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

[JustThinkin']

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.

Compatible Skylake Xeons are about a year out, and there's no way an i7 is going to be faster in an iMac than in a Windows machine! Especially when you consider how many of those Windows Geekbench results are using overclocked processors.

The good news, however, is that in my (limited) Windows testing the Skylake processors had less propensity to throttle under sustained loads. If it hold true in the iMacs, this could actually become the biggest advantage of the new processor generation, with the potential to replace some low-end Mac Pros.


However, Apple still needs to update the Mac Pros to the current socket 2011-3 processors, which far outrun these new iMac socket 1151 processors (just as most of the current Mac Pros already do).

 

[Thunderhawks]

Is someone pointing a gun to your head demanding you go with the base drive? You should call the police!

That would be the Hard Drive police please!

As I wrote in another post. HDs should no longer be available in any of Apples "consumer" lines

 

[NOV]

Interesting in buying...finally upgrading my MacPro 2008
Anyone knows if the video option on the 27" inch model AMD Radeon R9 M395X is of any help with video editing (FCP) compared to the standard video card?

 

[DudeDad]

Tired of everyone complaining about the HD. I bought the 5K earlier this year, with an SSD drive (and OWC memory: 32GB)-- I only have the OS and applications on the SSD, so there's plenty of room; attached by thunderbolt is a Oyen Digital Thunderbolt drive with 4 3TB drives for my 100,000 photos (large files), 26,000 songs (mostly Apple lossless format), many videos etc. Unlimited storage and you'd never know any of the files were NOT on the SSD. Works perfect in Lightroom.

 

[Max(IT)]

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.

A totally different test bench.
Here we are speaking about performance, in the Samsung/TSMC hysteria we are speaking about battery life.
No one said Geekbench test suite is bad. Actually is widely used and valid.
There is a strange behavior in a single test with a single SoC (A9) that need to be investigated.

It is quite interesting that you keep attacking the iPhone even in a thread that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the iPhone .....

 

[MacHiavelli]

Think Apple is readying ARM Macs.

By managing/limiting expectations now, we'll all be thrilled when fast ARM Macs equipped with SSDs are finally released.

Intel's days in the sun are coming to an end.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/15...ated-by-higher-chip-prices-server-iot-markets

The age of the traditional desktop is essentially over.

 

[2457282]

We agree? Oh hell no! I change my mind about what I said. 5400 rpm platters are just fine.

Seriously, I vote with my wallet. If I liked AIO's, which I don't, that hard drive would be unacceptable to me at that starting price point. I've been waiting for 2 years for an acceptable mac mini. Reality is setting in that it's never going to happen, so I've started looking at NUC's. SSD's? 100% agree (what the hell is wrong with me). At a minimum, fusion drive should be offered.

So what is it about AIOs that you do not like. I can see a use case for those that tinker a bit, but for 90% of most users, the AIO is probably the best option. During my dark days of PC life , I built my own so that I could have exactly what I wanted. but dealing with bios and drivers and integration issues took too much of my time. Now I love the AOI because there is nothing to do other than use it. Of course if they start sliding into the PC hell of using sub-par components this could become a serious issue.

Personally, I think I may not buy another desktop anyway, at least not for home. I think between an ipad and a laptop, I have everything I need. Especially when you consider that you can airplay to your 60 inch 4k TV screen through the ATV (does that support 4k yet?).

 

[Max(IT)]

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.

Well, you are right, but boot time, applications loading times and data load/writes still are influenced by hdd speed.
I frankly think an SSD, or at least a Fusion Drive solution, is the minimum to have in such an high end computer

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.

Do not forget about the integrated GPU, mate
Another hot topic bashers are pursuing....

 

[JustThinkin']

Honestly at this point I am hoping they skip right to Kaby Lake.

No, they shouldn't. Skylake appears to have much improved thermal performance, which matters a lot in a laptop.

 

[Zirel]

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.

Enough of this BS

http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/desktops/lenovo/a-series/a740/?sb=:000001C9:000154FE:

This Lenovo costs the same as the 4K Retina, but has a FHD display... and a 5400rpm hard drive

http://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/desktops/hp-z1-g2-workstation-(energy-star)-p-f1l91ut-aba--1

This HP starts above the 5K Retina, at $2,899, but has a qHD display... and has a 1TB hard drive, yes, for that money you get something a little better and noisier, at 7200rpm

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=up275k3

Dell's 5K monitor doesn't have a keyboard, mouse, CPU, GPU, Hard Drive, SSD, etc. etc. etc. and costs more than a baseline 5K Mac!

And many, many more.

Stop acting like Apple is the only ones not offering a super expensive PCI-Express SSD in the baseline. You get what you pay for...

 

[mdriftmeyer]

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.

You made the right choice. The OpenCL support alone for your apps and OS X off-loading to the GPGPU far exceeds anything the i7 can offset from the i5.

 

[SlipperySlop]

does the (lame) harddrive factor into these results?

Perhaps lame to you and some people here. But Apple's business overwhelmingly comes not from people who read forums and joke about the TSMC chip, but from regular folks who will be quite happy with the base model iMac and a 5400 rpm drive and it will serve them very well. Those that won't more power will have options. There is nothing wrong with Apple keeping the price down for the base model for those who will be quite happy with it.

 

[AndrewWx]

I am telling myself that the 27" update was sort of a slap dash get something refreshed in time for Xmas thing. Hoping that there will be another update later this spring with more of the bells and whistles like TB3. If not I guess I will sit pat and wait for the Kaby Lake version. Oh well - like Spock says "often times wanting is better than having"

 

[felt.]

Meanwhile people running geekbench on windows with a 6700K are getting 27,000

 

[840quadra]

No, they shouldn't. Skylake appears to have much improved thermal performance, which matters a lot in a laptop.

What exactly does that have to do with Kaby Lake? It's the newer technology that is intended to further their thermal efficiency and feature more forward thinking technology than skylake.

I am worried that Apple has already given us their MacBook pro update for the year, and it sounds like Integrated (Iris) GPU cores for Skylake have hit some delays (heard this on the recent TWiT MacBreak Weekly Podcast). This means that only the high end Discrete graphics MBP would see any update in the near future.

 

[AeroUK]

I have been waiting for this but was hoping for improved FaceTime camera and USB C.

I ordered a maxed out 27" 5k iMac with 1TB SSD. It's replacing a 4 year old Retina MB Pro.

I hope it's as good as it looks on paper!!

Aaron

 

[Deanster]

I'm in the market for a replacement for my top-spec 2011 27" iMac, which I'd opened up in 2013 to pop in a 256GB SSD-add-on kit and a 4TB hard drive, which I then home-brew-Fusion-ed.

Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time building a rig that makes sense from a financial and long-term-ownership perspective. The 3TB Fusion option is both a somewhat expensive upgrade and smaller than what I've had for a couple years now, I'm not totally confident that setting up a home-brew Fusion rig across an on-board SSD and an external hard drive via Thunderbolt will be as stable and reliable as I need it to be, and there's effectively ZERO option for cracking the case and putting in new storage at any point in the machine's life.

I've honestly NEVER had a computer that I couldn't upgrade storage on - even my 27" iMacs from 2009 and 2011, where an HD upgrade was an immense PITA, involving pulling the glass and LCD, disconnecting 20-some cables, pulling the entire Mobo, etc., I could make it work with some patience and an assistant with skinny fingers.

I'm sure the new retina rig is amaze-balls, but I'm pretty sure I've upgraded the HD in every computer I've ever owned, either for a larger HD, a swap to SSD, or some combination. $2K plus is just a crazy amount to pay for a machine that will have fixed hardware for its entire lifespan. I have fairly serious concerns about the 2GB mGPU's running a 5K monitor - that's a LOT of pixels to push, especially if I attach another 2560x1440 display, which is how I run my current iMac.

At the same time, I don't need the Mac Pro's dual GPU rig, and it's getting to be dated hardware anyhow... I'm just finding the whole thing frustrating. The *idea* of Apple's current desktop rigs is fantastic, but something in the cost/capability/long-term experience seems off to me at the moment.

I'd buy a machine with just a slightly different mix of price/performance/upgradability, but for now, my money's staying in my pocket.

 

[redheeler]

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.

People seem to fixate on the RPM/type and ignore the bus speed/other factors, and it does make a difference. I haven't benchmarked the SATA SSD attached to the ATA/66 bus in my GigE G4, but chances are it performs worse than a modern 5400 RPM HDD. However, random read/write speeds might still be better.

I don't want to justify Apple selling 5400 RPM HDDs in 2015 though. Mac OS 9 on a GigE G4 and OS X El Capitan on a modern Mac have completely different performance requirements.

 

[AndrewWx]

I'm in the market for a replacement for my top-spec 2011 27" iMac, which I'd opened up in 2013 to pop in a 256GB SSD-add-on kit and a 4TB hard drive, which I then home-brew-Fusion-ed.

Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time building a rig that makes sense from a financial and long-term-ownership perspective. The 3TB Fusion option is both a somewhat expensive upgrade and smaller than what I've had for a couple years now, I'm not totally confident that setting up a home-brew Fusion rig across an on-board SSD and an external hard drive via Thunderbolt will be as stable and reliable as I need it to be, and there's effectively ZERO option for cracking the case and putting in new storage at any point in the machine's life.

I've honestly NEVER had a computer that I couldn't upgrade storage on - even my 27" iMacs from 2009 and 2011, where an HD upgrade was an immense PITA, involving pulling the glass and LCD, disconnecting 20-some cables, pulling the entire Mobo, etc., I could make it work with some patience and an assistant with skinny fingers.

I'm sure the new retina rig is amaze-balls, but I'm pretty sure I've upgraded the HD in every computer I've ever owned, either for a larger HD, a swap to SSD, or some combination. $2K plus is just a crazy amount to pay for a machine that will have fixed hardware for its entire lifespan. I have fairly serious concerns about the 2GB mGPU's running a 5K monitor - that's a LOT of pixels to push, especially if I attach another 2560x1440 display, which is how I run my current iMac.

At the same time, I don't need the Mac Pro's dual GPU rig, and it's getting to be dated hardware anyhow... I'm just finding the whole thing frustrating. The *idea* of Apple's current desktop rigs is fantastic, but something in the cost/capability/long-term experience seems off to me at the moment.

I'd buy a machine with just a slightly different mix of price/performance/upgradability, but for now, my money's staying in my pocket.

Do you have a super huge need for internal storage? The transfer speeds you get from ThunderBolt external drives means that there is little to no difference between external and internal. I have a 5 bay Drobo and a LaCie duel disk daisy chained to my MacBook pro TB port and I never worry about speed or space.

 

[xgman]

Nahh... My 2014 top-specs iMac 5k with i7 custom upgrade is still faster .

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/1061688

It appears that the 4ghz top end haswell imac vs Skylak imac will be very modest gains only, if the same tests in PC's are looked at.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Haswell-vs-Skylake-S-i7-4790K-vs-i7-6700K-641/

And as far as drive speeds, I seriously doubt anyone even slightly geeky enough to post here would spend $2000 or more and keep the base drive. It's a grandma/kiddie base model drive only, We shouldn't care. They shouldn't use it, but for gods sake, just pass over it.

 

[73CortinaV8]

Are these performance numbers supposed to be impressive? My 3 year old rMBP scored over 10k on Geekbench.

That 3-year old rMBP is about 3 times as fast as the 6 year old Thinkpad it replaced (then top processor model)

The Gainz are slowing down, for sure.

 

[JustThinkin']

What exactly does that have to do with Kaby Lake? It's the newer technology that is intended to further their thermal efficiency and feature more forward thinking technology than skylake.

I am worried that Apple has already given us their MacBook pro update for the year, and it sounds like Integrated (Iris) GPU cores for Skylake have hit some delays (heard this on the recent TWiT MacBreak Weekly Podcast). This means that only the high end Discrete graphics MBP would see any update in the near future.

The point is you don't forgo a processor upgrade that holds a significant advantage. As far as I can tell Skylake will be a worthwhile improvement.

Ironically, if what you say proves true (about rMBP Skylake delays) you've kinda dis-proven your own argument. Many people said we should forget Broadwell and wait for Skylake on the rMBP. But if Skylake is delayed now, Apple is vindicated in having recently updated to Broadwell. Who's to say Kaby Lake won't be delayed as well?

 

[Max(IT)]

This X1000.

Welcome to the "new" Apple. They used to be the best value in the industry. Not anymore.

Still holding on to my 17" and 15" cMBPs and my 2011 iMac, until 2TB+ SSDs become both pervasive and (relatively) inexpensive.

Apple just keeps pushing customers harder and harder into the yearly upgrade path by crippling their machines on purpose.

I refuse to buy an appliance as my main (or even secondary) computer, even if it means leaving Apple altogether (although I don't want to).

yearly upgrade path ? Would you like to explain me which Mac has a lifespan of one year, pease ?
Even if you buy the base 4K, something I wouldn't do with the 5400 rpm hdd, what's gonna make you change it next year ?
People exaggerating a lot on this forum ....

 

[SSDGUY]

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

Yup. Seems silly to offer these, but anyone who knows or cares won't order that hd.

 

[wallysb01]

I'm sure the new retina rig is amaze-balls, but I'm pretty sure I've upgraded the HD in every computer I've ever owned, either for a larger HD, a swap to SSD, or some combination. $2K plus is just a crazy amount to pay for a machine that will have fixed hardware for its entire lifespan. I have fairly serious concerns about the 2GB mGPU's running a 5K monitor - that's a LOT of pixels to push, especially if I attach another 2560x1440 display, which is how I run my current iMac.

At the same time, I don't need the Mac Pro's dual GPU rig, and it's getting to be dated hardware anyhow... I'm just finding the whole thing frustrating. The *idea* of Apple's current desktop rigs is fantastic, but something in the cost/capability/long-term experience seems off to me at the moment.

I'd buy a machine with just a slightly different mix of price/performance/upgradability, but for now, my money's staying in my pocket.

It will be interesting to see how things evolve on the Mac Pro side in the coming months. With broadwell Xeons suitable for the Mac Pro due out soon, supposedly TB3 ready to go (why wasn’t it in the iMac?), and the next class of GPUs having been available for a while, a Mac Pro update seems only around the corner (1Q 2016 maybe?). But that’s only if it happens at all.

I get that Apple is doing a pretty good job keeping reasonable computers performance-wise with these amazing displays at decent price points, but man, they have really made it hard to walk a middle ground of needing at least some real performance and not wanting to shell out $2000+ bucks. The 21’ iMac is still on Broadwell thanks to needing Iris Pro because for what ever reason a dGPU won’t fit? I mean, huh? We can get dGPUs into laptops, why not desktops? I’d really like to see that 21’ with Skylake and enough GPU to push a second monitor. Personally, I find these 27’ 5K screens a bit too big AND they soak up a lot of $$$. The 5K iMac with the bottom SSD and the i7 is $2,259 with the M390. I’m sorry, but WTF? A mediocre GPU, small SSD and a $370 CPU is well over $2000? A headless PC with better specs (>= 16gDDR4 RAM, much better GPU) can be had for <$1000. Decent 4K monitors are what now, $400-$500 bucks? The 5K iMac screen is nice and all, but my load to you pay for it. And you just don’t have any other option if you want up to date computing performance.

Maybe there will be a saving grace in the Mac Pro update? Maybe a 4-core with 1xGPU and less TB ports? I wouldn’t count on it, but one can hope right? Maybe the Mac Mini is the answer and we’ll see a return of a 4 core option? Again, I’m not holding my breath.