Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

dannys1

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Sep 19, 2007
3,667
6,810
UK
Got the new top spec iMac in today, also tested it with 64gb of Ram and 32gb of Ram. As usual found that "high performing ram" actually does worse in the iMac than the cheapest stuff you can buy, go figure! (Not that there's much or anything noticable in it, but it's always a few ticks lower than the cheaper stuff)

Results here if anyone is interested...

iMac 4.2ghz 64gb of Ram.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3116984

iMac 4.2ghz 32GB of Ram.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3117118
 
  • Like
Reactions: keysofanxiety

keysofanxiety

macrumors G3
Nov 23, 2011
9,539
25,302
Oh that multicore score is disgustingly high :eek: *narrows eyes at 15" 2012 MBP*

I really hope you're happy with your iMac mate. I imagine it handles everything you can throw at it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Traverse

keysofanxiety

macrumors G3
Nov 23, 2011
9,539
25,302
Definitely making me rethink processor choice before I purchase

Yeah the i7-7700K is a bit of a beast. These new iMacs are absolutely savage, though mainly for the dGPUs. I know there's the odd slice of negativity around here from time to time but boy that last WWDC was one of the best I've ever seen.

Even though I use LPX & FCPX heavily they still 'just run' on my MBP, though of course they could be much quicker. But these new computers will obliterate any Pro App you can chuck at them. I can't even imagine what a top spec iMac Pro would do for one's workflow.
 

imacken

macrumors 65816
Feb 28, 2010
1,232
127
Got the new top spec iMac in today, also tested it with 64gb of Ram and 32gb of Ram. As usual found that "high performing ram" actually does worse in the iMac than the cheapest stuff you can buy, go figure! (Not that there's much or anything noticable in it, but it's always a few ticks lower than the cheaper stuff)

Results here if anyone is interested...

iMac 4.2ghz 64gb of Ram.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3116984

iMac 4.2ghz 32GB of Ram.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3117118
Impressive, but not so much more than my late 2015 iMac. 5-10%? I would have expected more of a difference.
 

keysofanxiety

macrumors G3
Nov 23, 2011
9,539
25,302
Impressive, but not so much more than my late 2015 iMac. 5-10%? I would have expected more of a difference.

Blame Intel on that one. Also dGPU performance in FCPX/LPX will be far more than a 10% increase which paper benchmarks (especially CPU/RAM heavy ones like Geekbench) don't really reflect.
 

dannys1

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Sep 19, 2007
3,667
6,810
UK
What ram are you using?

Tried all brands (even mixed brands) none of it makes any difference, lower CLI doesn't make any different, "performance ram" neither. Just buy the cheapest, basic Crucial performs the same (it's had 64GB was using Corsair Vengeance Performance, the 32GB that performed better was using mixed budget brands, Hynix, Kingston and Micron, also did another 32GB with all Crucial, and have tried some 16's with Hynix and Crucial. Results all the same)
[doublepost=1497480389][/doublepost]
Blame Intel on that one. Also dGPU performance in FCPX/LPX will be far more than a 10% increase which paper benchmarks (especially CPU/RAM heavy ones like Geekbench) don't really reflect.
Oh that multicore score is disgustingly high :eek: *narrows eyes at 15" 2012 MBP*

I really hope you're happy with your iMac mate. I imagine it handles everything you can throw at it!

This one's not for me yet. Think i'm going to stick with my current iMac for a bit yet as I barely use it compared to the MacBook Pro. Probably be tempted to jump with OWC release the ThunderBay 6 though and I can't rack up 6 SSD's in there to saturate the Thunderbolt 3 connection!

Do you know of any GPU benchmarks I could run on the Mac, be interesting to see how it compares to the 4GB Radeon upgrade in my iMac and might help people see how it'll do in Final Cut etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: willmtaylor

keysofanxiety

macrumors G3
Nov 23, 2011
9,539
25,302
Do you know of any GPU benchmarks I could run on the Mac, be interesting to see how it compares to the 4GB Radeon upgrade in my iMac and might help people see how it'll do in Final Cut etc

Errhm can't say for sure, though this one looks pretty good and the screenshots seem familiar with previous posts on MR: http://www.geeks3d.com/gputest/

At the very least, a side-by-side comparison should give you an idea of the performance difference. Please post your results!
 

trsblader

macrumors 6502
May 20, 2011
450
203
I know there's the odd slice of negativity around here from time to time but boy that last WWDC was one of the best I've ever seen.

Shhhhhhh you're not allowed to give Apple compliments around here. I agree though and I can't wait to upgrade. My 2011 base model iMac is doing just fine, but starting to limit me on a day to day basis. The 2015's were tempting, but I was still only 50/50 with them. These new models easily put me over the top and seeing benchmarks and comments like the OP's and others are just icing on the cake.
 

Trebuin

macrumors 65816
Jun 3, 2008
1,494
272
Central Cali
Got the new top spec iMac in today, also tested it with 64gb of Ram and 32gb of Ram. As usual found that "high performing ram" actually does worse in the iMac than the cheapest stuff you can buy, go figure! (Not that there's much or anything noticable in it, but it's always a few ticks lower than the cheaper stuff)

Results here if anyone is interested...

iMac 4.2ghz 64gb of Ram.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3116984

iMac 4.2ghz 32GB of Ram.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3117118
When you tested the lower CL memory vs regular memory, I'm assuming you were testing only 2400MHz DDR4. Also, when you tested the lower CL, was it only the low CL memory or did you mix the memory? I don't know if the computer has to bump the CL to the max to match like it does with the speed rating. I'm interested because I may return my memory that was sold as low CL but actually was not.
 

btrach144

macrumors demi-god
Aug 28, 2015
2,884
7,140
Indiana
Impressive, but not so much more than my late 2015 iMac. 5-10%? I would have expected more of a difference.
Your 32 GB 6700K compared to his 32 GB 7700K comes out to 10% increase. That's about what Intel has been averaging over the past couple of years.

As others have said, Geekbench is CPU. Other items such as the faster NVMe SSDs, faster GPUs, faster memory, and faster IO (Bluetooth 4.2 vs 4.0 and Thunderbolt 3) should make for an all around improvement. Not to mention brighter screen with ability to display even more colors.

With that being said, should a 2015 iMac user like you upgrade? No. For someone such as myself upgrading from a broken 2011 MBP, the changes are welcomed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dannys1

imacken

macrumors 65816
Feb 28, 2010
1,232
127
Your 32 GB 6700K compared to his 32 GB 7700K comes out to 10% increase. That's about what Intel has been averaging over the past couple of years.

As others have said, Geekbench is CPU. Other items such as the faster NVMe SSDs, faster GPUs, faster memory, and faster IO (Bluetooth 4.2 vs 4.0 and Thunderbolt 3) should make for an all around improvement. Not to mention brighter screen with ability to display even more colors.

With that being said, should a 2015 iMac user like you upgrade? No. For someone such as myself upgrading from a broken 2011 MBP, the changes are welcomed.
I want to upgrade because of the GPU. I’d love to see some GPU benchmarks on the new 580 Pro. Heaven, Cinebench, Geekbench 3?
 
  • Like
Reactions: btrach144

Trebuin

macrumors 65816
Jun 3, 2008
1,494
272
Central Cali
I want to upgrade because of the GPU. I’d love to see some GPU benchmarks on the new 580 Pro. Heaven, Cinebench, Geekbench 3?
Cinebench R15 at default settings:
OpenGL- 126.56 on first run
CPU 4 threads only (hits only 50% cpu)- 713cb
CPU 8 threats only (hits 100% cpu)- 935cb
 

Traverse

macrumors 604
Mar 11, 2013
7,702
4,465
Here
Okay, so my high-end late 2013 15" MacBook Pro scores:

Single: 3499
Multi: 13508

A notable improvement. I wonder if it will be very apparent.
[doublepost=1497493379][/doublepost]
I know there's the odd slice of negativity around here from time to time but boy that last WWDC was one of the best I've ever seen.

I have to agree. I jumped for joy when I could finally buy my first desktop.

New iMac + iPad Pro 10.5

I've never spent so much in a WWDC. It's an odd mixture of giddy and shame...
 
  • Like
Reactions: keysofanxiety

dannys1

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Sep 19, 2007
3,667
6,810
UK
I'll be honest, in initially impressions side by side with my late 2015 iMac, I didn't really notice any differences in screen quality.

I'm not sure increased brightness is any benefit without the ability to display HDR content, which would be a great boon (and I can't believe more wasn't made of the iPad being able to do it, I assume because the iPad is only 600 nits which isn't really bright enough to do it justice, Netflix/Amazon etc won't run HDR content on it)

HDR in the iMac (or at least the iMac Pro) would be very useful if people want to make HDR content though.
[doublepost=1497522317][/doublepost]
When you tested the lower CL memory vs regular memory, I'm assuming you were testing only 2400MHz DDR4. Also, when you tested the lower CL, was it only the low CL memory or did you mix the memory? I don't know if the computer has to bump the CL to the max to match like it does with the speed rating. I'm interested because I may return my memory that was sold as low CL but actually was not.

Yes 2400 DDR4, that's all it'll accept (though I assume it'll run lower speeds as the 2015 iMacs did)

Yes the lower CL was all the same the Corsair premium stuff (which is actually cheapest 64gb you can get at the minute anyway) - as with my tests on the 2015 iMac, it doesn't make any difference and if anything consistently came in about 0.2% worse than the standard stuff Crucial sell. So unless it's cheaper, don't bother buying it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: willmtaylor

Trebuin

macrumors 65816
Jun 3, 2008
1,494
272
Central Cali
I'll be honest, in initially impressions side by side with my late 2015 iMac, I didn't really notice any differences in screen quality.

I'm not sure increased brightness is any benefit without the ability to display HDR content, which would be a great boon (and I can't believe more wasn't made of the iPad being able to do it, I assume because the iPad is only 600 nits which isn't really bright enough to do it justice, Netflix/Amazon etc won't run HDR content on it)

HDR in the iMac (or at least the iMac Pro) would be very useful if people want to make HDR content though.
[doublepost=1497522317][/doublepost]

Yes 2400 DDR4, that's all it'll accept (though I assume it'll run lower speeds as the 2015 iMacs did)

Yes the lower CL was all the same the Corsair premium stuff (which is actually cheapest 64gb you can get at the minute anyway) - as with my tests on the 2015 iMac, it doesn't make any difference and if anything consistently came in about 0.2% worse than the standard stuff Crucial sell. So unless it's cheaper, don't bother buying it.

Were you able to check the differences in the CLs on both crucial using cpuz on bootcamp to make sure? That's how I discovered my CL11 ram was actually CL17, which is almost double the delay. The best I can find now is CL14 memory, but I may or may not switch. Crucial standard should be CL17. Best for their premium is CL16 which may be too small to impact anything.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.