2011 iMac models Geekbench score

Discussion in 'iMac' started by MythicFrost, May 5, 2011.

  1. MythicFrost macrumors 68040

    MythicFrost

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #1
  2. trackbikes macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    #2
  3. dlastmango macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Location:
    West Coast - FLORIDA
    #3
    Question?

    Question about the benchmark scores?
    If system "A" has a score of 3500 and system "B" has a score of 7000, Does it mean system B is 2 times faster than system A?

    I know real world results may vary, but how should these numbers be interpreted?

    Thanks
     
  4. roland.g macrumors 603

    roland.g

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Location:
    One mile up and soaring
    #4
    I just ran the latest release of Geekbench on my Aug 2007 2.8 Ghz Extreme 24" iMac. It came in at 3890. I think the new base 27" 2.7 i5 Quad-Core at 7926 will be a nice improvement. :)
     
  5. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #5
    the speed is rarely a one to one ratio . Ie a geekbench of 15000 is not twice as fast as 7500 in every single job or test. But the 15000 machine is faster in just about every job you run over the 7500 machine.
     
  6. CoryBoyUSA macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    #6
    It's nice to see these collected in one place. It's possibly steering me toward the 2.93 i7 from last year that's $1569 in the refurb store (when available) instead of the new 3.1 i5, which is a bit under $1999 at MacMall. Now I just have to decide if dual Thunderbolt ports or a high-def webcam are worth going new instead. :)
     
  7. jborko macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    #7
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

    Cheers mate i was expecting charts like this. 27 i5 2.7 is my choice. Geekbench was not decisive but it reflects the specifics properly. According to me best value.

    I also think that results on geekbench are 32bit
     
  8. MythicFrost thread starter macrumors 68040

    MythicFrost

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #8
    Ah cool, and good to know :)
    No, not in every task. If you break the GeekBench score down it consists of different smaller scores in specific areas. I.E, it might perform 4x better in one area, but only 2x better in another.
    Nice, I'm after the 6970 myself :p
     
  9. AppleFan360 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
  10. mrzeigler macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    #10
    I've been flip-flopping a bit about what I'll ultimately go with when I buy my 2011 iMac, scrutinizing performance results and reading through the various posts that dissect everything about these machines.

    Then, today I decided to Geekbench the iMac that has served me well and that I'll be replacing.

    It's score? 552

    ***

    The basic, 2011 21.5" model's score is a 1,200 % improvement over my 2003 machine. I'm beginning to suspect I'll be satisfied by whichever I end up with.
     
  11. jgo78 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    #11
    My Geekbench score: 11817 (32bit)


    System Information

    Operating System Mac OS X 10.6.7 (Build 10J4138)
    Model iMac12,2 Motherboard Apple Inc. iMac12,2
    Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz
    Processor ID GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 42 Stepping 7
    Processors 1 Threads 8
    Cores 4 Memory 12.0 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
    Processor Frequency 3.40 GHz Bus Frequency 100.0 MHz
    L1 Instruction Cache 32.0 KB L1 Data Cache 32.0 KB
    L2 Cache 256 KB L3 Cache 8.00 MB
    BIOS Apple Inc. IM121.88Z.0047.B0A.1104221555
     
  12. charlieroberts macrumors 6502a

    charlieroberts

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2007
    #12
    I have to say, as many other I am disappointed, last year iMac refresh was all the rage because they were faster than some MP.
    This year with the new MBP I was extremely excited to maybe see iMacs tht were completely off the charts... Instead we get closer tho MBP than MP.

    Im not saying they aren't powerful, I just hoped the jump in encoding times from mi 2007 MBP would be bigger. Clearly its not a matter of life or death for my needs but now it has me debating on whether to etch out another year from my MBP.
     

Share This Page