Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iMac Core 2 Duo Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am curious about the iMovie benchmarks. One might think the mac pro would be over twice as fast but it's not. Is that because of software limitations in iMovie?
I am about to make a purchase of either an iMac or a 2.0Ghz. MacPro for monthly workouts in Final Cut. Hard to decide.
I am about to make a purchase of either an iMac or a 2.0Ghz. MacPro for monthly workouts in Final Cut. Hard to decide.
It wouldn't have been worth it to wait for these unless you wanted the 24 inch display (and Firewire 800) with your iMac. The iMac really looks like a good switcher machine that gives Pro performance to the masses.
Until Leopard is out we wont see the true value of these babies. Also by then some of the apps will take advantage of the muti-cores and multi-cpus, and the changes to the OS will allow applications not written for more than 1 core to take some advantage also. So like I said Leopard will be the one showing the true potential of these babies. Can't wait!!!!!!!
Driving 1.5 hours to the Apple store this morning and the same on the way back. But I am not buying yet, just looking and getting a feel for the entire line. Oh I forgot.... and turning green with envy. Boy is going to be hard.
EagerDragon said:Until Leopard is out we wont see the true value of these babies. Also by then some of the apps will take advantage of the muti-cores and multi-cpus, and the changes to the OS will allow applications not written for more than 1 core to take some advantage also. So like I said Leopard will be the one showing the true potential of these babies. Can't wait!!!!!!!
The fact that the new iMacs can't address more than 3Gb of memory and are therefore operating on a 32bit logic-board makes me doubtful as to whether or not these systems are really 64-bit capable... It seems like some kind of hybrid 32/64bit system.
Will the C2D iMacs be able to run 64bit code, despite not having the 64bit address space (and being able to access over 4Gb or RAM)?
My first question is if the Mac Pro offers less of a performance increase than it first appeared, (for the time being at least), would Apple use this as an argument against a Conroe Tower?
I'm still behind Apple increasing their product lines, (Conroe Tower, 13" MBP, 15 & 17" MBs), and they have effectively done just this with taking teir consumer iMac offering from 2 standard models to 4. Can we expect more of the same in the future?
Roll on September 12th and beyond.
I'm still behind Apple increasing their product lines, (Conroe Tower, 13" MBP, 15 & 17" MBs), and they have effectively done just this with taking teir consumer iMac offering from 2 standard models to 4. Can we expect more of the same in the future?
Roll on September 12th and beyond.
Well, wasn't the iMac G5 restricted to 2GB, yet it was a 64-bit processor? A 32-bit computer can take up to 4GB, but due to the hardware Apple was/is using, they can't even take this.Manic Mouse said:
What i find odd is that it appears to allow 1 or 2GB in either slot, but no more than 3GB in total. That is obviously the maximum the board can take, but it would have made a little more sense to allow 2GB in each. This will not really effect it's ability to run 64-bit software, just restricts how much memory can be used. Remember that you have been able to get AMD systems with 64-bit processors for some time now. They won't take more than 4GB, but will allow you to run 64-bit OSes and Apps.
I'm hoping by the time I'm after an iMac, it will take at least 4GB, have Blu-Ray as an option, (although I may opt for standard Superdrive if it is an option and buy a Mac compatible external later), include bigger hard drives and stick to a similar price point to now.
I'm tempted by the 20" now, but am not buying yet and would want about 320-400GB in there for the same price, perhaps even 2GB RAM. I've got time to wait however.
Azrel said:
Manic Mouse obviously understands what 64 bit means. that is obvious if one is able to read the post.
i also wonder if the new systems are really future proof or if hybrid systems like this will in a few years be not compatible. also how will windows run on a system like this? what about games that usually expect a certain hardware setup?
kresh said:
Nonsense. Maybe at the very end, but we used to see updates like 800mhz-->1Ghz. That's a 25% increase in performance (if processor power is the limiting factor). Even the G5 went dual 2.0 --> dual 2.5 in one jump, which is a bigger increase than this.
This is NOT the promised 20% increase; it's a 10% increase. Some areas may show more, but that only means that some show less.
I'm just not sure why everyone is so impressed with these imacs. The 24" was a great addition (and the low-end 17" for $1k is nice too), but the 17" and 20" are the same as the old models except for a processor speed bump and 1 GB RAM standard. All that for less money is not bad, but it's hardly thrilling considering that it's the first update in 8 months.
This is interesting. So the frequency difference of 2.16 to 2.66 is 23% yet the MacPro is only 20-30% faster? So clock for clock, the iMac would be between 7% slower and 3% FASTER than the MacPro!
There is no chance in hell there'll be a Conroe system for some time. This is also the reason the Mac Pros are all quads, a duo would be just as fast for all but the 0.001% of people that do stuff that fully utilizes the quad.
There is no chance in hell there'll be a Conroe system for some time. This is also the reason the Mac Pros are all quads, a duo would be just as fast for all but the 0.001% of people that do stuff that fully utilizes the quad.
steve_hill4 said:
I suspect that it will take 2GB in each and you will get more than 3GB total, then. But HW addresses are going to eat up some of the 4GB total address space, so you're not going to get all 4GB. (Apple could restrict things to just 3GB regardless, although I can't see any reason for them to do so.) I suspect the 3GB is just a marketing move. After all, they wouldn't want to advertise something like "for an extra $500 we'll stick in a 2nd 2GB stick to give you an extra .1 GB of memory!"
I'd hoped for a full 64 bit system, though that probably wasn't realistic in the time frame. I'm not buying until January, so we'll see what comes out at MacWorld (which I think I'll actually go to this year) and then I'll decide. All in all, I think I'd be very happy with the 24" model (with a 2nd display).
Steve
With the decent graphics and these C2D's they make the iMac a formiddable machine. Alot of PowerMac's are going to be replaced by these new iMac's i feel. Probably Apple's most impressive, solid and reliable machine at the moment
Good - now we won't have to wade through any arguments with fanbois who claim that the iMac is the "most powerful desktop on the planet"....
JRM PowerPod said:
Unless Leopard is designed to make full use of the extra threads/cores available on the quad-core Mac Pro. Like that OS someone mentioned earlier in the thread that saw 60-70% performance gains when the cores were doubled.
I think the Mac Pro is fairly safe as a workstation, but fewer people will use it as a simple desktop now that iMacs are so competitive.