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
Plus $200 for a single i7? And both memory and hard drive options are, as usual, overpriced. Not to mention the funny RAM configuration. No thanks. I am happy with my Mac Pro Octo 2009 but I could use two new LED monitors. Still great new Apple computers of course 
this is one of the reasons the iMac works well for Apple's bottom line and why we will probably never again see a cheap, headless Mac: they can churn some consumers based on GPU improvements.Wow, that's impressive. I'm going to get a 27" iMac just as soon as they put a good video card in it.
the Mac Pro really is turning out to be a niche player isn't it? targeted chiefly at business' that need the expansion buses. And they are pricing it accordingly.
if you are looking for long lasting permanent satisfaction you are not likely to find it in any product. reality is that from the moment you buy it, its on its way to being obsolete (sometimes much sooner than later). With each passing moment closer and closer to parting with it one way or another. The dissatisfaction starts immediately and slowly grows, but may be unnoticeable shrouded and even clouded by temporary enjoyment. seems philosophy could be a key ingredient in the marketing pie?!?
Eidorian has a Macbook.
I thought it was moreof Daft Punk....
if you are looking for long lasting permanent satisfaction you are not likely to find it in any product... The dissatisfaction starts immediately and slowly grows, but may be unnoticeable shrouded and even clouded by temporary enjoyment. seems philosophy could be a key ingredient in the marketing pie?!?
Indeed. I would be willing to argue that persuasion to emotions (pathos) are far more effective then appeals to logic and morals (logos and ethos).
TMay,
Clockrate does matter, but so does RAM. Please note that the configuration of the i7 was stock (4 GB) and the configuration of the MP 8 Core was 8 GB. That's twice the RAM and yet the iMac still outperformed the 8 core on the majority of tasks.
You can argue that the .6 Ghz or so clock speed difference plays a role, but I would argue that having double the RAM in the MP 8 core would provide significant performance boost (clock speed alone can't be considered the bottom line as RAM, RAM speed, FSB speed, etc. all make up the performance portrait of a machine).
I'd be interested to see how an 8 Core 2.26 GHz with 8 GB of RAM performs against an 8 Core 2.83 with 4 GB of RAM. I'd venture that they wouldn't be that far apart.
Given that the 8 core was testing with twice the RAM of the i7, despite the clockspeed difference, you have to agree that the i7 performed surprisingly well with only the stock configuration.
Unless you need PCI Express capability and RAID configurations, the i7 is the clear winner here in terms of value and performance. The fact that it's a comparable powerhouse that is thousands less then a similarly configured 8 Core (including a monitor since the MP doesn't come with one) should almost speak for itself.
Clockrate does matter, but so does RAM. Please note that the configuration of the i7 was stock (4 GB) and the configuration of the MP 8 Core was 8 GB. That's twice the RAM and yet the iMac still outperformed the 8 core on the majority of tasks.
You can argue that the .6 Ghz or so clock speed difference plays a role, but I would argue that having double the RAM in the MP 8 core would provide significant performance boost (clock speed alone can't be considered the bottom line as RAM, RAM speed, FSB speed, etc. all make up the performance portrait of a machine).
I'd be interested to see how an 8 Core 2.26 GHz with 8 GB of RAM performs against an 8 Core 2.83 with 4 GB of RAM. I'd venture that they wouldn't be that far apart.
Given that the 8 core was testing with twice the RAM of the i7, despite the clockspeed difference, you have to agree that the i7 performed surprisingly well with only the stock configuration.
Unless you need PCI Express capability and RAID configurations, the i7 is the clear winner here in terms of value and performance. The fact that it's a comparable powerhouse that is thousands less then a similarly configured 8 Core (including a monitor since the MP doesn't come with one) should almost speak for itself.
I think i remember seeing some miniature version of data reels (tape) in steve's arm? Perhaps they were i7's after all.
As for the topic:
Curious, does anyone have any good reliable links to specs comparing these new machines to high end pc boxes? Googled a few but seemed either biases or systems were so differently configured (different number of cores) that the comparison seemed useless to me. TYIA.
i cannot wait until christmas... it used to be a slow laptop that always needed plugging in... now it is a true speedy desktop
I have an even better link than that.
hikari is a fine notebook and I don't see a need to replace her. I also take her to my on-site jobs to provide support. I've own three iMacs, a Power Mac G3 and a Macbook over all these years.
As did I.
if you are looking for long lasting permanent satisfaction you are not likely to find it in any product. reality is that from the moment you buy it, its on its way to being obsolete (sometimes much sooner than later). With each passing moment closer and closer to parting with it one way or another. The dissatisfaction starts immediately and slowly grows, but may be unnoticeable shrouded and even clouded by temporary enjoyment. seems philosophy could be a key ingredient in the marketing pie?!?
Not for people who bought x58/i7 platforms in 2008. Those are still going very strong and will be until Sandy Bridge is out (and further really). I think 2 years at the top of the line is pretty great, wouldn't you say? Even the Mac Pros were underpowered compared to the PC equivalents, the moment they came out. Four RAM slots on the quad core Mac Pro? Not overclockable? What is Apple smoking? I built a quad core i7, that is currently at 3.5 ghz, but could easily be 4. 12 gigs of 1600mhz ddr3. Smoking machine. All top of the line name brand parts with great warranties. Under a thousand dollars. Let's see Apple match that.
The only Apple machine I can buy in decent conscience is a laptop. The others are just way way too underpowered for the price. The fact you can't even change out the hard drive in an iMac is a complete deal breaker (and a design disaster). What idiot would buy something like that?
The 6 Million Dollar Man (1974) predates them - as they were born around that time.
Original narrative:
"Gentlemen, We can rebuild him, we have the technology. We have the capability to make the first bionic man....Better than he was before - better, stronger, faster!"
Remix of Intro
I think we're a bit too used to our Harder Better Faster Stronger.
Though I do have nostalgia for the old show. I'm in the market for a new desk as well since I'm monitor shopping. There was a nice desk from Target posted in a 27" iMac thread but I wasn't able to get any more information from the poster.
I think we're a bit too used to our Harder Better Faster Stronger.
Though I do have nostalgia for the old show. I'm in the market for a new desk as well since I'm monitor shopping. There was a nice desk from Target posted in a 27" iMac thread but I wasn't able to get any more information from the poster.
Do you have a pic?
I think we're a bit too used to our Harder Better Faster Stronger.
Though I do have nostalgia for the old show. I'm in the market for a new desk as well since I'm monitor shopping. There was a nice desk from Target posted in a 27" iMac thread but I wasn't able to get any more information from the poster.
If you know it's from Target you should be able to find it pretty easily. Target doesn't carry all that many desks.
There are only going to be two times when RAM itself will likely play a large role in testing: one is when the amount of RAM is critical itself (the application may require a large capacity of RAM initially or as it continues to test), or otherwise when the memory bandwidth itself is what's being tested.
You don't really see memory capacity playing a large factor in most benchmarking tests, because you're solely running that benchmark, and it usually has all free memory available for use. So whether the system has 4GB, 8 GB or 16GB, it's likely not going to have any impact.
The other time, when memory bandwidth plays a role, isn't really dependent on RAM capacity. It's more dependent on such values as RAM speed, CAS timing and whether it's single channel, dual channel or triple channel. For these tests, you'll see the Bloomfield/Gainestown processors show a performance increase over the Lynnfields not because they may have 8 GB in the test system vs. a Lynnfield system's 4 GB, but because they have triple channel memory controllers (vs. Lynnfield's dual channel controllers). That's what's making the difference.
Now, in real world situations, if you're running a number of applications, including professional apps, you'll very likely see a benefit to 8 GB over 4 GB, but benchmarks can't really replicate that situation (they could, if someone took the time to set them up for it, but very very rarely do reviewers take the tim to configure them as such).
Which is why I really don't like synthetic memory benchmarks. It's nice to have ludicrous amounts of bandwidth but that only really matters to people that want to face off X58 vs. P55, etc.
There really isn't a great difference between the 2.93 Ghz Core i7 860 processor and the 2.93 Ghz Xeon 5570 with the exception that the Xeon X5570 is designed for multiprocessor installs and has Quickpath (2). True that the Xeon inherently has better data bandwidth, but otherwise, it's cores should be equivalent to the Core i7 8xx. I would regard the Core i7 9xx to be a true single processor sibling, with Quickpath, of the Xeon.
At any rate, the question has to do with benchmarked performance, and I argue that at equivalent clock rates, and memory, the Xeon will have the edge. Your point that 4GB of additional memory is equal to a 0.67 Ghz boost in clock rate would be hard to support.
Better to run the benchmarks at the same clockrate and the same per processor memory for an apples to apples comparison.
Either way, I don't disagree with the argument that the Core i7 iMac is a terrific value and has excellent performance.
Exactly. My i7 system has 12 GB of RAM, of which I've maybe peaked out at 6GB of use. I ran MemTest to stress-test the RAM and make sure all modules were good, but otherwise I have no care to do memory bandwidth testing, lol
Oh I fully agree, I'm glad Apple has introduced the i5 and i7. I just wish it wasn't only available on the 27" iMac model. I also wish they didn't equip it with the outdated mobile 4850, lol.
Agreed, certainly within the realms of marketing (and many other strategic systems), however I believe that logic can persuade emotions on the path to discover ones own morality.
Wow, Target has way more desks online than I thought. Their in-store selection is much smaller. Not really sure that would be easy to find online.
I use a desk from Ikea called the "Galant" I believe, "A-style" legs, with the black/brown top. It looks really great, and I normally hate Ikea furniture. But this one works. It's a very simple desk, no goofy drawers, just a nice table top on very sturdy legs. Looks pretty pro. It seems like it's fairly similar to the target desk you pictured, so I thought I would mention it. Here is a picture of it I just took with my iPhone. Desk looks very messy at the moment, but I've been doing a lot of work so...
