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

iMac Core 2 Duo Benchmarks

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,335
39,164


MacCentral posted a first look at the new Core 2 Duo iMac along with some early benchmarks.

The new iMacs which were released on Wednesday incorporate the latest Core 2 Duo processor from Intel. The Core 2 Duo represents the continuation of the Core Duo line which first made its appearance in Apple computers in January. Intel has maintained that the new chips would provide roughly 20% improvement in performance.

MacCentral tested the new 17" 2GHz iMac and 20" 2.16GHz iMac and compared them to the previous 20" 2GHz Core Duo and the 2.66GHz Mac Pro.

The most direct comparison between the two processors comes between the 17" 2GHz Core 2 Duo iMac and the 20" 2GHz Core Duo iMac. The overall score was 10% better in the new model while the individual tests showed gains up to 20%.
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2006/09/09/imac-core-2-duo-benchmarks/
spicyapple said:
Is 20% speed improvement a lot for a core 2 designation?
Click to expand...

Well, they said 20%, and it appears to be true in some tests.

It looks pretty good since it's not any more expensive than the previous iMacs.

arn
 
spicyapple said:
Is 20% speed improvement a lot for a core 2 designation?
Click to expand...

The designation "Core 2" comes from the fact that it's a whole new architecture in the chip. The original "Core" processors aren't based on the Core architecture, they were based on the Pentium M. The Core 2 processors (Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest) are based on a 65nm dual-core 64 bit architecture - the desktop and workstation chips are based around the mobile Merom architecture.

Core 2 promised about 20% more performance at the same power requirement as the Core chip at the same clockspeed.
 
20% is a decent improvement in speed. However, I won't be replacing my 20" Intel iMac any time soon. There will be a time when I can't resist the upgrade, and a 24" is very appealing. But it's not a necessity - it's a desire.

The way things progress, I might find myself looking at a 3ghz iMac Core 4 Duo's in a couple years - and when that come out I'll be looking more closely.

Randy at http://www.MacSeven.com
 
20% Improvement

Macrumors said:


MacCentral posted a first look at the new Core 2 Duo iMac along with some early benchmarks.

The new iMacs which were released on Wednesday incorporate the latest Core 2 Duo processor from Intel. The Core 2 Duo represents the continuation of the Core Duo line which first made its appearance in Apple computers in January. Intel has maintained that the new chips would provide roughly 20% improvement in performance.

MacCentral tested the new 17" 2GHz iMac and 20" 2.16GHz iMac and compared them to the previous 20" 2GHz Core Duo and the 2.66GHz Mac Pro.

The most direct comparison between the two processors comes between the 17" 2GHz Core 2 Duo iMac and the 20" 2GHz Core Duo iMac. The overall score was 10% better in the new model while the individual tests showed gains up to 20%.
Click to expand...

Wonder how the 24" iMac at 2.33GHz will fare.
 
Did a certain platform jumping red-cap wearing Italian plumber write the headline?

Mama mia! iMac Core 2 Duo Benchamarks!
 
I'm getting a 17" 2 ghz C2D iMac (that's a mouthful) soon.

Sounds exciting with all that speed! I don't know what to do with it! I guess my iTunes visualizations will be smoother, and I'll have the Dashboard ripple effect.

I also work in iMovie sometimes so the speed gain will be nice.

I am moving up from an eMac 1 gigahertz G4. So I'm sure it will seem very fast to me. Probably more than I need.
 
VicMacs said:
now is the Xeon processor faster than the core 2 duo?
Click to expand...

The Xeon processor used in the Mac Pro is the name for the Core 2 Duo workstation processor. It was originally codenamed "Woodcrest" and is the high-end version of the three Core 2 Duo processors.

Merom = Core 2 Duo
Conroe = Core 2 Duo
Woodcrest = Xeon
 
swingerofbirch said:
I am moving up from an eMac 1 gigahertz G4. So I'm sure it will seem very fast to me. Probably more than I need.
Click to expand...

You're in for a treat. I went from a 1.2GHz G4 to MacBook (2HGz Yonah) and it's streets ahead in terms of performance. 4 times faster encoding a DVD with Handbrake is a godsend.

The Merom iMac's are a great spec for the price.
 
Whiplash

I guess I've got mind whip lash from the transition to Intel. It's still kinda hard to wrap the mind around these speed improvments. I'm still used to the very modest speed bumps from the PPC days.

How wonderfully refreshing it is to see these leaps in speed with each product update. I hope this pace keeps up. Some may disagree, but I think it's spectacular compared to what we used to get from Moto/Freescale/IBM.

I find myself thinking about what the Adobe CEO, Bruce Chizen, said to Steve when it was announced Apple was switching to Intel.

"What took you so long"!

edit: had to change my signature.
 
kresh said:
I guess I've got mind whip lash from the transition to Intel. It's still kinda hard to wrap the mind around these speed improvments. I'm still used to the very modest speed bumps from the PPC days.

How wonderfully refreshing it is to see these leaps in speed with each product update. I hope this pace keeps up. Some may disagree, but I think it's spectacular compared to what we used to get from Moto/Freescale/IBM.
Click to expand...

Its nice to see all these speed improvements, but at some point its going to end, Apple chose to transition at a very interesting time, Intel wont be releaing new chips like this all the time... but at least we can compare apples to apples now! :eek:
 
Multi-processor aware software - this IS the 21st century, right?

But because not all applications and tasks take full advantage of the Mac multiprocessing capabilities,
Click to expand...

And I'm thinking... why?! 10 years ago BeOS had this down pat. The whole system was multi-threaded and multi-processor aware from the kernel all the way up through the user interface including the system services used by all native applications. It was amazingly responsive and was reported (in major publications) to gain as much as 60-70% performance by having a second CPU. I realize MacOS X is based on some old NeXTStep code which was not made for multiple processors, but come on! This is the 21st century and Apple's been selling dual processor machines for about 5 years now.

Anyway, this is great news. I'd been drooling over the new iMacs since they were announced and wondering how much I might gain by upgrading from my 2GHz G5 PowerMac. It's very enticing.
 
Ah, less money for 4" more screen, a ~20% faster C2D CPU, a much much faster GPU, etc? Thankyou mister Jobs! Can't wait to see what Tuesday's iPods will be like! Not that I intend to get one, or maybe I do? Who knows? And here's to some sort of Mac with Kentsfield and R600 (More likely G80 :( ) at Macworld 2007, or maybe even earlier with a bit of luck!

It's good to know that one can get a 24" screen, 2.33 Core 2 Duo goodness with the Geforce 7600 256Mb and 2 gig RAM from 5 grand with enough cash spare to buy a new Macbook. (Well at least in edu pricing)

BTW, this is a bit irrelevant, but can anyone explain to me how one gets Xgrid, and what one needs to make it work? ie. Does it cost money, or can it be downloaded from the net, and do u need a FiberChannel card to make it work? Would be cool to have a Macbook Xgridded to a 24" iMac. Preferrably Merom Macbook and Conroe iMac. But might take a while to get that :eek:

Never mind. : (
Need 10.4 Server apparently, and at least 3 computers to make it worthwhile, it looks like.
 
I think we all knew that Merom would only bring modest performance gains. I'm surprised they're as high as they are. I'm still not sure why they're using the laptop line of processors in their mid range desktop but it's certainly a testament to the power of Intel's new chips. If it keeps the iMac's cool and efficient then it's all good.
 
swingerofbirch said:
I am moving up from an eMac 1 gigahertz G4. So I'm sure it will seem very fast to me. Probably more than I need.
Click to expand...


Im still stuck on my 800 mhz G4 with it's crappy 2X Graphics card. 2X!! Oh how I wait for the day when...
 
freiheit said:
And I'm thinking... why?! 10 years ago BeOS had this down pat. The whole system was multi-threaded and multi-processor aware from the kernel all the way up through the user interface including the system services used by all native applications. It was amazingly responsive and was reported (in major publications) to gain as much as 60-70% performance by having a second CPU. I realize MacOS X is based on some old NeXTStep code which was not made for multiple processors, but come on! This is the 21st century and Apple's been selling dual processor machines for about 5 years now.

Anyway, this is great news. I'd been drooling over the new iMacs since they were announced and wondering how much I might gain by upgrading from my 2GHz G5 PowerMac. It's very enticing.
Click to expand...

I agree. This is ridiculous. It's like buying an HD tv and not getting HD channels...
 
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