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

Geekbench results - iMac Quad Core w/ i7

GadgetAddicted said:
Hey guys,

I ran the 64-bit test and the score was 7682. Is Core i7 really worth the extra performance? I mean how much of a difference will I notice??
Click to expand...

For an extra $180-200 for the i7 over the i5 and to be 30% faster, I would say that yes it is worth it.

Sun Baked said:
So no firmware updates and a socket holding you back from pushing the limits, likely should make them about as upgradable as the socketed mobile CPUs were.
Click to expand...

Sorry I'm not familiar with that situation. Were they hard or easy to upgrade?
 
My soon to be recycled computer, after I take a hammer to it, is a Pentium 4 Windows machine with a Geekbench score of 1664. To replace it, I chose the i5. After seeing some of the i7 benchmarks, I had reservations thinking my choice was a mistake. I was almost ready to call and change my order. Now, after more thought, I decided the i5's performance will likely far exceed the needs of any work or play that I do. For me, the change from P4 to i5 will be like going from a horse and carriage to a Porsche 911. I'll be thrilled when the doorbell rings and it's here.
 
GadgetAddicted said:
Hey guys,

I ran the 64-bit test and the score was 7682. Is Core i7 really worth the extra performance? I mean how much of a difference will I notice??
Click to expand...

Don't stress about these numbers. Enjoy your machine. I totally get the obsession, but 30% better numbers doesn't necessarily translate into an equal real world boost and there is no point caring about it now.

I suggest never reading this thread again.
 
robotkiller said:
Don't stress about these numbers. Enjoy your machine. I totally get the obsession, but 30% better numbers doesn't necessarily translate into an equal real world boost and there is no point caring about it now.

I suggest never reading this thread again.
Click to expand...

Lol I think this is probably the best piece of advice I have gotten in this forum. The numbers are fine but I want to know how much REAL WORLD benefit will I have? I mean, will there be a significant lag? I am coming from a 2.8 ghz 24" iMac which scored 3865 Geekbench. I hate lag. Will I be able to enjoy my machine or should I be paranoid about the i7 because I am paranoid about it as we speak :-(
 
30% faster does SOUND worth $200, but the gaming benchmarks (one of the few real world things that might tax my computer) don't seem to be that different. It's certainly not going to make web pages load 30% faster. Would it rip my CD's 30% faster? That's another thing I use my computer for a lot.
 
Sun Baked said:
Easy to upgrade, just expensive for a marginal increase in CPU power.
Click to expand...


Ok thanks for explaining that. However my assumption is that it would be different going from an i5 750 to an i7 870 (or 880/890 if they come out) vs. a jump in a mobile CPU. The jump to a higher 800 series CPU would give you HT and a faster GHz CPU in the process. Wouldn't be a bad upgrade if/when the price comes down. Right now it would be too expensive!
 
silverprince said:
I hear you! I did the same thing.
The MacPro's use a hell of a lot of power. Hated not having a proper webcam (because of my Cinema display) and the MacPro gathers up a lot of dust.
I just sold my MacPro 2.66 GHz Quad-Core (2007 Model), 3 GIG, 750GIG HDD with 20" Cinema Display for AUS $2700.00.
I couldn't believe it!

So for an extra (AUS)$190.00 I got the i7.
Click to expand...

Ya, for you you're getting a faster computer all around! My 2.66 Quad at work Geekbenched at 6100 or so

My 8 Core 3.2 gets a score of 12761 so i'll be loosing a bit of raw processing power, but the iMac has double the memory performance and almost 3x the memory streaming, so I think in day to day use it'll still "feel" faster. the 27" display is gonna be nice as well!
 
So, after reading many of the sites that give game performance it is a wash. If I want to win a benchmark then the i7 does it. Lord knows how well benchmarks translate into every day life.

If I buy an i7 from Apple (BTO is hard to find elsewhere) it is 2199 + 154 in tax, or 2353 total. If I buy an i5 from Club Mac it is 1849 + no tax. Oh, I get parallels 5 after rebate for free too.

I will probably own a second 27 before the end of 2010 as I figure my 24 which moves to the upstairs office/exercise area will be deemed insufficient after seeing the 27 in my main.

Now I just got to hope they come out with a 2nd gen near June with an even better video card!
 
i just did geekbench on my current 5 year old windows build for ***** and giggles (PentiumD 3GHz 2gb ddr2 etc)


.... 1898

LOL! bring on the i7 baby!
 
53x12 said:
So with Cinebench results is there a way to compare it against other systems?
Click to expand...

iMac Core i7:
Screenshot2009-11-12at85558PM.png


Other machines:

UpdatedCinebenchChart.jpg
 
PeterQVenkman said:
iMac Core i7:
Screenshot2009-11-12at85558PM.png


Other machines:

UpdatedCinebenchChart.jpg
Click to expand...


Let me see if I am reading this correctly, the i7 scores:

Single core render= 4164
Multiple core render= 15217

At the bottom of that graph it says "When comparing these systems the green box is probably a better indication of how fast the machine is 'under your mouse' so to speak." So if that is true that single core render is a better indication, it means the iMac i7 is faster than everything except the 2009 3.33 Octad and the 2009 3.2 Octad for the single core render. Is that right? 😕 😱 Also its multiple core render score of 15217 beats a 2009 2.93 Quad at 14753 😱 . How good of a comparison is this chart?
 
53x12 said:
Let me see if I am reading this correctly, the i7 scores:

Single core render= 4164
Multiple core render= 15217

At the bottom of that graph it says "When comparing these systems the green box is probably a better indication of how fast the machine is 'under your mouse' so to speak." So if that is true that single core render is a better indication, it means the iMac i7 is faster than everything except the 2009 3.33 Octad and the 2009 3.2 Octad for the single core render. Is that right? 😕 😱 Also its multiple core render score of 15217 beats a 2009 2.93 Quad at 14753 😱 . How good of a comparison is this chart?
Click to expand...

It's a decent comparison. While something may score higher in a single core render, do you want to wait for your one core to churn through it?

In the updated Cinema 4d, so many more things have been multithreaded - displacement, shadow maps, etc. There is a massive difference in rendering speed with an 8 or 4 core processor vs a single thread (in C4d 11.5). So cinebench, running the C4d core at r10, is not going to have the enhancements of the latest version of C4d. When rendering many of the same scenes in C4d 10 vs. 11.5, 8 core machines saw a greater speed increase than 4 core machines.

I use C4d and After Effects all the time. I encode to video a lot. The question is- what do you do all the time? If you're ripping movies, converting video, etc, the iMac will be a great machine. This purchase is very highly dependent on what you spend most of your time doing.

If you are going to spend a lot of time rendering, then the 8 core mac pros are faster. If you spend a lot of time running simulations that may not be multithreaded, then the 4 core iMac with turbo boost is going to be a sweet machine.

Then again, once we start going down that road, the iMac is pretty much faster than the 4 core mac pros for less money, plus you get a 27 inch monitor! 😱

It all comes down to money. The iMac is a very solid piece of kit for what you will end up paying. Sweet deal.
 
PeterQVenkman said:
Then again, once we start going down that road, the iMac is pretty much faster than the 4 core mac pros for less money, plus you get a 27 inch monitor! 😱
Click to expand...

Sweet deal indeed. Whoever thought we would see this day come when an iMac could keep pace with some of the lower end MPs and get a high quality 27'' to boot!

So is Cinebench a better mechanism of testing rather than, say Geekbench?
 
silverprince said:
I hear you! I did the same thing.
The MacPro's use a hell of a lot of power. Hated not having a proper webcam (because of my Cinema display) and the MacPro gathers up a lot of dust.
I just sold my MacPro 2.66 GHz Quad-Core (2007 Model), 3 GIG, 750GIG HDD with 20" Cinema Display for AUS $2700.00.
I couldn't believe it!

So for an extra (AUS)$190.00 I got the i7.
Click to expand...

It seems you recovered most of your original cost as well. How much did you end up paying for that MacPro, purchase minus sale divided by time?

I suspect a typical PC costs several times as much net.

Enjoy your new toy.

Rocketman
 
Besk one said:
Keep in mind it's the last generation MacPro, not the current one.

I figure in day to day use it'll be faster, it takes up less space, has a much nicer monitor than my current 23" cinema display, draws half as much power, and for what I use it for (Logic, Creative Suite) I don't need 4 bays or PCI-E slots.

Plus when I sell the old tower and monitor, I pay for the iMac and get $1000 cash back 🙂
Click to expand...

Good call, that's what I did.
 
Geekbench 64-bit app and OS X 64/32 bit Kernel

I don't think there is any need (or benefit) to booting the 64-bit kernel to run the Geekbench 64-bit application. Snow Leopard is perfectly capable of running 64-bit applications without booting the 64-bit kernel, and in my limited testing on a 2009 Mac Pro, Geekbench scores are identical between 64-bit and 32-bit kernel. This leads me to believe that the Geekbench 64-bit application is not (yet) utilizing any of the benefits of 64-bit kernel extensions.
 
BeerdedOne said:
I don't think there is any need (or benefit) to booting the 64-bit kernel to run the Geekbench 64-bit application. Snow Leopard is perfectly capable of running 64-bit applications without booting the 64-bit kernel, and in my limited testing on a 2009 Mac Pro, Geekbench scores are identical between 64-bit and 32-bit kernel. This leads me to believe that the Geekbench 64-bit application is not (yet) utilizing any of the benefits of 64-bit kernel extensions.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. I booted up into 64-bit kernal and ran the Geekbench 64 bit application on my MBP. There was no difference in booting up in 64bit vs. 32bit for the test.
 
Now there has been a lot of discussion weather or not the 1333Mhz memory modules works with the i7 iMac. If anyone has access to those, we would all LOVE to know if it's working, and if it is, how it affects the benchmarking result.

Won't somebody please tamper with their brand new, shiny iMac in the name of science? 😀
 
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