More Quad-Core iMac Benchmarks Show Substantial Performance Gains

[cankster]

What do you mean who cares? Just about everyone to some degree? Why is OSX better for pictures and movies? I find Windows 7 WAY better for movies. Go buy an AVCHD camera and try to use it on both platforms. One flies, and is sublime. One doesn't even really work at all. Windows Media Player 12 is so superior to Quicktime X, it's embarrassing for Apple. Pictures are practically a draw, since iPhoto is a ridiculously bad program, but then again the entire iLife suite is so...hopefully you aren't using that for any sort of media management or production. Music is again better on Windows. You can have iTunes on either system, but if you've ever actually tried the Zune 4.0 software (not really talking about the player, I don't have any interest in that) you would realize it's much much better than itunes. Better visuals, and actually runs super smooth, unlike iTunes choppy and terrible performance. Zune can also read your itunes directory just fine, so you can run both programs off the same library. So how is OSX better for music, videos and pictures again? I honestly can't think of a single way and you could call me a pretty heavy "power user."

Why is your Windows machine being slowly taken over by malware and viruses? What are you doing with your machines? I've used both for years and have ZERO issues with virues and malware on Windows. It's really not hard. Seems like you've either fallen victim to Apple's absurd marketing or you're doing certain things with your machine you just shouldn't be doing. There really isn't any other explanation. Don't get me wrong, I do like some things about OSX, but usability, flexibility, and value are not part of it. Hmm...so what's left? Well it looks nice, and I can write iPhone software.

So...do you still not care that you are paying pretty much a 100%+ premium for an entirely inferior machine that you have to take to teenagers at a mall if the simplest thing goes wrong?

Sure. I'll have others fix my computers. One of my jobs is by default to fix the computer of everyone of my friends and family. I have been using and building PC machines since Windows 95. And if I only use the machine there are not to many problems with Zone Alarm, nortons anti virus etc. But with others using your home or work computer with my Windows machines I have to fix/reinstall them throughout the year. I had only PC machines except for the Macs that produced a paper I run until 4 years ago. My Macs, system 9 not OSX still has never had to be fixed. They still run the same as when I bought them. Slow now, G4's. Since then I have had to reinstall XP 7-10 times. I cant even remember how many. Not to mention trying to keep my parents machines running which was impossible until I had them switch to mac minis. You can prefer Windows all you want and that is fine. Use them and be happy. I do for my games.

I am personally sick of being under constant attack from viruses,
adware, malware etc. I have and non of my friends have ever had a problem with such things on their macs. EVER. Both machines will deal with videos, music, bla bla bla just fine. But my Mac crashes once a year, and never gets infected with anything. And I never have to fix it. That is without any extra programs to protect it. I am tired of trying to save my emails, files, settings etc when I have to reinstall Windows.

So again for those of us who think that OSX is what we want to run I say again. Who Cares? If you want to use Windows then you should never think about Apple computers. If you want to use OSX then who cares what kind of PC you can build or how much it costs. The question is simple. Is this or this Mac a good deal for me? If so yes if not, no.

Cankster

 

[Detrius]

Maybe they're bitter that it outperforms their brand-new Mac Pro.

This is misleading. The only way the eight core machine is THE SAME speed as the four core machine is if it's only using one core. Anyone investing money in the extra cores of the eight core machine is NOT going to be bothered by this new iMac only being better on single-core tasks.

 

[ImaBigD]

Your post would have made sense if we were actually talking about benchmarks. However, we are talking about real-world performance on actual application based computing where RAM plays a critical role. Please go back and re-read the Macrumors post that this thread is based on.

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).

 

[pgee70]

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.

save your cash, make a freenas box with a raid on any old piece of crap pc for bulk storage, and use it via a gigabit network card.
transfer rates at 60mbytes/sec are common.

 

[Mike in Kansas]

To be useful this would need an eSata port. USB or even FW800 cannot be utilized for a practical external storage solution. The speed offered by those interfaces are excruciatingly slow to be usable, except maybe for timemachine which doesn't require the speed anyways.

Do you even USE an iMac? I have a 24" 2.8GHz 2008 model and have 3 external FW800 drives. I can stream video and encode both from the FW800 drives and back to them with no bottlenecks.

What do you "practical" if this isn't?

 

[pgee70]

You guys should actually get to the Apple Store, and take a look at that 27" screen. It's nothing that I have ever seen before. Its a really high quality IPS panel, i5 or i7 with up to 32Gb of ram. That's a pro machine in my book. And the best part, it's still cheaper than the cheapest Mac Pro on the market. You can't even build a hackintosh with that display/spec for that little money.

Good job Apple!

i have a really nice hack with 30" monitor. and instead of upgrading it to the i7 motherboard i am getting an iMac. less hassle.

 

[polaris20]

EXACTLY... Please post up some of your content so the world can understand that it takes a fast computer to do talented, gifted and inspirational work...
Again... please set us strait on this faster is better thing.
And by the way... I'm very happy with my Mac(s) and you hear what they do everyday on the radio...
They are tools to accomplish a goal.
Let's see some of yours...

Dude, you know I was kidding, right? I agree with you completely. If the tool does the job, then that's all that matters.

 

[polaris20]

-----------------------------------------

not true i just been on Dells website and spec a unit to same spec as Mac Pro and the Dell is more expensive!!!!

Oh I know dude, I was just being sarcastic. I recently had to justify another Mac Pro for work, and they balked until I showed them the Dells, HP's, and Lenovos. The 2.93ghz didn't look so bad after that!

 

[Bafflefish]

Your post would have made sense if we were actually talking about benchmarks. However, we are talking about real-world performance on actual application based computing where RAM plays a critical role. Please go back and re-read the Macrumors post that this thread is based on.

Once again, it is a benchmark that tests individual applications, seemingly at separate times. Did you actually do any research at all into Speedmark, or did you simply see "multiple applications users may use", and decide to spout off that it's clearly representative of a standard operating environment?

From the actual *research* I did into Speedmark, it appears to be a benchmarking suite that consists of linear tests for various applications, seemingly tested at separate times from each other. I couldn't find where they reference the applications running in unison, thus testing multitasking performance.

If you can find evidence where Speedmark is running the separate benchamarks in unison, then available RAM capacity *will* make a difference. Otherwise, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

As it stands, until you actually prove it's truly representative, I stand by my original statement: the tests in that article are not accurate for "real world" computing environments, where you may have several applications running at once, in unison, thus actually showing dozens of threads spread across multiple cores.

 

[knewsom]

maybe slightly off-topic, but...

I mean, do we even really NEED a higher-speed interface than FW800 or gigabit ethernet? With Pro-Res, even us pros (yes, I'm a pro, if you've ever watched PBS Kids, you've probably seen my work) don't really need fiber channel speeds for editing, color correction, and even high end audio work. Sure, you're not going to be capturing uncompressed 1080P, but you wouldn't be doing that anyway. I can't think of a single other pro who actually needs uncompressed. Most video is originating on a format that's compressed - and going to prores or even proresHQ at 220Mbps for 1080 is perfectly acceptable as a working intermediate. Sure, you need to convert to uncompressed before you run it through color or you risk banding, but so what? You don't need real time access in that circumstance, just the ability to A/B it, which I've done on a single SATA drive, and works just fine.

The more I think about it, as I type this on my ageing Hack (in windows 7 since I haven't hurdled SlowLeo yet... gah, what a PITA!), the more I think that this is probably the right solution for me. I mean hell, RAIDs capable of those kinds of speeds are out of my price-range anyways, and like I said, almost NOBODY actually even needs them. A firewire 800 DrRobo RAID that'll max-out the interface is plenty for nearly anyone.

'k. I think I've made up my mind to get one of these. You all have till monday to talk me out of it.

 

[Eidorian]

Once again, it is a benchmark that tests individual applications, seemingly at separate times. Did you actually do any research at all into Speedmark, or did you simply see "multiple applications users may use", and decide to spout off that it's clearly representative of a standard operating environment?

From the actual *research* I did into Speedmark, it appears to be a benchmarking suite that consists of linear tests for various applications, seemingly tested at separate times from each other. I couldn't find where they reference the applications running in unison, thus testing multitasking performance.

If you can find evidence where Speedmark is running the separate benchamarks in unison, then available RAM capacity *will* make a difference. Otherwise, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

As it stands, until you actually prove it's truly representative, I stand by my original statement: the tests in that article are not accurate for "real world" computing environments, where you may have several applications running at once, in unison, thus actually showing dozens of threads spread across multiple cores.

From the original post's graphs and some additional reading on SpeedMark 6, it shows that Speed Mark doesn't really scale based on cores.

Otherwise the amount of available RAM isn't going to matter in the test suite. SpeedMark 6 does appear to be just an aggregate of separate tests that compile to a final score. Finder scores are going to be limited by disk I/O and the processor.

The more aggressive Turbo Boost appears to be Lynnfield's main advantage here.

 

[AppleThis&That]

This i7 iMac performance looks great! I think I'll wait until the next update though and see if prices go down or if the processor moves down the line. We'll see.

It would be great if this i7 gets updated to the Mac Book Pro sometime in the future. I'd consider getting one of those.

 

[bdavis89]

Whats the point? Aren't the new ones supposed to be faster? There would only be news here if the new computers weren't faster than the old ones...

 

[knewsom]

Whats the point? Aren't the new ones supposed to be faster? There would only be news here if the new computers weren't faster than the old ones...

Yes, but this is a LOT faster, and uses a class of CPU that we'd thought had been all but abandoned in the "consumer" line of desktops since we said "buh-bye" to the G5.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Sure. I'll have others fix my computers. One of my jobs is by default to fix the computer of everyone of my friends and family. I have been using and building PC machines since Windows 95. And if I only use the machine there are not to many problems with Zone Alarm, nortons anti virus etc. But with others using your home or work computer with my Windows machines I have to fix/reinstall them throughout the year. I had only PC machines except for the Macs that produced a paper I run until 4 years ago. My Macs, system 9 not OSX still has never had to be fixed. They still run the same as when I bought them. Slow now, G4's. Since then I have had to reinstall XP 7-10 times. I cant even remember how many. Not to mention trying to keep my parents machines running which was impossible until I had them switch to mac minis. You can prefer Windows all you want and that is fine. Use them and be happy. I do for my games.

I am personally sick of being under constant attack from viruses,
adware, malware etc. I have and non of my friends have ever had a problem with such things on their macs. EVER. Both machines will deal with videos, music, bla bla bla just fine. But my Mac crashes once a year, and never gets infected with anything. And I never have to fix it. That is without any extra programs to protect it. I am tired of trying to save my emails, files, settings etc when I have to reinstall Windows.

So again for those of us who think that OSX is what we want to run I say again. Who Cares? If you want to use Windows then you should never think about Apple computers. If you want to use OSX then who cares what kind of PC you can build or how much it costs. The question is simple. Is this or this Mac a good deal for me? If so yes if not, no.

Cankster

Well from everything you've said, you're simply "doing it wrong." Windows does not generate that many problems at all. Users do. Macs can handle rudimentary things fine, but if you're running 60 gig music libraries, AVCHD videos, and tons of photos, OSX pretty much fails massively compared to how smoothly Windows will handle the stuff. I'm certainly not saying that out of malice, that's just how it is (as I sit with my Win7 and OSX machines side by side right now).

Zone Alarm? Norton? Those are things you just don't need any more. Use MS Security Essentials, and the built in firewall, and don't download warez or visit naughty sites and you won't get a single piece of malware or a virus. It's really not hard. My machines have always run smooth as silk, even after years of use. Uninstalling programs? Use the free revo uninstaller, just like how on OSX you need to use AppCleaner to get rid of all the junk. It's the same across platforms. OSX features security through obscurity, and many know this. In hacking contests OSX is almost always the ones to fall first, and in minutes. But based on internet usage statistics, OSX has around a 5% market share. Not exactly a target.

Again, I use OSX every day. It's not like I'm attacking it because I don't like it. I do like it for the most part. I just call it like it is, and that's simply how OSX "is." If your Windows boxes were that much of a mess I would take a look at how you were using them. Come check out my Win7 box, it smokes any OSX machine in existence. It's really not that hard.

 

[cankster]

Well from everything you've said, you're simply "doing it wrong." Windows does not generate that many problems at all. Users do. Macs can handle rudimentary things fine, but if you're running 60 gig music libraries, AVCHD videos, and tons of photos, OSX pretty much fails massively compared to how smoothly Windows will handle the stuff. I'm certainly not saying that out of malice, that's just how it is (as I sit with my Win7 and OSX machines side by side right now).

Zone Alarm? Norton? Those are things you just don't need any more. Use MS Security Essentials, and the built in firewall, and don't download warez or visit naughty sites and you won't get a single piece of malware or a virus. It's really not hard. My machines have always run smooth as silk, even after years of use. Uninstalling programs? Use the free revo uninstaller, just like how on OSX you need to use AppCleaner to get rid of all the junk. It's the same across platforms. OSX features security through obscurity, and many know this. In hacking contests OSX is almost always the ones to fall first, and in minutes. But based on internet usage statistics, OSX has around a 5% market share. Not exactly a target.

Again, I use OSX every day. It's not like I'm attacking it because I don't like it. I do like it for the most part. I just call it like it is, and that's simply how OSX "is." If your Windows boxes were that much of a mess I would take a look at how you were using them. Come check out my Win7 box, it smokes any OSX machine in existence. It's really not that hard.

Windows 7 has just come out. I can not comment on that. But I can on XP. I skipped Vista. It is possible that Windows 7 will run without problems for years? Perhaps. If that is the case, it just happened and we will have to wait for years to find out. Windows XP would not. Not for anybody I ever knew. If Windows XP worked for you as well as OSX or if it did not but Windows 7 does, then great. If in a couple of years everyone I know that switched to Windows 7 have similar experiences, Windows will be an option for me again for my main machine. Until then I will not have all my information that I care about on a Windows machine.

I would love to be able to have one machine to keep up to date and play my games on, which also kept all my childrens videos, pics, etc., on it. All for a fraction of the cost of a mac while still being faster and more capable. That would be great!!! Cheaper, better and faster! But if I had that, I wonder only one thing? Why would I be posting here?

Cankster

 

[OS X Dude]

Regardless of how accurate these benchmarks may or may not be, anyone who buys one of these can rest assured they've got a lightning fast computer that should last for years.

I wonder how games on Win7 would look on the 27", as it has such a high resolution?

 

[MacClassic]

i7 overpriced

I'll be snagging an i7 after the revision as long as the price comes down. Apple is making $114 extra in profit right off the top because the i7 860 is only $86 more than the i5 750. This is why I hate Apple- I love the software but don't rip off your customers in such a blatant fashion for the hardware. Dell only charges $100 for the i7 upgrade over the i5. Come on Apple...

 

[polaris20]

Well from everything you've said, you're simply "doing it wrong." Windows does not generate that many problems at all. Users do. Macs can handle rudimentary things fine, but if you're running 60 gig music libraries, AVCHD videos, and tons of photos, OSX pretty much fails massively compared to how smoothly Windows will handle the stuff. I'm certainly not saying that out of malice, that's just how it is (as I sit with my Win7 and OSX machines side by side right now).

Zone Alarm? Norton? Those are things you just don't need any more. Use MS Security Essentials, and the built in firewall, and don't download warez or visit naughty sites and you won't get a single piece of malware or a virus. It's really not hard. My machines have always run smooth as silk, even after years of use. Uninstalling programs? Use the free revo uninstaller, just like how on OSX you need to use AppCleaner to get rid of all the junk. It's the same across platforms. OSX features security through obscurity, and many know this. In hacking contests OSX is almost always the ones to fall first, and in minutes. But based on internet usage statistics, OSX has around a 5% market share. Not exactly a target.

Again, I use OSX every day. It's not like I'm attacking it because I don't like it. I do like it for the most part. I just call it like it is, and that's simply how OSX "is." If your Windows boxes were that much of a mess I would take a look at how you were using them. Come check out my Win7 box, it smokes any OSX machine in existence. It's really not that hard.

I'm curious: how many users do you support to come to the conclusion that Windows doesn't have that many problems, and that the guy you quoted is just "doing it wrong"? You do know that these days it doesn't take going to a "naughty site" to get infected, right? All it takes is a legitimate site that's been hijacked with an unpatched exploit and you're screwed. NYTimes' site had an ad on their home page a couple months ago with malware in it.

A couple weeks ago I was searching for guitar necks for a Fender strat, and was Googling it. The second site was a music site I had heard of, so I clicked on it and it tried to load Antivirus Pro 2010 (Trojan). Obviously since I'm running a Mac (with Noscript in FF) nothing happened. But you're fooling yourself if you think it's not a problem, or if you think the AV will always catch it.

As for video, I run 1080/720 stuff everyday on a few different Macs. No troubles, no sluggishness. I have big audio libraries, and am a Logic user with lots of AU instruments and other plug-ins. I deal with RAW photos too. I'm curious: what exactly is the problem? I'm also running a Win7 64 box at work, and I won't say it's worse for these tasks than OS X, but I definitely wouldn't say it's better, either. You say Windows is better for these tasks, and that's "just how it is", but for many users it is not "just how it is".

Is OS X more secure than Windows 7? No. Definitely not. Is it safer? Right now it is, absolutely. While it lacks crucial security features like ASLR and the NX bit (stuff that should have been in SL by now) it's just not nearly as attacked as Windows is. And before posting about how OS X was "hacked in minutes", you might want to actually read the story behind it, where Charlie Miller (most likely the guy you're referencing) states that it was a previously known vulnerability that he worked for months before hand to exploit in 5 minutes. And also, Windows fell a little later in that contest as well. Linux did not. What OS does Mr. Miller recommend? OS X.

Windows 7 is a great OS, and I look forward to continue deploying it at work. It's the first Windows OS I've deployed before waiting for SP1. But I also don't think it'll be the security and stability savior either.

 

[Flavioparentiq]

Mac Pro / Imac

I red a lot of comparison and complaining about the fact that the imac could sounds faster in single threaded application than their equivalent (and more expensive) Mac pro.

Let's be clear, 90% of consumer will be happy with an "all in one" computer. But what is not taken in consideration is the expandability of a mac pro. You can even change the cpu. And most probably the next generation of 6 core nehalem will be compatible with this generation of mac pro. (that is why they build a new architechture of parented cpu card, anyone who owns a new macpro know what i'm talking about).
This means that if you own a dual core mac pro octo 2,26ghz you'll be able to boost it at least to a mac pro dodeca 3.xx ghz. And the ram cap? By now you can go up to 32, but very soon 64 will be approachable for pro users. And will be needed as soon as adobe application jumps to 64-bit architecture. What about the graphic expandability? Card AND monitors. I'm now running 2 hd 30" cinema displays, for graphics demand, and I will soon add a new Graphic card to my HD4870. Same for HD slots and Raid support. All "quite normal thing" for pro users, than no Imac can deliver.

So no, Imac is not for pro. It's for semi-pro, prosumers, student that one day will be pros, or low demanding pros application. Few company (with growing attitude) would invest a lot of money in a non expandable machine.

In term of lifetime, a mac pro has at least the double lifetime of an Imac, considering the expiring time of an "all-in-one" (non expandable) computer.

 

[bradkaye]

iMac still not necessarily a 'Pro'

I have two, 24" iMacs and discovered a problem with my workflow with those machines.

I've always had an iMac on my 'crash-cart' in the studio to facilitate tethered shooting of high end digital backs, starting with the Imacon (now Hasselblad) in 22mp and 39mp varieties and now I shoot Phase One at 60 megapixels.

I never had problems with the Imacon/Hasselblad systems, but I could only shoot one frame per 1.5-2.0 seconds with those, the Phase One allows 1 frame per second for it's fairly massive files (raw files are amazingly still under 90 megs) and I've been told by the engineers that the system uses 97% of the FW800 spec.

The camera won't even connect to my newer Sliver/Black iMac, and errors fairly constantly on my white iMac. It connects perfectly to my 1st-Gen 17" MacBook Pro, as well as either of my MacPro's, but I don't have it (or want to have it) in my budget to have a decked out MacPro on the studio floor to run as a capture machine only.

With issues like this behind the scenes, these machines can't be compared only on processing speeds and video attributes.

That being said, using my machines in a very professional capacity, I've been asking more out of the MacPro's as well, especially with the lackluster amount of bandwidth available to the PCIe slots when I'm running multiple, eSATA & video cards and having to make the choice to run at least one of them at partial speed.

 

[cmfilms]

This is all well and good, but 27" is just too effin' big.

 

[Eidorian]

I have two, 24" iMacs and discovered a problem with my workflow with those machines.

I've always had an iMac on my 'crash-cart' in the studio to facilitate tethered shooting of high end digital backs, starting with the Imacon (now Hasselblad) in 22mp and 39mp varieties and now I shoot Phase One at 60 megapixels.

I never had problems with the Imacon/Hasselblad systems, but I could only shoot one frame per 1.5-2.0 seconds with those, the Phase One allows 1 frame per second for it's fairly massive files (raw files are amazingly still under 90 megs) and I've been told by the engineers that the system uses 97% of the FW800 spec.

The camera won't even connect to my newer Sliver/Black iMac, and errors fairly constantly on my white iMac. It connects perfectly to my 1st-Gen 17" MacBook Pro, as well as either of my MacPro's, but I don't have it (or want to have it) in my budget to have a decked out MacPro on the studio floor to run as a capture machine only.

With issues like this behind the scenes, these machines can't be compared only on processing speeds and video attributes.

That being said, using my machines in a very professional capacity, I've been asking more out of the MacPro's as well, especially with the lackluster amount of bandwidth available to the PCIe slots when I'm running multiple, eSATA & video cards and having to make the choice to run at least one of them at partial speed.

The FireWire issue sounds like a controller problem. I never thought I'd meet someone that can saturate 36 PCIe 2.0 lanes. You're still going to hit I/O bottlenecks first.

 

[ImaBigD]

Well looks like I'm not the only one who thinks the way I do as media outlets are starting to come out to support the very same conclusions I drew about the iMac vs MacPro comparison in my previous posts.

I feel terrible being so vindicated. Really, I do...

http://www.9to5mac.com/Macworld-test-iMac-vs-MAc-pro-488098
http://www.macworld.com/article/143998/2009/11/corei7vsmacpro.html

 

[ImaBigD]

The Speedmark score is a *composite* index of actual real world tests with dependent measures of *time-to-completion*. If you look at the data that is displayed for the tests, they actually performed REAL tasks like compressing and uncompressing a 2 GB file, ripping music in iTunes, etc.

Please go back and re-read the entire article and look carefully at the data that makes up the entire testing results instead of coming back here spouting off inaccurate information.

Thanks

Once again, it is a benchmark that tests individual applications, seemingly at separate times. Did you actually do any research at all into Speedmark, or did you simply see "multiple applications users may use", and decide to spout off that it's clearly representative of a standard operating environment?

From the actual *research* I did into Speedmark, it appears to be a benchmarking suite that consists of linear tests for various applications, seemingly tested at separate times from each other. I couldn't find where they reference the applications running in unison, thus testing multitasking performance.

If you can find evidence where Speedmark is running the separate benchamarks in unison, then available RAM capacity *will* make a difference. Otherwise, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

As it stands, until you actually prove it's truly representative, I stand by my original statement: the tests in that article are not accurate for "real world" computing environments, where you may have several applications running at once, in unison, thus actually showing dozens of threads spread across multiple cores.