Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's New iMacs Up to 20% Faster Than Previous Models in Geekbench Testing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nahh... My 2014 top-specs iMac 5k with i7 custom upgrade is still faster 
.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/1061688
. http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/1061688
Not that I'm a fan of anything but an SSD, but to be accurate, higher density platters have considerably improved performance. I agree that Apple should stop offering anything but Fusion or SSD only.
Oh my, I think we agree
Apple really should be pushing us towards SSDs. They did this with the iphone, and finally killed the ipod classic. They are doing that with the ipads. They are doing that with the Mac Air and MacBook. None of these even have a hard drive option. I would have expected them to start pushing SSD further up their line, but it seems they have taken a step back. Maybe temporary in order to get the 4k out, but they really do need to get back to the march for SSD.
I think it is much more about the way they sell this weak hardware. When Phil Schiller states in the press release that "the spirit of iMac has never wavered — deliver the ultimate desktop experience with the latest technologies, gorgeous displays and cutting-edge designs", this might be true for the display as well as for the design, although the thick bezel and the overall appearance of the body hasn't changed much since 2009, which is an eternity in the digital world, but I think it is a blatant lie.
They ship only the 27" iMac with the latest Skylake CPUs, use no DDR4, use no Thunderbolt 3, no USB C, no dedicated GPU option on the 21,5" iMac... THAT would be the latest technology, Phil! Instead they still ship the entry options with outdated HDDs, just to push the consumers to Fusion Drives, where they shrunk the Flash memory down from 128 GB to 24 GB to maximize profit. Why don't they include a 250 GB or 500 GB SSD in the base model? I think it is because then, they couldn't charge $200 or $500 for it (fun fact: the rMBP can get a 1 TB SSD for $500 more). It is really a shame to take this computer and to put the vision behind it on the same level of the first iMac.
It may sound harsh, but this is pure greed showing that there is no intent to give their customers the best hardware. They chose to satisfy their Stakeholders, not their customers. In the short term, they may succeed, but in the long term, I am deeply worried about the company that I really admire.
Hmm. I'll be using my new 5k mostly for photo editing in LR and Photoshop. Some 4k video stuff here and there. I opted for 16gb ram and SSD, but was torn on whether to choose the 395x 4GB graphics upgrade or the i7. I ended up going with the bigger graphics card, thinking the i5 3.3 would be plenty fast. Wondering if I should have done the other way around?
In addition to video editing here and there, I just couldn't help but assume the bigger graphics card would help push all those pixels around. I'd hate to see laggy UI anywhere.
In addition to video editing here and there, I just couldn't help but assume the bigger graphics card would help push all those pixels around. I'd hate to see laggy UI anywhere.
I will say this is encouraging, even though I am largely disappointed in the components being used.
You can't be serious...
Don't worry, I'm always moaning about some awful moves by Apple when few others do.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 newTV to see what 1st world issue plagues our forums with that device.
You want an uncommon one now? Here's one:
How are we still using HFS+ in 2015?
It surely doesn't have to die completely, but they really need a more modern filesystem rather sooner than later.
Glassed Silver:mac
If I were to buy the 4k iMac, I'm already on the hook for 1,500 and I have to add 500 bucks for a decent sized SSD, pushing the computer in the 2k range and I still have no dGPU option? Yes, people can configure the components to improve the performance but that does drive the price up.
The i7 top-end model should be smoking. I'm expecting a 19,000 benchmark, making it a worthy purchase.
I'm curious if Apple is going to update their MacPros ASAP (the Skylake Xeons) or if the iMac will become competition for MacPros through the year.
I'm curious if Apple is going to update their MacPros ASAP (the Skylake Xeons) or if the iMac will become competition for MacPros through the year.
There's no legitimate reason for Apple not to make Fusion drives standard on base models. It's time.
Then this is recommended reading,
http://tscholak.github.io/bayesianism/apple/chipgate/2015/10/14/chipgate.html
These results present strong evidence that the Geekbench battery performance of the TSMC chip is on average much better than that of the Samsung chip.
Torsten Scholak
Postdoc at University of Toronto ⋅ Ph.D. in theoretical physics
Last edited:
I'm super interested in the 6700 results as well. Windows 64-bit 6700 clocks in the 18,000-18,500 range. Not too shabby...
Other than clock speed, i7 only exhibits improved performance running programs that can take advantage of hyper-threading. Most people will never really take advantage of this.
if the entry level isnt good enough for you, then upgrade that option. problem solved. please drive thru...