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.
More Quad-Core iMac Benchmarks Show Substantial Performance Gains
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You just contradicted your own point. Despite your 4 year old G5 having the ability to take 16GB, here you are 4 years later still easily getting by, just like the rest of us, with 4GB of RAM. For the typical user, it will most likely be the same in another 4 years. I'd say that I will 'out grow' my iMac and upgrade LONG before 16GB is going to be a necessity, and that's even if I keep my machine for 5 years.
as enticing as the imac now is.... I would still prefer to buy a "mythical" midrange type mac desktop.
I really do not want to buy an all in one imac. i like the idea of being able to upgrade the graphics chip later on, add a second hard drive and having a couple slots to use.
oh yeah being able to upgrade the optical drive to a BLU-RAY.
sorry but i won't buy a new mac to replace my Mac Pro or my laptops until apple finally relents and puts in Blu-Ray.
I'd probably even do a Hackintosh laptop to stopgap this. looks like ill need a new laptop this winter/spring and i'm getting tired of waiting for apple to support blu-ray.
I have to disagree with this. My father has a powermac G4 that was rated at only 800 MHz, 128 MB RAM, 60 GB HD, and 32 MB VRAM. He still has it today because he was able to install a new CPU (2 GHz), upgrade the RAM (1.5 GB) and a new hard drive. It does everything he needs because he could regularly upgrade components a few hundred dollars at a time instead of having to replace the entire computer altogether. I will say that having upgradable PCI cards and space for multiple hard drives is why he favored the quicksilver over a powermac G5. And the mac pro is just way too expensive for him.
I also would advocate that the 15-inch macbook pro's latest update made it an inferior product by replacing the express card with something less versatile. I greatly favor the ability to expand a computer's performance, or at the very least, reduce the cost to be taken apart by a professional. I recently had to pay almost a hundred dollars to replace the trackpad on my ibook G4... service cost. The ibook and the imac are among the worst computers to take apart, even for professionals. That's the price for Apple's 'compact and streamlined' designs. I think that the Imac's latest design should have included an express card slot; as it would have been more versatile than an SD card. They might even have been able to design the 27 inch version to include a second hard drive, but that might have been pushing the computer's power demands.
I think that the next generation Apple tower should be built for expandability instead of performance. I would advocate for a user-level desktop with a cheaper design and tech specs much more variable. For instance... CPU ranging from a core 2 duo, 256 MB VRAM card, and 500 GB HD for ~$1000. The computer could be upgraded to the same specs as the present mac pro, but this computer MUST be less expensive than the lowest-end imac.
What do other people think?
don't speak for the average person, because what you're saying is simply not true.
There's nothing tiring of changing a graphics card in a MP, takes 5 minutes, and BOOM you're done.
I rather buy a MP and know that it''ll keep up with the base model high end mac 5 years down the road.
I love watching these threads completely devolve into silly subtopics (grammar, spelling, etc.) that have nothing to do with the original topic.
All I know is that the MacPro Fanboys came out in droves when the i7 iMac was introduced and assured all of us that the MP's would "crush" the i7. Well, looks like the 8 core and 4 core MP got OWNED in these real world tests (which I put much more stock in then less meaningful geekbench scores).
The message here seems to be that for the money, the i7 reigns supreme. And for the dude who wrote that 16GB of RAM comes in at $1000 vs. $600 for the MacPro - you do realize that the MacPro costs almost $1000 more and doesn't even include a display right?
All I know is that the MacPro Fanboys came out in droves when the i7 iMac was introduced and assured all of us that the MP's would "crush" the i7. Well, looks like the 8 core and 4 core MP got OWNED in these real world tests (which I put much more stock in then less meaningful geekbench scores).
The message here seems to be that for the money, the i7 reigns supreme. And for the dude who wrote that 16GB of RAM comes in at $1000 vs. $600 for the MacPro - you do realize that the MacPro costs almost $1000 more and doesn't even include a display right?
Also, RAM prices continue to fall. ...and SoDIMMs continue to get bigger. Who's to say that the iMac COULDNT handle 32 GB? Apple says that the limit for the MacMini is 4 gigs, but I've read accounts of people using 8, with ZERO problems.
Those are quite excellent numbers. If I didn't recently give up on using Quicktime to convert video files from avi to mp4, I would be really interested in a new iMac.
For reference, my 7,1 iMac 2.4Ghz, 4GB of RAM, benches 3700. A new i5 costs less than my 7,1 did in 8/07, and benches over 7100.
That's nearly 100% increase in performance in 2 years of product model evolution. That is amazing, regardless of your opinion of "last year's graphics card."
For reference, my 7,1 iMac 2.4Ghz, 4GB of RAM, benches 3700. A new i5 costs less than my 7,1 did in 8/07, and benches over 7100.
That's nearly 100% increase in performance in 2 years of product model evolution. That is amazing, regardless of your opinion of "last year's graphics card."
This not at all true with the new unibody MacBook which has a LED backlit screen. The quality on this screen is just as good as the one in the MacBook Pro 13". It appears more or less identical to the MacBook Air's screen.
[edit] A bit off topic maybe... The new iMac sreens are really nice, though.
Me too. An i5 in the 21.5" would have been perfect. I suppose the problem is with heat dissipation. Anyone care to speculate on what processors the next revision of the 21.5" will come with?
We think this is Apple, and not every other junk manufacturer on the planet. Buy it as is. Use it. When its not good enough anymore, buy a new one.
It really is that simple. You can't go wrong with an Apple desktop or laptop. If you're one of the people that thinks Blu Ray is in some way a necessity, then we can't help you. (No one can).
The test was with the low end dual 2.26 Mac Pro. The high end Mac Pro (dual 2.93) would overall be faster than the high end i7 iMac, though probably a wash on single threaded apps. The iMac is an extremely good value today, but for those that need it, the next generation of Xeon will get a nice performance boost, and two more cores per processor.
Going unsaid is the untapped capability of GrandCentral, OpenCL, and all of those PCIe slots of the Mac Pro. Throw in Light Peak down the road, and you might be seeing Apple supported ad hoc clustering.
I'm not sure how it could be configured, but it would be possible to use an iMac/iMac's for your Mac Pro displays, and then utilize the iMac/iMac's themselves as rendering nodes and such on a local network with the Mac Pro. Expensive, but not significantly more than the cost of the 30 inch cinema displays on a Mac Pro.
I would love to see a setup like the above with Maxwell Render.
You should understand that until now, Apple did not sell a desktop-class computer (performance-wise). Anyone who needed something beyond laptop performance had no choice but to get a MacPro.
A strong desktop-class computer should perform about the same as a workstation on real-world benchmarks. The "normal" purpose of a workstation computer is to provide maximum performance for certain specialized tasks -- tasks that, ideally, have been optimized to take advantage of workstation resources.
So, to some extent, these iMacs let the MacPro be what it should have been already: a workstation on which performance-critical tasks can be executed and a platform that developers of such software can optimize for.
When you say you put more stock in the real-world benchmarks, that just means you're more interested in performing "normal" tasks on your computer -- that you're in the market for a desktop rather than a workstation computer. Workstations still have their place. It's just smaller that before (and rightfully so).
Of course, the new iMac only half fills the desktop role. If you need much expandability, you are still going to have to buy a MacPro, whether or not you would otherwise need a workstation-type computer.
By the way, a quick MR riddle: what's even more pointless than trying to correct minor grammar and spelling errors in posts? A: calling anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do a fanboy.
You essentially got one in the Core i5, i7 iMacs... it's just Apple gave you a 27" LED-backlit gorgeous ips display with it.
Wtf?
How is Higher bandwidth external storage not essential? FireWire 800 is good for people that don't have more intensive professional needs.
Video Users editing in ProRes would love to have some SATA II ports, not USB 3.0, and Hopefully LightPeak or FireWire 6400 can start coming through the pipeline.
These iMac's are great, but they don't address the full needs of a Pro Video user, or a pro Photog... Being able to tap a high bandwidth external RAID, or even single drive would be amazing.
How is Higher bandwidth external storage not essential? FireWire 800 is good for people that don't have more intensive professional needs.
Video Users editing in ProRes would love to have some SATA II ports, not USB 3.0, and Hopefully LightPeak or FireWire 6400 can start coming through the pipeline.
These iMac's are great, but they don't address the full needs of a Pro Video user, or a pro Photog... Being able to tap a high bandwidth external RAID, or even single drive would be amazing.
I'm not exactly sure what the point of your post is other to be inflammatory. Your remark about my statement on "Fanboys" doesn't even make sense in the context of how I made it. The MP "Fanboys" repeatedly crushed any assertion that the iMac i7 could compete in any way with the MP Quad or 8 core and these new results clearly prove otherwise.
How does that represent an indictment of anyone who doesn't think like I do? It simply states the obvious: they were clearly wrong. But it seems that the obvious escapes you.
The rest of your post is drivel and requires one to delineate between a workstation and something else that isn't as configurable - which really has no place in this discussion because I didn't argue anything to the contrary.
My only point was that the iMac i7 outperformed the Quad and 8 Core machines on the majority of real-world tasks. Why is real-world performance results important to me, and should be important to everyone? Geekbench scores represent theoretical numbers that don't necessarily map on to performance one would see when actually applying the processing power of a machine to actual computing tasks instead of theoretical ones.
If you'd like to debate this point, then please include a reference to actual data that suggest otherwise. If you'd like to stand behind theoretical processing power, then be my guest.
How does that represent an indictment of anyone who doesn't think like I do? It simply states the obvious: they were clearly wrong. But it seems that the obvious escapes you.
The rest of your post is drivel and requires one to delineate between a workstation and something else that isn't as configurable - which really has no place in this discussion because I didn't argue anything to the contrary.
My only point was that the iMac i7 outperformed the Quad and 8 Core machines on the majority of real-world tasks. Why is real-world performance results important to me, and should be important to everyone? Geekbench scores represent theoretical numbers that don't necessarily map on to performance one would see when actually applying the processing power of a machine to actual computing tasks instead of theoretical ones.
If you'd like to debate this point, then please include a reference to actual data that suggest otherwise. If you'd like to stand behind theoretical processing power, then be my guest.
The requirements aren't absolute with respect to time. My G5 came with only 512 MB installed -- that's room for five doublings of RAM, 7.5 years at the usual Moore's Law pace. If a computer lasts that long, I'm generally pretty happy with it. On the other hand, the iMac comes with 4 GB, so it only has room for two doublings -- a mere three years. If you think that 4 GB will always be enough, you haven't been using computers for long enough to understand that the requirements of modern software (and modern media files) always increase. The Apple ][e in my sig has 256 kB of RAM, and that was plenty back in the early 80s, but you don't see anyone trying to run a computer with that much today, or even in 1990. It's fine if you never upgrade your software or use media created since then, but while I have some great BASIC programs that run on that thing, I'm not exactly using it for my day-to-day computing needs.
Only if you need a new display; if you have an existing monitor that you like, it's not really saving you anything. Though at least the fact that said display can be driven by another machine means that if you want to buy a Mac Pro or other headless machine in the future, you can keep on using it. That's a big improvement over every previous iMac model.
My i7 is scheduled to be delivered December 4th.
My VESA mount arrived yesterday. It's a very nice looking and well made VESA mount. I had to put it away so I couldn't constantly see it, that just kept reminding me of how far away Dec 4th seems.
This, however, is great news.
My VESA mount arrived yesterday. It's a very nice looking and well made VESA mount. I had to put it away so I couldn't constantly see it, that just kept reminding me of how far away Dec 4th seems.
This, however, is great news.
65W Core 2 Quad or Clarkdale + H57/P55. Core 2 Quad will allow Apple to keep using the LGA 775 design in the lower end models.
The iMac has a habit of inspiring a delayed purchase. You do see a lot of "maybe the next revision will have what I want." On the higher end it's a fine machine until you have people looking at the optical drive or GPU solutions. On the lower end you're coughing up the money for yet another Core 2 Duo + 9400M G.
Apple does trickle down features and have a certain level of standardization across models but the goal is to upsell you to something that isn't going to make you 100% happy. You see a lot comments on the resale value which does turn the iMac into a disposable machine until you get close to what you want. In addition resale value is entirely based on Apple's whim. One update and you're suddenly losing hundreds in artificial value.
Once again we're close with this iMac but still so far.
I reiterate my earlier point. Clock rate matters. Benchmark the Mac Pro dual 2.83 Xeon with the iMac single 2.83 Core i7. I don't disagree with the value proposition of the iMac, but as they say, "there are lies, damn lies, and benchmarks".
Depends on how you look @ it! I use UAD and SSL Duende DSP cards in my MP and the iMac is crippled in that respect. Sure it's fast but there are NO plugins that can touch a powered plug... For photoshop this machine is unstoppable for bang for the buck! This goes out to all you hackintoshers too!Maybe they're bitter that it outperforms their brand-new Mac Pro.
Please put together a machine with the monitor and the specs of this iMac for cheaper please? And make sure it updates too!
Nice one APPLE!