeters instead of high end high ticket buying prop app content creators?

How DARE you blame Apple when it was YOU who was stupid enough to believe the marketing?

How DARE you tell the world why Apple WON'T be getting your money anytime soon "when they have millions of customers buying their stuff and they don't need you."

No, really, don't go away mad; JUST GO AWAY.

That's EXACTLY the attitude that determines why and when companies eventually and inevitably FAIL.

How DARE you predict Apple's future?

How DARE you?

 

[akidd]

KT fan?

How DARE you complain to the great Apple that blu-ray isn't available yet, and won't be because they will wait until they can claim it's obsolete? (They NEVER wait to get ANYTHING right but rush it right out to be beta-tested by early adopters. How DARE you complain about THAT?)

How DARE you complain about glossy screens you can't use in rooms with windows?

How DARE you complain about video cards, support, and the lack thereof?

How DARE you complain about Mac technology being behind what you can do on a CHEAPER windows machine? (Author blu-ray discs, for starters).

How DARE you complain about Apple beta-testing versions of the OS until X.X.4 or X.X.5, and then screwing all the rest up until the last version as they create demand (accidentally or conveniently on purpose) for the NEXT big cat down the line?

How DARE you complain about Apple pandering to gamers and iGadgeters instead of high end high ticket buying prop app content creators?

How DARE you blame Apple when it was YOU who was stupid enough to believe the marketing?

How DARE you tell the world why Apple WON'T be getting your money anytime soon "when they have millions of customers buying their stuff and they don't need you."

No, really, don't go away mad; JUST GO AWAY.

That's EXACTLY the attitude that determines why and when companies eventually and inevitably FAIL.

How DARE you predict Apple's future?

How DARE you?

Katherine Tate fan? (Google it for non-UK readers). Can we expect any Dr Who? quotes...

 

[Rendwich]

The 8800m has only been out for a few months. This is no desktop card. There is no mobile quad core available until later this year.

Which would matter if the iMac was a mobile computer.

It's not.

"Sure, I paid $2K for a non-expandable desktop made of laptop parts. Yes, it gets too hot. No, I can't choose my own monitor."

I never cease to be stunned by the Apple Sheeple.

 

[Rendwich]

Quick question to the iMac haters. What system would you recommend buying instead at the same price point? Primary uses are amateur photo & video editing/cataloging and web surfing. And I don't really want an ugly huge box tower spoiling the ambience of my study.

The fact that you'll pay > $2000 for PHOTO EDITING and WEB SURFING says it all. Oh and the "ambience of your study".

I recommend jumping off the highest place you can find.

 

[flopticalcube]

Which would matter if the iMac was a mobile computer.

It's not.

"Sure, I paid $2K for a non-expandable desktop made of laptop parts. Yes, it gets too hot. No, I can't choose my own monitor."

I never cease to be stunned by the Apple Sheeple.

I never cease to be stunned by people who cannot grasp the reason why Apple chose mobile parts for its iMacs.

If you don't like it, buy something else.

 

[Eidorian]

I never cease to be stunned by people who cannot grasp the reason why Apple chose mobile parts for its iMacs.

If you don't like it, buy something else.

Apple didn't want to wait for Conroe.

 

[Mackilroy]

Rendwich, do you have a problem with people buying something that's useful for them? If they like it and it works, and it's in their price range, why should they 'jump off a cliff?' And there are iMacs cheaper than $2000.

 

[chadder007]

Which would matter if the iMac was a mobile computer.

It's not.

"Sure, I paid $2K for a non-expandable desktop made of laptop parts. Yes, it gets too hot. No, I can't choose my own monitor."

I never cease to be stunned by the Apple Sheeple.

If they didn't use laptop parts, you would have a noisy fan or the unit would get even hotter.

 

[Eidorian]

If they didn't use laptop parts, you would have a noisy fan or the unit would get even hotter.

Please note that the current higher clocked components are nearly producing enough heat to be considered desktop components.

As much as we can toss TDP around keep in mind the lower clocked E4/6xxx Series processors are quite cool as well. You're hard pressed to break 50° C using Intel's standard cooler at stock speeds.

 

[macrumorino]

If they didn't use laptop parts, you would have a noisy fan or the unit would get even hotter.

Eh... would you give them the option to build a better housing for the hardware so it wouldn't do that? They're so clever, those Cupertino guys, I'm sure they could come up with something.

 

[daneoni]

Here's my Geekbench results for the 2007 iMac 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/36604

As you can see, it beats the new 3.06GHz Penryn iMac.

What's up with that?

1st off Geekbench isnt all that reliable

2nd you're running with 4GB of memory they only had the default 2GB

3rd you seem to have been running the 64bit version of the app....they may have ran the 32bit version

 

[bluefido]

On the other hand, they could just open up OSX to whichever manufacturer is willing to produce that which they choose not to produce themselves.

At the moment, yes, Apple is happy to just rake it in and turning an obnoxiously deaf ear to the customers that are disgusted by the lack of choice. But one significant reason that they are raking it in is that people hear about how great these machines are, and not about the shortcomings. So, if they start to hear about those shortcomings as well, then that's an incentive for Apple to do better.

I don't really consider Apple the "BMW" of computer manufacturers. I prefer a Mac, but I'm not so fanboyish to believe that Apple is the greatest at everything it does. Fanboys can be a bit elitist, and frankly, annoying to me. However, I can see why Apple is not willing to open up the OS to other manfacturers. Apple makes a large majority of its profits off of hardware sales. I like my MacBook but also understand it is not exactly the most cutting edge in terms of hardware goodies. It is not really hard math to go through one's head. Opening up the OS would absolutely kill Apple in the long run.

As for your other arguments, I don't believe most customers are "disgusted by the lack of choice." Every Apple customer wants the latest and greatest in hardware, but I believe most already know (though may not admit it) that they are sacrificing certain flexibility in hardware for the sake of convenience and the ability to use OS X. There are of course customers who are "disgusted by the lack of choice," but honestly, I could care less. No one is forcing such customers to buy Apple products. As much as I can't stand fanboys, I also can't stand persons that believe "X" company has to accommodate every desire that he or she demands. It is totally egocentric.

All of which makes me wonder why the hell I am on this forum. I guess I enjoy Chinese water torture.

 

[Tattoo]

How DARE you complain to the great Apple that blu-ray isn't available yet, and won't be because they will wait until they can claim it's obsolete? (They NEVER wait to get ANYTHING right but rush it right out to be beta-tested by early adopters. How DARE you complain about THAT?)

How DARE you complain about glossy screens you can't use in rooms with windows?

How DARE you complain about video cards, support, and the lack thereof?

How DARE you complain about Mac technology being behind what you can do on a CHEAPER windows machine? (Author blu-ray discs, for starters).

How DARE you complain about Apple beta-testing versions of the OS until X.X.4 or X.X.5, and then screwing all the rest up until the last version as they create demand (accidentally or conveniently on purpose) for the NEXT big cat down the line?

How DARE you complain about Apple pandering to gamers and iGadgeters instead of high end high ticket buying prop app content creators?

How DARE you blame Apple when it was YOU who was stupid enough to believe the marketing?

How DARE you tell the world why Apple WON'T be getting your money anytime soon "when they have millions of customers buying their stuff and they don't need you."

No, really, don't go away mad; JUST GO AWAY.

That's EXACTLY the attitude that determines why and when companies eventually and inevitably FAIL.

How DARE you predict Apple's future?

How DARE you?

How DARE you give ME a headache!

 

[macrumorino]

There are of course customers who are "disgusted by the lack of choice," but honestly, I could care less. No one is forcing such customers to buy Apple products. As much as I can't stand fanboys, I also can't stand persons that believe "X" company has to accommodate every desire that he or she demands. It is totally egocentric.

Oh no, nobody is saying that Apple has to accommodate every desire. Hyperbole, no doubt. It should be good enough if Apple got out of the way of those that would provide the hardware that they themselves refuse to produce.

If a person want to run OSX, apparently, you think it's OK if his only choice is to buy an Apple computer, even if he is disgusted by the lack of choice that they offer. And yet, you don't see anything being forced there. "Forced" is a tricky, loaded term; sometimes it means at gunpoint, sometimes it means a massive inconvenience. Apparently, you think that Apple has the right to (legally) force other companies not to install OSX on the hardware that they sell.

Are you actually in favor of Apple forcing things in such a way?

I don't think it's "egocentric" to want to run the operating system of one's liking on the hardware of one's liking, as long as it is technically feasible. If the obvious hardware vendor (in this case, Apple) is dropping the ball on fulfilling your hardware needs, how is it "egocentric" to seek your hardware elsewhere?

I find it a bit silly to talk about such Apple users as "egocentric". Since you are interested in the phenomenom of egocentrism, I am surprised that you did not see fit to consider that of the Apple CEO.

Anyway, to combat, mildly, the terrible thread drift: what's the verdict, is a 1066 Mhz bus slow, kinda slow, average, above average, or pretty zippy for a $1200--2300 ($200-400 monitor included), mid-2008 intel-based desktop model? I'm leaning towards kinda slow/average myself but I could be persuaded that it is otherwise.