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

Core i7-Based 27" iMac Benchmarks Show Significant Improvements

Bafflefish said:
Yeah, at the same time though, it's not like the 9400M is that good. :/ One of the threads I was reading had people criticizing Intel's IGP solutions. Apparently they ignore the 9400M's performance. It's better than Intel's solutions, most certainly, but no where near as good as a discrete GPU. :(
Click to expand...
ION2 is going to come in with 32 shaders like the 8600M GT/9600M GT. You're going to be limited by the shared RAM and clock speeds though. Not to mention it's another trip with Core 2.

Bafflefish said:
I use the ASUS Rampage II Gene mATX X58 board. The power supply is a Corsair HX750W.

My mATX case has 5x 120mm fans: 2x on each side, and one on the rear. I'm also using the Corsair H50 CPU water cooler to cool the 920. How I setup is that all four side fans are pulling air in, and the GPUs essentially segment off the case into halves: the two 120s on the right side to help to cooler the GPUs, while the two 120s on the left blow in air that helps cool the memory slots and the northbridge.

I have the rear 120mm blowing out, and the H50's radiator can hold a 120mm on the front and back, so the rear 120mm slot technically has the radiator plus two 120mms. The HX750W also has a 140mm fan to cool the PSU, and the Radeons expel their air mostly through the rear slot (they also expel a little through the top of the card, which the PSU's fan pulls up and out). Thus, in the rear, there are three exit locations for air. Overall, the setup is working really well. The 920 is currently only running at 3.4Ghz, but it's temps are around 40C at idle and the low 50s peak at load. The Northbridge usually peaks at about 52-54C, which for the X58 in this setup is rather good.
Click to expand...
Is that even a Micro ATX case?
 
Eidorian said:
ION2 is going to come in with 32 shaders like the 8600M GT/9600M GT. You're going to be limited by the shared RAM and clock speeds though. Not to mention it's another trip with Core 2.
Click to expand...
Yeah, nVidia is going to need to milk all they can out of the Core 2 line, lol.

Is that even a Micro ATX case?[/QUOTE]
Yes and no. The case isn't quite your traditional Shuttle-size mATX, but it's also not that large of a footprint. It weighs a lot though since the skeleton of the case is made of steel (with the exterior panels being aluminum). It's just a fairly well designed case in terms of component layout. I could have even have squeezed a 5870 into it if I hadn't been concerned with the tight space between the top of the GPU and the 5 1/2 bay above (there's about an inch or so, and I wasn't certain how flexible the PCIe cables would be).
 
Bafflefish said:
Yes and no. The case isn't quite your traditional Shuttle-size mATX, but it's also not that large of a footprint. It weighs a lot though since the skeleton of the case is made of steel (with the exterior panels being aluminum). It's just a fairly well designed case in terms of component layout. I could have even have squeezed a 5870 into it if I hadn't been concerned with the tight space between the top of the GPU and the 5 1/2 bay above (there's about an inch or so, and I wasn't certain how flexible the PCIe cables would be).
Click to expand...
I was more interested in what model it is. I'm quite happy with my Black P180 mini.

I'd consider a Shuttle PC to be Mini-ITX in design but not necessarily to the specification.
 
forgive me if i'm wrong - but it seams that the main "flaw" with the new imac is the mobility graphic-card? isn't it so - that desktop graphic cards are simply too hot?
 
J Radical said:
I can buy or build a PC that will trounce an iMac costing twice as much in terms of performance.
Click to expand...

Then go right ahead and do that. I would much rather enjoy a reliable, well-engineered and designed machine that holds it value, is a joy to use and is fast enough. There's more to computers than mere specs.

I am a very happy macbook owner, but when it came to replacing my desktop, my mere interest in playing new games automatically ruled Apple.
Click to expand...

I play games on my 2007 MacBook pro.

It is insane to think you can spend $2000+ on a desktop computer that cannot run new games- ARMA 2 for example.
Click to expand...

Macs are not designed to be gaming-machines. Gaming is not what Macs are used for. If you want a computer meant for gaming, then a PC is a better choice. I have no problems saying that.

I desperately want an 27 inch iMac, and hopefully one day soon Apple will incorporate desktop graphics, so that can happen. For the time being however, I will be sticking with my PC, along with millions of others who want to make the switch, but can't, because they'd also like to be able to play a game that comes out in within the next year.
Click to expand...

Go right ahead and enjoy your games on your PC. I'm enjoying games on my MacBook pro (I use bootcamp for that) or my PS3 *shrugs*.

EDiT: and willdenow has no clue what he's talking about. Lynnfield is Nehalem. At this point it would be smart for him to admit that he's utterly, completely wrong.
 
Well, a cursory glance at that chart leads me to think I did the right thing getting the 21.5/Radeon HD 4670/3.06 Core 2 Duo and not bothering with the 3.33 Core 2 upgrade.
 
Speedy2 said:
No it's not. Nearly all games are single-threaded, dual-threaded at best. They crave for CPU clock, not for more cores.
Click to expand...

Not all CPU-clocks are born identical. Or do you think that 4GHz Pentium 4 is faster than 3.33Ghz C2D?

Also, if you read up on the benchmarks on the net, you will find that a Core CPU is not slower than a Core i5 or i7 CPU at the same clock speed in the gaming department.
Click to expand...

That would depend on the GPU and the settings they used. If the GPU is the bottleneck, it wouldn't change performance even if the CPU was 10 times more powerful.
 
Paulshaqz said:
the bench marks are fantastic! and so much cheeper then a mac pro!
Click to expand...
It's not even touching 10000 on the GB test... good score for an all in one though! My Mac Pro in 64 bit gets a score of 14000!
No comparison! Plus, a refurb MP is only $2199.00! These iMacs will cost that @ least. Sure it has a monitor but most people that are power users have those already. The iMacs are an excellent choice for a intro computer though! But your statement of having the power vs cost of a MP are WRONG! The iMacs do have a SATA controller for the optical drive in which you put an SSD in there for your OS but most people who buy iMacs to begin with don't want to spend the big bucks for a workstation so the added cost of a high capacity SSD is out for them in most cases.
Keep dreaming though he he...
The Mac Pros will always be fastest and more expandable.
 
Andrew Henry said:
I'm glad my Hackintosh stomps the new iMac by a good 3,000 points, did I mention the GTX 285 mine is running as well? ;) Oh and the upgradable to 24gb of ram..and the option to upgrade to Gulftown next year :D
Click to expand...
Seems like you used a version of OS X from your other Macs on that hackalugie didn't you!!!
Shame on you! And your supposed to be a Mac user by your sig. I just want to see what you do with all that POWER! I have 2 gold albums on my slow G4 he he...
Does all that speed help you make any money? Does running OS X illegally make you feel oh so powerful too he he? I'm really happy that your computer is so fast... now go back outside and play.
 
neiltc13 said:
Nonsense! I just built a computer for a friend for £600. It has a Core i5 2.6GHz, 1GB ATi 5770 graphics card, 4GB RAM and a 500GB hard drive. Let's assume a decent monitor is another £200 on top (he had one already).

For the same level of performance from Apple, it costs me £1600. You end up paying double the price and get no better performance, an inability to upgrade, a significantly worse graphics card and in my opinion a worse operating system.

Remind me again why these systems are "very good value"?
Click to expand...

Because I was willing to spend $2000 on a 30" IPS screen.
 
Andrew Henry said:
I'm glad my Hackintosh stomps the new iMac by a good 3,000 points, did I mention the GTX 285 mine is running as well? ;) Oh and the upgradable to 24gb of ram..and the option to upgrade to Gulftown next year :D
Click to expand...

I'm jealous of your use of all that power to make forum posts! ;)

Go turn that beast loose on something crazy!
 
Andrew Henry said:
I'm glad my Hackintosh stomps the new iMac by a good 3,000 points, did I mention the GTX 285 mine is running as well? ;) Oh and the upgradable to 24gb of ram..and the option to upgrade to Gulftown next year :D
Click to expand...

Well, most MAINSTREAM Dells and HP's stomp the new iMac in terms of performance. It's normal for Apple hardware to be behind by a year or two...nothing new here.
 
J Radical said:
There certainly are major disadvantages to running OSX on a PC in terms of compatibility and support, however in your arrogance you completely missed my point.

I can buy or build a PC that will trounce an iMac costing twice as much in terms of performance. I am a very happy macbook owner, but when it came to replacing my desktop, my mere interest in playing new games automatically ruled Apple.

It is insane to think you can spend $2000+ on a desktop computer that cannot run new games- ARMA 2 for example. A mobile 4850 card is inescapably CRAP.

I desperately want an 27 inch iMac, and hopefully one day soon Apple will incorporate desktop graphics, so that can happen. For the time being however, I will be sticking with my PC, along with millions of others who want to make the switch, but can't, because they'd also like to be able to play a game that comes out in within the next year.
Click to expand...

And many more millions don't buy PCs to play games, especially when we've got consoles. I doubt most of the consumers who've handed Apple record quarter after record quarter (in a recession!) had gaming as one of their top priorities. Although to be fair, the average consumer looking to play games isn't that interested in raw specs, either.
 
calimed said:
I run GeekBench and only get 6514. Al programs closed. Why the difference? I tried searching forums, but no luck.
Quad i5. 2.66.
Thanks.....
Click to expand...

Most likely you're using the free, 32-bit version. Drop a couple of notes and get the 64-bit version and you should see a difference. Also, extra RAM will help, so if you got the base configuration, it'll be slower.
 
How much of a performance increase is getting a mac pro over a loaded i7 imac? Doesn't seem like its worth it for double the price...
 
puckhead193 said:
How much of a performance increase is getting a mac pro over a loaded i7 imac? Doesn't seem like its worth it for double the price...
Click to expand...

It depends on what you needl.

For a 16-thread 8-core workstation, the Mac Pro is reasonably priced.

If that's what you need.

For an 8-thread 4-core system, just about any Core i7 system will be a much better deal than a Xeon system.

The Core i5/Core i7 Imac, though - unless you need another good 27" monitor is not a good deal.
 
AidenShaw said:
It depends on what you needl.

For a 16-thread 8-core workstation, the Mac Pro is reasonably priced.

If that's what you need.

For an 8-thread 4-core system, just about any Core i7 system will be a much better deal than a Xeon system.

The Core i5/Core i7 Imac, though - unless you need another good 27" monitor is not a good deal.
Click to expand...

I need a new computer for video editing. (Final cut pro) When I export HD video (mostly about 2 hours in length) using quicktime conversion to downscale to SD. My current imac is too slow (almost 8 hours for a single job) i was wondering how much quicker it would be by going for the mac pro (quad core) over a fully loaded imac i7?
 
puckhead193 said:
I need a new computer for video editing. (Final cut pro) When I export HD video (mostly about 2 hours in length) using quicktime conversion to downscale to SD. My current imac is too slow (almost 8 hours for a single job) i was wondering how much quicker it would be by going for the mac pro (quad core) over a fully loaded imac i7?
Click to expand...
Core 2 Duo was fast, Core 2 Quad was stupid fast, and Core i5/i7 is stupidly fasterer.

Quicktime has some pathetic encoding speeds though.
 
Eidorian said:
Core 2 Duo was fast, Core 2 Quad was stupid fast, and Core i5/i7 is stupidly fasterer.

Quicktime has some pathetic encoding speeds though.
Click to expand...

I just noticed those tests a few minutes ago. The i7 really is worth its price and I expect the i5 won't be that far behind it at most things (much faster than the C2D anyway). The i7 iMac is the poor man's 4 core Mac Pro and a much better value (if you don't need expandability) until the Mac Pro moves to the i9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back