New 27-Inch iMac Has Up to 80% Faster Graphics at Compute Tasks Compared to Previous Model

[MacRumors]

Earlier this month, Apple launched new iMac models with Intel's seventh-generation Kaby Lake processors and improved AMD Radeon Pro discrete graphics options at its annual Worldwide Developers Conference.

Early benchmark results for the new 27-inch iMac have already surfaced on Geekbench that suggest the 2017 models are up to 15% faster in multi-core CPU performance compared to last-generation models.

Apple's new high-end 27-inch iMac stock configuration with a 3.8GHz quad-core Core i5 processor has an average multi-core score of 14,886, for example, compared to 12,953 for the equivalent 2015 model.

John Poole of Primate Labs, the creators of Geekbench, said the new 27-inch iMac also has up to 80% improved graphics performance compared to the equivalent 2015 models at compute tasks such as image processing.

Geekbench's new GPU Compute Benchmark measures the performance of GPUs at performing compute tasks such as image processing, computer vision, and physics simulations, rather than rendering tasks.

Poole said compute performance is becoming more important as more applications, such as Photoshop, take advantage of GPU compute.

The built-to-order 27-inch iMac with a 4.2GHz quad-core Core i7 processor is Apple's fastest Mac ever in single-core CPU performance, according to the Geekbench results, continuing a trend set with the late 2014 model. The 2013 Mac Pro remains Apple's fastest Mac in multi-core CPU performance on Geekbench.

That will undoubtedly change in December when Apple launches the iMac Pro with workstation-class tech specs, including up to an 18-core Intel Xeon processor, top-of-the-line Radeon Pro Vega graphics, up to 4TB of SSD storage, and up to 128GB of ECC RAM. iMac Pro will start at $4,999 in the United States.

The new 27-inch iMac starts at $1,799. New 21.5-inch models are also available from $1,099. Prices vary by country.

Article Link: New 27-Inch iMac Has Up to 80% Faster Graphics at Compute Tasks Compared to Previous Model

 

[stukdog]

Really looking forward to any reports on VR experience. I'd love to dabble in VR with the kids, but certainly not enough to get a whole separate console. If a new Mac could be used for both, I'm in.

 

[kazmac]

Impressive. I won't need that much horse power (probably high end 21.5" or base 27" for me), but that's nice to hear.

 

[FactVsOpinion]

Feel like I'm playing spot the difference. Are those two charts identical?

UPDATE--they fixed it now

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

What's utterly fascinating is that the "old, tired" 2013 Mac Pro still beats the pants off everything but one 2017 iMac configuration.

Care to explain that, Haters?

In any event, just think how much faster the iMac Pro and the new Mac Pro will be!

 

[ksz]

Feel like I'm playing spot the difference. Are those two charts identical?

Yes. The GPU chart is missing.

Update
OpenCL chart has been published.

 

[FactVsOpinion]

What's utterly fascinating is that the "old, tired" 2013 Mac Pro still beats the pants off everything but one 2017 iMac configuration.

Care to explain that, Haters?

In any event, just think how much faster the iMac Pro and the new Mac Pro will be!

I'd like to take your side but the 4-core base model pro is near the bottom, and since they are still priced at the top, and are the "pro" choice, they ought to benchmark at the top, not near it, and certainly not near the bottom.

 

[Avieshek]

Still comes with spinning hard drives and bezels on a non-touch screen.

(Not asking for a touch-display but the fact that it has fat bezels while even iPads squeeze those bezels is questioning which rather is a touch-screen)

 

[vvs14]

What's utterly fascinating is that the "old, tired" 2013 Mac Pro still beats the pants off everything but one 2017 iMac configuration.

Care to explain that, Haters?

In any event, just think how much faster the iMac Pro and the new Mac Pro will be!

So if someone does not have a similar opinion about something as you, he immediately becomes a hater?

 

[MacFather]

Deleted.

 

[FactVsOpinion]

So if someone does not have a similar opinion about something as you, he immediately becomes a hater?

Just means he/she was addressing haters, not that everybody else is a hater.

 

[44267547]

Still comes with spinning hard drives and bezels on a non-touch screen.

Really? Is this supposed to make the iMac Any less desirable because the lack of a touch display?

 

[diipii]

Putting this horsepower in that silly iMac form factor will make this a toaster.

 

[Joe Rossignol]

Yes. The GPU chart is missing.

Feel like I'm playing spot the difference. Are those two charts identical?

Fixed.

 

[Avieshek]

Really? Is this supposed to make the iMac Any less desirable because the lack of a touch display?

Touch display? It's the bezels thicker than an iPad is the point.

 

[Icaras]

People wanted redesigned.

Was really hoping for one this year. Looks like I'll wait for the 2018 iMac.

 

[Scoodood]

These numbers looks really good for those who still own iMac2012 like myself. But both Intel/AMD had just launched the new CPU with 6-8 cores with much better performance but at the same price point (or lower) as the current i5/i7 CPU found on this iMac.

After seeing those news, I kinda feel like the iMac 2017 is already obsolete....

 

[44267547]

Who's asking for a touch display, it's the bezels thicker than the iPad is my point.

You stated "It comes with bezels and a "Non-Touch screen", which sounds like you're indicating it should have a touch display. Again, do bezels make this product any less desirable? Thanks, but I will gladly accept the performance on the iMac purchasing decision made over 'Bezels.'

 

[LordVic]

What's utterly fascinating is that the "old, tired" 2013 Mac Pro still beats the pants off everything but one 2017 iMac configuration.

Care to explain that, Haters?

In any event, just think how much faster the iMac Pro and the new Mac Pro will be!

the fact you're bringing it up as "care to play haters' means you don't actually undersetand how computers work.

the test being shown is a multi-core/threaded benchmark. the Mac Pro's that still appear higher are 8+ core variants. Where the new i5 and i7's in the 2017 iMac's are 4 cores only. (8 thread for the i7). And since these are benchmark numbers only, only reflect a perfect situation where specific sorts of calculations are accounted for.

real world performance and other factors are also important here, beyond just the benchmark numbers. If there was a 2017 Mac Pro that also had 8 or 10 core CPU's, it would likely trounce the 2012 Mac Pro's completely.

"hate" has nothing to do with it

 

[pgiguere1]

What's utterly fascinating is that the "old, tired" 2013 Mac Pro still beats the pants off everything but one 2017 iMac configuration.

Care to explain that, Haters?

... in synthetic multi-core / multi-GPU benchmarks that are not representative of real world-usage.

Most Mac applications will not take full advantage of having more than 4 cores or dual GPUs as well as those benchmarks do.

Unless we're looking at heavily parallelized applications like video editing, the single-core CPU performance and single-GPU performance mattersmore, and there the iMac totally beats the Mac Pro. Heck, even the Swift compiler is faster on a quad-core iMac than a 12-core Mac Pro.

 

[angrytoothbrush]

That says OpenCL, does that mean Graphics through Metal would actually have more favorable results?

 

[Firebrand]

Still comes with spinning hard drives and bezels on a non-touch screen.

(Not asking for a touch-display but the fact that it has a bezel fatter than an iPad is questioning)

For an iMac, bezels are GOOD ;-)

But you are right about spinning hard drives though.

 

[LordVic]

This number looks really good for those who still own iMac2012 like myself. But both Intel/AMD had just launched the new CPU with 6-8 cores with much better performance but at the same price point (or lower) as the current i5/i7 CPU found on this iMac.

After seeing those news, I kinda feel like the iMac 2017 is already obsolete....

Ignoring AMD since liklihood of Apple going AMD for CPU's is fairly low (for now)

But the "X" series CPU's from Intel aren't really intended for this purpose. they're being toughted as "enthousiast grade". they feature far higher TDP's than their main line-ups, Require a new socket 2066, and would require a complete redesign of the chassis and cooling. The only people who are likely to really benefit from the new "X" intel lineups are gamers (who is the main target)

So, unless intel decides to bridge the gap and allow CPU's with higher than 4 cores on their current mainstream socket, the current chips are the right chips to be in the iMAC.

 

[Avieshek]

You stated it comes with bezels and a "Non-Touch screen", which sounds like you're indicating it should have a touch display. Again, do bezels make this product any less desirable? Thanks, but I'll accept the performance over a purchasing decision made over 'Bezels.'

This guy. Read the whole paragraph and not be triggered by one word, will you?

A touch-screen either makes it compulsory (like tablets) or complicated (in general) to abandon bezels, not with a Mac. It's neither a handheld device or a touch-screen.
Speaking of performance, shouldn't Flash Storage provide better performance when they themselves are also switching to Apple File System.

 

[JungeQuex]

Just goes to show that all of the waiting for these new Macs was worth it. Looks like these are performance powerhouses and this also shows that the "old" 2013 Mac Pro is still a great option. I think people sometimes want upgrades for the sake of upgrades.

I for one use an Early 2008 Mac Pro, haha. It does what I need it to do. On the other hand, I do upgrade iPhone every year, so I guess I'm just as bad as the rest of them.