New 27" 2.80 Geekbench Fail, sort of.

[a350]

So to all those who keep stating that the new Quad Core 27" imacs are better then the base mac Pro's, Not.

The 2.80ghz i7 imac scores lower than the base Mac Pro
and the base Mac Pro has less memory and a 2.66ghz processor

I know it comes with a 27" screen, we are not debating that fact, we also know it comes in a a few hundred dollars less, we are simply comparing performance numbers and it is not higher than the Mac Pro.

 

[kroeks]

..so?
i'm sorry but what's the point?

 

[a350]

..so?
i'm sorry but what's the point?

point is these idiots that have been posting for weeks that the new quad core imacs are faster than the mac pro are wrong, can you not read or understand the english language?

 

[GoCubsGo]

point is these idiots that have been posting for weeks that the new quad core imacs are faster than the mac pro are wrong, can you not read or understand the english language?

With an attitude like that your point, what little point it is, will be missed because of your general rudeness and your misguided anger. Let people say what they want to say. If you're starting to feel bad about your MP then stay out of the iMac threads. I for one would be thrilled to see if there is an iMac that can exceed the performance of my MP.

Understand this, the geek bench scores will tell all.

 

[kroeks]

ok, you could atleast stay calm and review your post.
why should you make a topic of this? you could just reply

 

[a350]

lol, well I don't think that it is anger.

and you are calling me rude? that is funny, real funny.

 

[parakiet]

what test?

and how much faster is the base mac pro? it has to be worth it

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

So to all those who keep stating that the new Quad Core 27" imacs are better then the base mac Pro's, Not.

The 2.80ghz i7 imac scores lower than the base Mac Pro
and the base Mac Pro has less memory and a 2.66ghz processor

I know it comes with a 27" screen, we are not debating that fact, we also know it comes in a a few hundred dollars less, we are simply comparing performance numbers and it is not higher than the Mac Pro.

What are the Geekbench numbers you speak about? Give us some information we can use!

 

[apparatchik]

How exactly is the i7 benchmark a fail?

Have you seen this numbers?

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/818885/

 

[a350]

what test?

and how much faster is the base mac pro? it has to be worth it

geekbench, and it's not about the cost, it's about the performance, it's well known the imac is cheaper

What are the Geekbench numbers you speak about? Give us some information we can use!

base mac pro, 2.66 with 3g ram scores 8300's
imac i7 2.80 with 4g ram scores 8300's

so the claim it is faster/better is not entirely accurate.
seeing it has a faster processor speed and more ram the score should be higher, it is not.

 

[lasuther]

geekbench, and it's not about the cost, it's about
base mac pro, 2.66 with 3g ram scores 8300's
imac i7 2.80 with 4g ram scores 8300's

so the claim it is faster/better is not entirely accurate.
seeing it has a faster processor speed and more ram the score should be higher, it is not.

You got your numbers mixed up with the 8 core Mac Pro. Take a look at the chart again.

The Mac Pro, 2.66GHz scored 8144.
The iMac, 2.8GHz scored 8352.

The iMac has a higher 208 score.

So the Mac Pro costs $300 more for a computer that scored less on geekbench with a slower processor, less memory, and a smaller hard drive. And that is before you consider the 2560x1440 ISP monitor that would cost $1700 to get elsewhere.

Just looking at the base performance, the i7 has a faster geekbench score. And it is cheaper. And it has more stuff in it.

 

[a350]

You got your numbers mixed up with the 8 core Mac Pro. Take a look at the chart again.

The Mac Pro, 2.66GHz scored 8144.
The iMac, 2.8GHz scored 8352.

The iMac has a higher 208 score.

So the Mac Pro costs $300 more for a computer that scored less on geekbench with a slower processor, less memory, and a smaller hard drive. And that is before you consider the 2560x1440 ISP monitor that would cost $1700 to get elsewhere.

Just looking at the base performance, the i7 is faster. And it is cheaper. And it has more stuff in it.

wells that's unfortunate for that base mac pro user, mine scores 8300's all day long and so do others on geekbench.com
I do not go by others charts, I go by my own numbers I get when running geekbench on my machine.

the whole argument about mac pro vs imac is ridiculous

 

[bbadalucco]

My mac pro (refer to sig) scored 9198...boom! Honestly though, I don't care. I'd buy a iMac if I didn't need the extra hdd space. I've learned through buying top of the line mac's...there isn't much NOTICEABLE difference between single processor units.

 

[BrianKonarsMac]

thread summary:

OP has Mac Pro - hears iMac is faster, is pissed. comes to MacRumors with attitude towards anyone who is not excited about or does not understand why he bothered to make a new topic.

does geek bench, sees higher score on MP, comes to forums to gloat and say his computer is still faster.

someone posts scores showing he is wrong and the iMac is better.

OP ignores post and says those numbers are irrelevant, because they don't match his results.

good work.

 

[a350]

thread summary:

OP has Mac Pro - hears iMac is faster, is pissed. comes to MacRumors with attitude towards anyone who is not excited about or does not understand why he bothered to make a new topic.

does geek bench, sees higher score on MP, comes to forums to gloat and say his computer is still faster.

someone posts scores showing he is wrong and the iMac is better.

OP ignores post and says those numbers are irrelevant, because they don't match his results.

good work.

yep, that's exactly it

 

[lannister80]

Sweeeeet, 10062 here.

2008 MP in my sig.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/183388

I can feel my e-peen growing already!

 

[lasuther]

wells that's unfortunate for that base mac pro user, mine scores 8300's all day long and so do others on geekbench.com
I do not go by others charts, I go by my own numbers I get when running geekbench on my machine.

the whole argument about mac pro vs imac is ridiculous

No matter how many times you say it, the base Mac Pro isn’t a better computer to purchase than the iMac i7 2.8GHz which boosts to 3.46GHz. And that is even if you assume the performance is somewhat the same, which it most likely isn’t. There is no argument. You’re the only person arguing, and you’re arguing with yourself. We’re just enjoying the crazy show.

 

[lasuther]

Sweeeeet, 10062 here.

2008 MP in my sig.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/183388

I can feel my e-peen growing already!

"Vegeta, what does the scouter say about his power level?"
---"It's over 9000!"
"WHAT?! 9000?!?!?"

 

[dcpmark]

yep, that's exactly it

No matter how many times you say it, the base Mac Pro isn’t a better computer to purchase than the iMac i7 2.8GHz which boosts to 3.46GHz. And that is even if you assume the performance is somewhat the same, which it most likely isn’t. There is no argument. You’re the only person arguing, and you’re arguing with yourself. We’re just enjoying the crazy show.

Hey, I don't have either, so I've got no axe to grind. And I'm possibly interested in both, so I'm intensely following these threads.

But after compiling all the data through objective sources, and weighing all the pros and cons, I can now definitively state that all the evidence shows that the OP is a whiney little douche.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

Did you say douche?

 

[TMRaven]

i7 iMac w/ 4gigs of ram in 64 bit mode:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/183410

early '09 mac pro w/ 1 processor and 8 gigs of ram in 64 bit mode:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/182035

The overall results are too close to notice any difference in the real world, when it comes to multithreaded applications. But if you look you do see the iMac boasts a somewhat noticeable margin of victory in single threaded performance, mostly due to the new lynnfield's higher clock speed and turbo.

Favoritism/butthurt/silliness aside, bottom line is the new iMac is the more price competitive product currently, as it was just updated less than a month ago. Come quarter1/2 of next year when mac pro gets a makeover, you can go on about gloating with your mac pro then. Until then why not let an apple product shine in glory, because it surely deserves it-- the 1st iMac to use desktop grade cpus and a massive display resolution should deserve applause from fellow apple enthusiasts.

 

[dukebound85]

lol, well I don't think that it is anger.

and you are calling me rude? that is funny, real funny.

lol at this thread and yes, your attitude is something left to be desired

who flipping cares what the scores are. does it change you mac pro or why you bought it? nooooooope

 

[smacman]

This thread is ridiculous! Firstly, Geekbench is a measurement of the CPU/Memory Bandwidth. It is NOT a measurement of overall system performance. Secondly, the Mac Pro is a lot more than CPU power. Try putting 4 HDs an SSD, and a GTX285 into an iMac...

 

[eelpout]

It's not the thread that's ridiculous, it's the price of the base MacPro in the light of the new iMac's. And don't give me that "but it's server parts!" crap.

 

[smacman]

It's not the thread that's ridiculous, it's the price of the base MacPro in the light of the new iMac's. And don't give me that "but it's server parts!" crap.

The price could be a bit lower. I always laugh though when people make price comparisons based only on hardware specs. The case alone on the Mac Pro is probaby worth at least 400USD. The funny thing is, the two systems are totally different beasts. Those that still don't get it, should just get the iMac! Those that do get it, are not that bothered by the pricing.