More Quad-Core iMac Benchmarks Show Substantial Performance Gains

[AidenShaw]

Obviously these results don't take full advantage of all the cores.

Since few applications take "full advantage" of all cores, there will be many applications that will run as fast on the Imac as on an Octo Mac Pro (they're Nehalem Xeons, not "i7" by the way).

Also, because of NUMA issues with OSX, some of these "4 core or less" aware apps will run faster on a single socket system (quad Mac Pro or quad Imac) than on an octo system.

 

[bigandy]

There isn't anything even available to utilize those speeds right now! You may be waiting for a while

Fibre channel. We wouldn't think of anything else here. 10 gigE doesn't hit the rates that 8gig fibre can, and I bet you won't see FC on an iMac for a while.

What is the point of even buying a Mac Pro now? Why don't they discontinue it if they have no desire to resurrect it?!

They aim (successfully) for different markets. In my line of work Mac Pros cut the mustard, and iMacs are completely and utterly unsuitable. You can't get a Quadro FX, Kona card or dual/quad channel Fibre in an iMac.

 

[Hemingray]

There is no way that a single Quad Core i7 beats a Dual Quad Core i7 MacPro. I have a Quad Core i5 and the Dual Quad Core i7 spanks my Mac Pro. These results can't be true. I seriously doubt it. Obviously these results don't take full advantage of all the cores.

I don't think that's an 8-core i7 Mac Pro, it's a Xeon 5500. But even so, I agree, I'm very skeptical that a quad i7 could be *that* superior to an 8-core Xeon 5500.

 

[Westside guy]

I can't see any computer with these glossy screens really being an "attractive option for even professional users", unless we're just talking about writers - and they don't need anywhere near this processing power. People always like to drool over processor throughput, but for most tasks what we have now is way more than adequate - it's the screen that's the real shortcoming, and that hasn't changed.

What a photo/video/layout pro needs is a decent screen. The iMac still isn't really an option, unless you're using it to drive a much better second display.

 

[HLdan]

LOL, someone rated this negative.

Yeah, it must suck that a new iMac performs substantially better than its predecessors.

Agreed, I don't get why ANYONE would rate this article negative. Probably those Windows lovers.

 

[mynameisjay]

I just ordered an i7 last night. Caaaaaaannnt wait!

 

[stagi]

The only thing I don't think is good for professional users (at least creatives) is the monitor. At least the last time I looked into them they weren't the best compared to having a decent external monitor.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

I don't think that's an 8-core i7 Mac Pro, it's a Xeon 5500. But even so, I agree, I'm very skeptical that a quad i7 could be *that* superior to an 8-core Xeon 5500.

The funny thing is, the cinebench (v 10) test run by Macworld shows the slower 8 core beating out the iMac, but only by a little bit.

in the later versions of C4d (v 11.5), there are significant improvements to multi-threading (shadow maps, displacement, etc) and Nehalem specific optimizations. A test run in a more current version of cinema 4d would show a wider gap in favor of an 8 core machine.

I'm waiting for that sweet spot- a six core hyper threaded mac pro that will let me use my existing dual monitors.

 

[MegaSignal]

Just a practical question -

I'm running an '07 Mac Pro with the 2x2.66 Dual-Core Xeon with 4GB of 667 MHz DDR2 RAM setup(yea I know, get more of this RAM as it's cheaper now); I rip videos, crunch lots of numbers in Mathematica and enjoy the speed of things as they are.

Question:
Would the 27" iMac, tricked out with the faster CPU and some additional RAM give me a noticeable 'feel' in terms of a speed bump?

 

[PeterQVenkman]

I can't see any computer with these glossy screens really being an "attractive option for even professional users", unless we're just talking about writers - and they don't need anywhere near this processing power. People always like to drool over processor throughput, but for most tasks what we have now is way more than adequate - it's the screen that's the real shortcoming, and that hasn't changed.

What a photo/video/layout pro needs is a decent screen. The iMac still isn't really an option, unless you're using it to drive a much better second display.

We've got 3 glossy iMac screens in our office used for photoshop, design, and CSS work- and we haven't had any complaints from our designers.

So far the only problem has been with the Snow Leopard upgrade.

 

[Jordan Fish]

I need speed AND reliability. My Macbook Pro was a perfectly suitable desktop replacement until it started spazzing out from being overworked. I just can't trust a machine with miniaturized components squashed sardine-style behind a giant, glass-covered monitor. If "thinness" had anything to do with a computer's design process, it's probably not good for professional work.

 

[Justinf79]

So ummmm, how is it that a i5 core iMac is faster than a Xeon MP at the same CPU speeds?

 

[Shodan]

If it had USB 3.0, I'd be ordering one instead of posting here. I'm holding out on my next pro machine until I can get a higher-speed interface for talking to RAIDs. FW800 and USB 2.0 just don't cut it.

Yes because professionals use USB for large file transferals.

 

[Shodan]

So ummmm, how is it that a i5 core iMac is faster than a Xeon MP at the same CPU speeds?

Turboboost and a better Graphics solution.

 

[Bregalad]

I don't think that's an 8-core i7 Mac Pro, it's a Xeon 5500. But even so, I agree, I'm very skeptical that a quad i7 could be *that* superior to an 8-core Xeon 5500.

These results prove what the hackintosh people have been saying for years about quad core towers keeping up with Mac Pros that cost twice as much or more. I don't expect all the people who tried to defend the Mac Pro will admit they were wrong, however.


The Macworld Speedmark tests are based mainly on consumer software. It's designed to measure performance for average users and not people running massively multithreaded apps. Most consumer applications are designed to run a single thread or maybe two threads. They simply cannot take advantage of extra cores.

Thus it makes perfect sense that a new processor with high speed turbo mode and higher base clock speed than the Xeons will do better when faced with typical software.

Apple can't like having their top end machines lose speed contests to less expensive models, but they have very few options right now if they stick with Xeon processors. Intel charges an arm and a leg for Xeons.

Next year there should be 6 core Xeons to replace the current 4 core models, but that won't address the problem of fewer high clock cores beating more low clock cores on most software.

Apple has always charged outrageous premiums for slots and drive bays, but times have changed. It's going to be interesting to see how Apple responds to this situation in the new year.

 

[knewsom]

That's exactly what I'm wanting..... an eSATA port. I'm holding off until the first of the year. I'm sure it won't get much by then but you never know.

To be fair, it DOES have gigabit ethernet, which equates to 125MB/sec... that's technically fast enough for most high-end video solutions except outputting to tape or capturing, neither of which anyone would need to do at home, really.

My last gig was at the Jim Henson Company, and the fibre-channel went down, so we wound up using our Sun RAIDs over the gigabit ethernet. It was actually fast enough to color correct and watch uncompressed 720P/24.

Making a gigabit ethernet RAID at home should be plenty for even very high end work in FCP. Monitoring CAN be accomplished via the FW800 and the miniDVI port, as long as it feeds a calibrateable display.

As for worrying about the reliability of the components, shell out the CHEAPER THAN DIRT 169 bux for applecare.

Ultimately if these bad boys had a better video card and a high-speed serial interface, they'd be about the best thing since buttered toast. (mmm. buttered toast.)

Even still, I'm HIGHLY considering buying one, since I doubt iMacs with USB 3.0 or light peak will be available for QUITE some time.

 

[knewsom]

Yes because professionals use USB for large file transferals.

6GBPS USB 3.0? I imagine quite a few would, at the price-point. Remember there are different levels of professional. Just because someone isn't working on a machine with an AJA 3 card, a 16TB fiber channel RAID, and a $50,000 calibrateable display, doesn't mean they are not professional. It means they're not doing 150 million dollar budget movies and hugely budgeted network TV shows, but they could well be doing cable TV or an independent film of even a sizeable budget... knowing how to stretch a budget really counts for a lot in this world.

 

[KingYaba]

When will we get a headless Mac?

When Steve Jobs leaves the company.

 

[Shanpdx]

That would have worked for me. Hell even a Core 2 Qaud 65W S Series in the 21.5" should just be a simple drop in for the socketed LGA 775 processors.

A Core 2 Duo in a +$600 desktop is a complete disgrace.

well said, hope new Clarkdale changes that and hope they are faster than 3.06Ghz, well another two months we will know how fast they perform and should be ready for May/June 2010 revision iMacs.

 

[freiheit]

27" is too big; would love quad-core in a smaller model

The iMac has gone from underpowered laptop on a stick to serious power house in one revision

Yeah, it's too bad you have to get the freakin' huge 27" model to get the quad-core chip. Even at 24" I thought the iMac was a little large, but for a quad-core (even an i5) I'd go with a 24". I can't conceivably use a 27". It's just too big.

 

[Eidorian]

well said, hope new Clarkdale changes that and hope they are faster than 3.06Ghz, well another two months we will know how fast they perform and should be ready for May/June 2010 revision iMacs.

Clarkdale is fine until you pass around $140. Yes there are Clarkdale processors that cost more than $180 and they cross well into the Lynnfield price range. I'd pick the Core i7 860 every time over a fast Clarkdale.

LGA 775 on the iMac should have been there since 2006 and not the dead socket walking it is right now. Not to mention sticking around with nVidia based IGPs is another doomed prospect because you'll be stuck once again with Core 2.

Intel is already pushing 2 core, 4 thread Clarkdale processors as good enough against Core 2 Quad Yorkfield. Hopefully the non-in house benchmarks will reflect that.

 

[Shodan]

6GBPS USB 3.0? I imagine quite a few would, at the price-point. Remember there are different levels of professional. Just because someone isn't working on a machine with an AJA 3 card, a 16TB fiber channel RAID, and a $50,000 calibrateable display, doesn't mean they are not professional. It means they're not doing 150 million dollar budget movies and hugely budgeted network TV shows, but they could well be doing cable TV or an independent film of even a sizeable budget... knowing how to stretch a budget really counts for a lot in this world.

I will like to see that sort of performance.

It will more likely be 10x the usual transferral rate of USB 2.0 - which stands at around 40 MiB/s - so USB 3.0 will be 400 MiB/s.

Still not that impressive, tbh.

 

[Xavier]

why would you rate this negative?

 

[*LTD*]

The gap between the Mac Mini and the iMac increases still further.

When will we get a headless Mac?

The gap increases further? So? This isn't an actual problem.

There is no need for one, not enough demand for one, so you won't.

 

[Eidorian]

The gap increases further? So? This isn't an actual problem.

There is no need for one, not enough demand for one, so you won't.

Only Apple can sell an all-in-one desktop computer.