2009 i7 2.8 vs 2011 i7 3.4 w/ encoding and FCE. NovaBench score?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by feeth, Jul 29, 2011.

  1. feeth, Jul 29, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2011

    feeth macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    #1
    I do a lot of Handbrake encoding and HD video processing with FCE.

    How much of a performance increase will I see with the 2011 model?

    Is the ram interchangeable between the two?

    Looks like the 3.4 at the refurb store is the best deal by far.

    TIA!

    Here is my Nova Bench score
     

    Attached Files:

  2. OptyCT macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #2
    I don't use NovaBench, but on Geekbench the comparison is as follows:

    i7 2.8 iMac - 2009
    9800 (64-bit)
    8600 (32-bit)

    i7 3.4 iMac - 2011
    14500 (64-bit)
    12000 (32-bit)
     
  3. feeth thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    #3
    Thank you!

    Anybody with a 3.4, can you download NovaBench and post up the results?

    TIA!
     
  4. hhaydenn macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Location:
    Australia
    #4
    Doing it now :)
    3.4Ghz Quad Core i7
    4GB 1333Mhz Ram
    2GB AMD Radeon 6970HD Graphics
    10.7 :)
     
  5. hhaydenn macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Location:
    Australia
  6. feeth thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    #6
    Thank you!

    Madness got the better part of me and I ordered a 3.4 with the 256ssd from the refurb store. :D
     
  7. 88 King, Jul 29, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2011

    88 King macrumors 6502

    88 King

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Location:
    London, UK
    #7
    Here is my result with a ssd, I noticed the CPU was idling between 73% to 84% during the test, and never pushed all the available threads. Also the RAM and hard drive scores seems to be based on the amount of free space and not hardware performance. Overall, I don't think you should base your buying decisionon the score of this benchmark.

    I normally use HandBrake in Windows because unlike OSX version, you can have more than one encoding at the same time. Depend on the settings, I can encode 3 movies at the same time on the new i7 with average 70 fps per encoding.

    My last Windows PC had an i7 960 @ 3.2GHz, i really did not saw too much performance increase in HandBrake with the i7 in imac.

    The ssd would not help much in HandBrake as you are likely to store movies on normal hard drive.
     

    Attached Files:

  8. carrako macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    #8
    Here are my results:

    iMac (iMac12,2)
    Intel Core i7 @ 3400 MHz
    16 GB - DDR3 @ 1333 MHz
    AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB
    256SSD + 1TB HDD
     

    Attached Files:

  9. 88 King macrumors 6502

    88 King

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Location:
    London, UK
    #9
    Can I ask did you got the ssd with Apple BTO? Reason I ask is Apple charges £480 (>$700) for the additional ssd option in the UK, and at that speed its nothing but a ripoff as the performance looks like a ssd from 4 years ago. You can find current generation ssd with 3X the performance for less money.
     
  10. carrako macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    #10
    I did notice your SSD speed is insanely faster then the BTO one in mine (96mb/s more). However, I did not want to mess with installing the ssd myself and have something go wrong/void a warranty. So i thought i would sacrifice some speed for peace of mind and warranty. Either way, coming from my old 2008 iMac, the BTO ssd is faster than i need at the moment.

    Also, the BTO Apple ssd is $500 in the US, so after looking online at other 256 ssd options, the price was actually more understandable.

    What ssd are you running?
     
  11. feeth thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    #11
    In the outlet is was $420 more for the 256GB SSD in place of the 1TB standard.
     
  12. 88 King macrumors 6502

    88 King

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Location:
    London, UK
    #12
    I'm running Crucial RealSSD C300 256GB divided between OSX and Bootcamp. It is one of last year's top dog, so not the fastest out there but it was half the cost of Apple BTO in UK.

    I think the test result was for maximum sequential write speed, it not something we do every day on a ssd like transfer large files. The random write speed result will be much closer and reflect better on what ssd does day to day like open programs and access small files. I don't think there are much difference between the ssd in every day usage.
     
  13. aliensporebomb macrumors 68000

    aliensporebomb

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN, USA, Urth
    #13
    For comparison...

    For comparisons sake:

    my 2009 27" iMac Corei7 with 16 gigs of 1333 mhz ram:

    [​IMG]

    I'll have to try that Novabench.
     

Share This Page