Apple's New iMacs Up to 20% Faster Than Previous Models in Geekbench Testing

[MacRumors]

Apple's new 21.5-inch 4K and 27-inch 5K iMacs released yesterday have been subjected to early Geekbench 3 benchmarking, and the results show the late 2015 models are expectedly faster, with improved single-core and multi-core scores compared to previous-generation models.

The new iMacs are between roughly 7% and 20% faster than previous models in Geekbench testing, but it should be noted the results are based on single data points that will need to be averaged out against other benchmarking results for a more accurate comparison.

Japanese blog Mac Otakara benchmarked the new 21.5-inch 4K iMac, equipped with a 3.1GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 processor, and the desktop computer received 64-bit single-core and multi-core scores of 3,787 and 12,803 respectively. The comparable late 2013 model 2.9GHz iMac had single-core and multi-core scores of 3,543 and 10,685 respectively.

The late 2015 high-end non-Retina 21.5-inch iMac, equipped with a 2.8GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 processor, had a single-core score of 3,532 and multi-core score of 11,865. The comparable late 2013 model iMac, with a 2.7GHz Intel Core i5 processor, had single-core and multi-core scores of 3,175 and 10,199 respectively.

The lineup of new 27-inch 5K iMacs were also benchmarked, with the lower-end model equipped with a 3.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 processor receiving single-core and multi-core scores of 3,931 and 12,079 respectively. The higher-end 3.3GHz model earned a single-core score of 4,214 and multi-core score of 13,081.

The comparable late 2014 lower-end 5K iMac had an average single-core score of 3,329 and multi-core score of 10,632. The comparable mid 2015 high-end 5K iMac, configured with a 3.5GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 processor, had single-core and multi-core scores of 3,844 and 12,192 respectively.

Article Link: Apple's New iMacs Up to 20% Faster Than Previous Models in Geekbench Testing

 

[H2SO4]

So we didn't believe the Geekbench test with the Samsung/TSMC issue but we accept these results?

Not bad though, that multicore score is approaching my 6 core Mac pro.

 

[gpat]

Meanwhile, the standard 5400RPM hard drive is exactly 0% faster than the one in an 1999 iMac.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

This is good news.

Does anyone know if it has a TSMC chip?

 

[Wiesenlooser]

have to say I am impressed.

 

[pushingrobot]

Worth noting that these scores are below the old top-end i7-4790k model. It'll be interesting to see how the new BTO i7-6700 compares.

 

[scott911]

does the (lame) harddrive factor into these results?

 

[840quadra]

So we didn't believe the Geekbench test with the Samsung/TSMC issue but we accept these results?

Not bad though, that multicore score is approaching my 6 core Mac pro.

The article more or less addresses your concern.

The new iMacs are between roughly 7% and 20% faster than previous models in Geekbench testing, but it should be noted the results are based on single data points that will need to be averaged out against other benchmarking results for a more accurate comparison.

 

[xodh]

Worth noting that these scores are below the old top-end i7-4790k model. It'll be interesting to see how the new BTO i7-6700 compares.

Yes, I want to see that one too... these benchmarks are promising though.

 

[pushingrobot]

does the (lame) harddrive factor into these results?

No, these are CPU/memory tests only. Geekbench doesn't judge computer performance as a whole.

 

[StoneJack]

I am not in favor of 5400 hard drives, whenever I could, I would use 7200 hard drives.
However, the story of 5400 is not as straightforward as it seems, I think.
In 1999, disk cache was probably 2 mb, RAM was 64-128 mb, so disk caching was very, very heavy and performance was not optimal. They were also ATA hard drives.

Yes, now we still have 5400 disks, but they have much larger cache (8-64mb), SATA controllers, and have excellent reviews like this.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...re=hard_drive_5400_1TB-_-22-236-221-_-Product

So I wouldn't fixate much on RPM only. With much larger RAM (8GB standard), you don't have to use disk drive that much as before. I have OS X on my SSD drive and a reserve installation on usual hard drive 1TB (Seagate), and under normal use, except boot times, difference is not like that much.

 

[Crosscreek]

Not bad on the 21.5" and if it didn't have that 5400 spinner it would make a nice family pc.

 

[bkends35]

Well, my Mid-2012 rMPB is pretty much on par with these. It gets 13,xxx in multi. Not bad for 3 years old.

 

[segmentPage]

does the (lame) harddrive factor into these results?

Yes, it does. Otherwise the scores would have been better.
Its time, Apple at least makes a fusion drive with 24GB a standard.

 

[gpat]

I am not in favor of 5400 hard drives, whenever I could, I would use 7200 hard drives.
However, the story of 5400 is not as straightforward as it seems, I think.
In 1999, disk cache was probably 2 mb, RAM was 64-128 mb, so disk caching was very, very heavy and performance was not optimal. They were also ATA hard drives.

Yes, now we still have 5400 disks, but they have much larger cache (8-64mb), SATA controllers, and have excellent reviews like this.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...re=hard_drive_5400_1TB-_-22-236-221-_-Product

So I wouldn't fixate much on RPM only. With much larger RAM (8GB standard), you don't have to use disk drive that much as before. I have OS X on my SSD drive and a reserve installation on usual hard drive 1TB (Seagate), and under normal use, except boot times, difference is not like that much.

Nice try. But if you actually read the reviews on Newegg, they just confirm that a 5400rpm drive does not belong on the iMac. And everybody is complaining about the drive performance, because, you know, it comes from the same company that spoiled us with SSDs for 5+ years.

 

[jamesryanbell]

"Hard drive sucks". Yes it does. So upgrade it to an SSD when you buy one. It's not THAT much.

 

[mattopotamus]

When I look at the photo, the only thing I see is that new keyboard and trackpad......me want!

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Well, my Mid-2012 rMPB is pretty much on par with these. It gets 13,xxx in multi. Not bad for 3 years old.

Glad to hear it since I'm planning on jumping from my 8 year old iMac to the highest end rMBP as soon as Apple refreshes it with Skylake.

Wouldn't want to end up with a machine that could easily be beaten by an iMac.

 

[pat500000]

i5 processor? WTH? Apple, you've been smoking and drink a lot these days.

 

[69Mustang]

I am not in favor of 5400 hard drives, whenever I could, I would use 7200 hard drives.
However, the story of 5400 is not as straightforward as it seems, I think.
In 1999, disk cache was probably 2 mb, RAM was 64-128 mb, so disk caching was very, very heavy and performance was not optimal. They were also ATA hard drives.

Yes, now we still have 5400 disks, but they have much larger cache (8-64mb), SATA controllers, and have excellent reviews like this.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...re=hard_drive_5400_1TB-_-22-236-221-_-Product

So I wouldn't fixate much on RPM only. With much larger RAM (8GB standard), you don't have to use disk drive that much as before. I have OS X on my SSD drive and a reserve installation on usual hard drive 1TB (Seagate), and under normal use, except boot times, difference is not like that much.

That is one way of looking at it. Another way is 5400 rpm platters should not be in a premium computer; especially a premium priced computer. A $350 Best Buy bargain computer? Okay, understandable. A $1K+ machine? No amount of justification can make that seem right to me.

 

[bkends35]

i5 processor? WTH? Apple, you've been smoking and drink a lot these days.

Huh? The i5 is an outstanding processor. I don't think the i7 will be worth it for most people. The 5400rpm hard drive on the other hand..

 

[840quadra]

I am not in favor of 5400 hard drives, whenever I could, I would use 7200 hard drives.
However, the story of 5400 is not as straightforward as it seems, I think.
In 1999, disk cache was probably 2 mb, RAM was 64-128 mb, so disk caching was very, very heavy and performance was not optimal. They were also ATA hard drives.

Yes, now we still have 5400 disks, but they have much larger cache (8-64mb), SATA controllers, and have excellent reviews like this.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...re=hard_drive_5400_1TB-_-22-236-221-_-Product

So I wouldn't fixate much on RPM only. With much larger RAM (8GB standard), you don't have to use disk drive that much as before. I have OS X on my SSD drive and a reserve installation on usual hard drive 1TB (Seagate), and under normal use, except boot times, difference is not like that much.

I fully agree, and can relate to your thought process, and viewpoint of the subject. IO speeds on the 5400 RPM drive in my Mac Mini far surpass the speeds within my PowerPC G4 Digital Audio PowerMac with IDE.

Sadly people love to target fixate with the in problem of the week to either gain likes, or, because beating a dead horse is a favorite pass time. Last few weeks it was #TSMC, now #5400 is the hot topic, and quite honestly a tired joke. I am looking forward to the release of the new TV to see what 1st world issue plagues our forums with that device.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

we need a six core iMac before we see a real improvement

 

[Statusnone88]

Meanwhile... The AMD GPUs are still absolute garbage.

 

[scaramoosh]

Pay all that money to get an I5 and a mediocre GPU with only 2GB of vram that isn't enough to drive 4K.