iMac 2011 Sandy Bridge CPU vs iMac 2010 CPU Summary Charts

Discussion in 'iMac' started by theSeb, May 3, 2011.

  1. theSeb, May 3, 2011
    Last edited: May 3, 2011

    theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #1
    I believe that this is the correct line-up of the CPU models for each of the iMacs in the 2011 refresh. It may be useful with all of the questions floating around.

    Please let me know if I've got anything wrong.

    [​IMG]

    iMac 2011 Benchmarks

    The figures are time taken in seconds. Lower is better.

    [​IMG]


    iMac 2010 Benchmarks for comparison

    Please note that I was not able to find comparative benchmarks for the exact same processors in all instances so I used similar chips and have indicated as such. It will still give an "indication" of performance for simple comparisons.

    [​IMG]

    Benchmarks are from www.tomshardware.com

    Benchmark Explanations

    Audio Encoding: iTunes 9.0.3.15 (wav to aac Audio) - encoding Terminator II soundtrack from wav to AAC

    Image Processing: Adobe Photoshop CS 5: Applying 6 filters to a 69 MB TIF image

    Handbrake transcode time (mpeg 2 to H.264) : Big Buck Bunny (720x480, 23.972 frames) 5 min., Audio: Dolby Digital, 48000 Hz, 6-Channel, English to Video: AVC1 Audio1: AC3 Audio2: AAC (High Profile)

    Image Rendering: 3DS Max 2010: Render space flyby 1440 x 1080

    Charts

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Note: These comparisons are based on pure cpu power and do not account for any other differences in the model line-up. They also do not account for any CPU throttling that Apple may, or may not, have applied.
     
  2. theSeb, May 3, 2011
    Last edited: May 3, 2011

    theSeb thread starter macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #2
    Q: Can the 2011 27" iMac drive two displays?
    A: Yes, it can according to David Moody, Apple's vice president of hardware product marketing

    The difference is 1 GB. 2-1 = 1

    Before an image is displayed it is loaded into the VRAM and then converted to be sent to the display. Video Ram is faster than your normal RAM, so the more there is of it, the merrier, especially if you're playing games on high resolutions with large texture files and trickery like anti-aliasing. These textures can be loaded entirely into the video RAM and manipulated by your graphics card before being displayed.

    More = better.


    Q: Does the iMac 2011 have Target display mode

    A: Yes and no. Apparently this only works with other TB equipped Macs (i.e. 2011 MBP)
     
  3. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #3
    I think the overclock multipliers are wrong because iMacs do not use K-series CPUs and thus the multiplier is locked. You wouldn't be able to OC it anyway so that might just add confusion.
     
  4. theSeb thread starter macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #4
    Definitely non K CPUs so I'll remove that column.
     
  5. KennyKW macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    #5
    I am confused, so which i5 to go, the 2.7GHz or the 3.1GHz? As the 2.7GHz seems to be faster in Turbo mode. And what is TDP?
     
  6. opera57, May 3, 2011
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2011

    opera57 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    #6
    Very helpful :) thanks!
    Pretty awesome that 2 external monitors can be used! [​IMG]
     
  7. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #7
    Unless you want/need the better GPU, just go with the 2.7GHz. Turbo makes the difference smaller and in real world the difference is probably negligible.

    Thermal Design Power. It's a number that tells you how hot and how much power the chip needs. Not something that you should worry about though.
     
  8. theSeb thread starter macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #8
    Which iMac 27"

    2.7 i5 Intel Core i5-2500S vs 3.1 i5 Intel Core i5-2400

    The 2.7 i5 has a higher turbo speed than the 3.1!! Should I get that one?

    It depends and let's forget about the better graphics card in 3.1 i5 for a moment. Despite the higher max turbo speed of the 2.7 i5, the 3.1 i5 is faster in most real world uses. The only times the 2.7 i5 is faster is in archiving (zip, winrar etc) and audio encoding - the differences are hardly noticeable (a couple of seconds). The 3.1 i5 beats the 2.7 i5 in all other uses, including rendering, video encoding and gaming.
     
  9. Gherkin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    #9
    need some advice...

    I have a June 2010 15" MacBook Pro. 2.66 GHz Intel Core i7 (dual-core). 4 GB of memory. NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M w/ 512 MB of memory.

    Thinking of selling and picking up the new low-end 27" iMac. 2.7 GHz Intel Core i5 (quad-core). 4 GB of memory. AMD Radeon HD 6770M w/ 512 MB of memory.

    How would these two machines compare performance wise?

    Things I do...

    -edit HD footage in Premiere Pro and also do motion graphics with After Effects
    -edit 21MP photos in Lightroom
    -graphic work in Photoshop

    The 27" screen would be AWESOME for all this, just wondering if I would see a noticeable performance bump?
     
  10. photogpab macrumors 6502

    photogpab

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    #10
    [​IMG]

    can someone help me figure out how to even read this... or understand what it means... haha...
     
  11. theSeb thread starter macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #12
    The figures are time taken. Lower is better. i7s beat down everything else.
     
  12. KennyKW macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    #13
    I think that the smaller the number the better the performance.

    It's a great help. Thanks.
     
  13. cthomas1489 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    #14
    Lower the number the better I'm pretty sure...
     
  14. Diesel-Benz macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    #15
    Forget the iMac, when is the next Mini update?

    Well?
     
  15. theSeb thread starter macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #16
    Correct. The benchmarks are time taken (seconds). Lower = better.
     
  16. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #17
    The K Series goes higher. There are a few extra Turbo bin multipliers that you can use to "overclock" the locked processors and the usual 4-7 MHz on the clock generator.
     
  17. TrollToddington macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    #18
    Wow, that's pretty cool. OP could you provide the same benchmarks for the 2010 iMac lineup? I do wonder how my base i3 21.5" scores against the new processors. I'm just curious, I am not gonna upgrade. Thanks in advance!
     
  18. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
  19. theSeb thread starter macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #20
    Your chip scores about 2.4 points, the iMac scores 4.49 in a Cinebench 11.5 (Multi-threaded) benchmark. What does that mean? Clearly the iMac is a lot faster. Yes, you would see a noticeable performance bump.

    Cinebench:

     
  20. theSeb thread starter macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #21
    I got them from tomshardware.com.
     
  21. imahawki macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    #22
    What are the handbrake scores based on? Is that seconds to encode something? If so, what?
     
  22. gdeputy macrumors 6502a

    gdeputy

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Location:
    New York
    #23
    Ya know what would help? Adding these into a comparison with 2010 iMacs. I'm interested in seeing how mine stacks up in the benchmarks.
     
  23. theSeb thread starter macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #24
    Will try to do so later.
     
  24. theSeb thread starter macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #25
    Seconds to transcode from mpeg2 to H.264. I am guessing a video clip ;) and they don't mention what the clip is or how long it is.
     

Share This Page