2011 Quad-Core 3.4GHz i7 Unboxing & Geekbench..Over 12,000!

Discussion in 'iMac' started by MacHead04, May 3, 2011.

  1. MacHead04 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    #1
  2. rnelan7 macrumors 6502

    rnelan7

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Location:
    Boise
    #2
    Very cool videos, that HD iMac camera looks sharp.
     
  3. CheesePuff macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Location:
    Southwest Florida, USA
    #3
    Can't watch the video right now.. is it the 64-bit version?
     
  4. archer75 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #4
    While I appreciate the videos i'm not a fan of synthetic benchmarks. Let's see what it can do in real world tests!
     
  5. MacHead04 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    #5
    Yes it is :D
     
  6. mackage, May 3, 2011
    Last edited: May 3, 2011

    mackage macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    #6
    It went up almost 2,400 points over lasts years top of the line BTO 2.93.

    I want to see what the 2.7 base does at 64 bit. Someone post a score in 32 bit at the mid 7,000's I believe and the 64 bit is usually about 1,500 points more. That would be pretty nice if the 27" base gets around 9,000.
     
  7. MacHead04 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    #7
    I completely agree and will have some real world tests over then next couple days. Anything you guys would like to see?
     
  8. archer75 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #8
    For me I want to see:
    Gaming at native resolution.
    video encoding in handbrake

    I'm sure some people would like to see some photoshop/aperture numbers.
     
  9. mackage macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    #9
    Jonathan,

    What did the 3.4 do at 32 bit? I am just trying to judge the difference in score.
     
  10. iSayuSay macrumors 68030

    iSayuSay

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    #11
    Wow .. that's crazy compared to standard i5 3.1Ghz .. :apple: should just make 3.4 Ghz a standard option, i'm okay with $2200 price tag as long as they're standard. Means they're easier to get rather than get yourself an i7 iMac for BTO option

    Good job Jonathan, as always .. well how about 2Gb DDR5 GPU, do you think GDDR will increase benchmark score significantly?
     
  11. hipnotizer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
  12. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #13
    So it's very comparable to the MBPs, I got 11036 when i benched mine (2.2GHz). Not that synthetic benchmarks are ever reliable.

    The Mac Pros still have the edge...well recent models do.
     
  13. mackage macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    #14
    The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is that the base iMac seems to be scoring lower than the base Macbook Pro by about 800 points in 32 bit. That is quite a difference. It doesn't make sense that Apple chose these options.
     
  14. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #15
    Hyper-Threading.
     
  15. drambuie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    #16
    Could you check "target display mode" in the 2011 iMac's help file, to see if it accepts Thunderbolt display input only, or if it also accepts minidisplayport video/audio in. I looked at the manual on-line, and on page 33, it said to refer to the help file for info on "target display mode".
     
  16. mackage macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    #17
    I didn't mean I don't understand why...I mean I don't understand why Apple thinks this is cool.

    Normally, and always, the desktops top the laptops. In this case, they really don't.
     
  17. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #18
    Oh right. My bad. To be fair it won't matter in the real-world. Sometimes HT even does more harm than good apparently.
     
  18. iSayuSay macrumors 68030

    iSayuSay

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    #19
    Well of course gaming benchmark, Crysis or Crysis2 as usual, GTA IV at maximum settings, BlackOps

    Too bad Battlefield 3 not released yet, otherwise that would be a huge milestone for new iMac as an excellent gaming machine
     
  19. reclusive46 macrumors 65816

    reclusive46

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Location:
    Canada
  20. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #21
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

    The iMac desktop CPUs are much faster than the mbp mobile CPUs. Stop worrying about synthetic and pointless benchmarks.

    Intel and apple engineers are not as stupid as you seem to think.
     
  21. SideStepSociety macrumors 6502

    SideStepSociety

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #22
    You said Quad-core twice at the end of the unboxing.

    "OMG, duz that mean it can haz double quad-cores!? Octo-core!!?" :p

    Great unboxing though, I thoroughly enjoyed it. :D
     
  22. ezekielrage_99 macrumors 68040

    ezekielrage_99

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    #23
    +1 to that..

    If I were to buy I would only use it for games and ripping/converting video.
     
  23. Chazn macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
  24. iSayuSay macrumors 68030

    iSayuSay

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    #25
    Hmm some people just love those numbers too much. Maybe they just scared of losing bragging right, you know they've just spend $1000 to $2000 for a computer

    So they can't imagine their friends come to see that the new iMac can't even score 10000, that would be embarassing :D
     

Share This Page