Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New iMac Benchmarks Show 10-25% Improvement Over Previous Generation

T

trondah

macrumors 6502
Dec 1, 2008
344
0
Naimfan said:
So in exchange for more money, we get slightly faster performance which will be invisible to almost EVERY user of an iMac, no optical drive, a non-user upgradable machine, and a new design that values form over function.

In short, the new iMac joins the Macbook Air and the retina Macbook Pro as a disposable computer.

Apple, in my view, needs to get over its obsession with thinness.

And why, given the weight reduction and the elimination of the optical drive, does it cost MORE?
Click to expand...

Just get an external drive and shut up. You can stick it next to your external floppy (I'm assuming you are collecting antique hardware). Personally I didn't use optical media for like 5 years.

And how people can complain that it's thin? ****, it's gotten to the point where it seems people think it's cool to hate on Apple for no logical reason whatsoever. Apple will remove stuff nobody uses and make their products thin/compact/good looking. It's their trademark! Maybe you need to go back to a huge beige PC tower to remember why you went with Apple the first place.
 
mabaker

mabaker

macrumors 65816
Jan 19, 2008
1,209
566
All the negative comments are just people who want to feel better about their current setup. Evident as the sun.
 
J

Jbach67

macrumors newbie
Jun 12, 2012
29
8
Does it cost more?

Naimfan said:
So in exchange for more money, we get slightly faster performance which will be invisible to almost EVERY user of an iMac, no optical drive, a non-user upgradable machine, and a new design that values form over function.

In short, the new iMac joins the Macbook Air and the retina Macbook Pro as a disposable computer.

Apple, in my view, needs to get over its obsession with thinness.

And why, given the weight reduction and the elimination of the optical drive, does it cost MORE?
Click to expand...

I tried to find 2011 prices, but only saw for the 27 inch models which cost about the same. So I doubt there was much of an increase for the 21 inch model. Besides the modest performance increase tied to the ivy vs sandy bridge that we've known about for six or seven months, there are other noticeable improvements for 2012. Double the memory from 4 to 8, a much improved screen with less glare and wider view and better color, and a better graphics card. I share your opinion about thinness and I'll miss the optical drive, but I'll buy a bluray combo and keep it in a drawer for the limited times ill use it, mainly for software installation. I also covet the fusion drive option. Jury is still out on how user serviceable it will be, but today's news brings some hope you or a computer shop can add memory and change gpu and CPU on the 21 inch. We'll see.
 
H

H2SO4

macrumors 603
Nov 4, 2008
5,649
6,938
jim.bright17 said:
AFAIK, Geekbench only tests CPU and RAM performance. So any upgrades in GPU, SSD etc. wont be measured.
Click to expand...

Trouble is Geekbench scores mean very little. Which one of those iMacs will beat my Mac Pro, (1st gen), in converting a movie file using Handbrake? None of them? All of them? By how much?
Can it run games that my 5770 can't or vice versa?
That's real world use.
 
xgman

xgman

macrumors 603
Aug 6, 2007
5,672
1,378
mabaker said:
All the negative comments are just people who want to feel better about their current setup. Evident as the sun.
Click to expand...

And I'd wager most of the "too thin" comments are from over weight individuals. Just sayin . . . (calm down, just kiddin) ;)
 
xgman

xgman

macrumors 603
Aug 6, 2007
5,672
1,378
H2SO4 said:
Trouble is Geekbench scores mean very little. Which one of those iMacs will beat my Mac Pro, (1st gen), in converting a movie file using Handbrake? None of them? All of them? By how much?
That's real world use.
Click to expand...


1st gen? I'd guess most or all of them. At least the 27's for sure.

----------
Justinf79 said:
Where them new Mac Pro's already... ;)
Click to expand...
They will announce that the day after I can't return the new imac anymore. :(
 
Lone Deranger

Lone Deranger

macrumors 68000
Apr 23, 2006
1,895
2,138
Tokyo, Japan
WardC said:
My guess is the 27" will show around 13500 on Geekbench for the 3.4GHz model. That is what I am guessing.

a 3.33GHz 6-core Mac Pro is about 16500 to give you perspective.
Click to expand...

Just ran the 32-bit Geekbench on my 12-core MP (running 10.6.8) and got 22562. Circles indeed. :)
 
H

H2SO4

macrumors 603
Nov 4, 2008
5,649
6,938
xgman said:
1st gen? I'd guess most or all of them. At least the 27's for sure.

----------


They will announce that the day after I can't return the new imac anymore. :(
Click to expand...

Still tho. The Geekbench scores mean nothing, (almost). I can see how one Mac with a very high geekbench score can't run a game that a Mac with a significantly lower score can.
 
T

thechilla

macrumors newbie
Nov 30, 2012
1
0
krye said:
Almost all of the time, the benchmarks only compare the new to the old. What about switchers? I have a 2008 Mac Pro that's growing a little long in the tooth. I'd love to wait for the "new" Mac Pro, but who knows what it's going to be or how much it is. I don't know if I can spend another $3000 on a Mac.

I'm seriously considering switching to a 27" iMac. But I'd like to know on what order of magnitude it'll smoke my 4 year old Mac Pro. I played around with the last gen iMac at the Apple Store for 15 minutes months ago and I wasn't at all impressed with its shoddy multitasking and window/app switching with multiple pro apps open. I had Aperture, Logic and some other stuff open and it really started to bog down. And that was without actually "doing anything". I guess there's something to be said for that $300 ATI card in my Mac Pro.

But if I can get a new iMac for $1000 less that's faster, I might just consider it. I mean, I'd never buy the high end 12-core Mac Pro option anyway. It's just way too expensive.

The benchmarks on the site pretty much show the new iMac as being on-par with the entry-level 2010 Mac Pro. So you guys think it's safe to assume that the new iMac will be the same as my slightly upgraded 2008 Mac Pro with the upgraded ATI card and 8G of RAM?
Click to expand...

I can help you with that....

I've got a 2008 2.8 8core MP (16gb ram, 1hdd for OS and 3x500hdd in RAID 0) and a 2011 27inch 3.4ghz i7 iMac with 16gb ram, 512 SSD + 1tb hdd. I only recently installed the SSD and have owned the imac for over a year.

Its peformance completely beasts the mac pro in everything. I use both machines regularly for pro photo editing, video work and 3D rendering. In all the applications I use the iMac gives me the best experience. Now that i've added a 512 SSD to the iMac this thing is lightning fast.

I'd happily buy a new standard 27inch imac with the upgraded graphics card then personally i'd up the ram, install an SSD and even replace the cpu to a 3.5ghz i7. iFixit and various other sites have made it deliciously easy to do all of the above too :)
 
W

WorldTravelBro

macrumors member
Nov 29, 2012
94
2
mabaker said:
All the negative comments are just people who want to feel better about their current setup. Evident as the sun.
Click to expand...

You nailed it. I just bought a fully loaded iMac 27. Will be used for advanced web designing and to watch walking dead or other tv series when I am too exhausted to walk down stairs to watch them on my 60 inch Samsung UN60ES8000F led 3d tv.
 
Nunyabinez

Nunyabinez

macrumors 68000
Apr 27, 2010
1,758
2,230
Provo, UT
You are comparing a 64 bit benchmark to a 32 bit benchmark. I have the exact same machine as you and it comes in at 11495 with the 32bit , which is consistent with the published geek bench reports. I am assuming that geekbench published 32 bit results. So, before you conclude that your machine is faster than the new iMacs, you had better make sure that you are using the same benchmark.

WardC said:
My 2011 Sandy Bridge 27" beats all of those:

Image
Click to expand...
 
W

WilliamG

macrumors G3
Mar 29, 2008
9,922
3,800
Seattle
flavr said:
My 2009 27in quad i7 still has a score that compares to these overall (8500) give or take....guess im stickin with my current setup ;)
Click to expand...

I have the same computer, but I'm not going to kid myself that a top-of-the-line 27" 2012 i7 is not much faster. Heck, how you getting on with the ATI 4850? I know I hate mine! :)
 
Naimfan

Naimfan

Suspended
Jan 15, 2003
4,669
2,017
trondah said:
Just get an external drive and shut up. You can stick it next to your external floppy (I'm assuming you are collecting antique hardware). Personally I didn't use optical media for like 5 years.

And how people can complain that it's thin? ****, it's gotten to the point where it seems people think it's cool to hate on Apple for no logical reason whatsoever. Apple will remove stuff nobody uses and make their products thin/compact/good looking. It's their trademark! Maybe you need to go back to a huge beige PC tower to remember why you went with Apple the first place.
Click to expand...

Apparently polite discussion is beyond you. Don't worry, you'll grow into it. Maybe . . .

When you work in an area that requires both wired ethernet and burning discs to transfer data, the loss of the optical drive and the price increase, combined with a performance increase that will be invisible to the overwhelming majority of buyers, the new iMac is a step backwards.

I, personally, don't care how thin it is. But when form takes precedence over function, as is the case here (and with the rMBP, the MBA, and the Mac Mini), I question the long term viability of the proponent. If you can't see the tradeoff, and recognize the potential danger, then you should go back to whatever online class you're taking and get a refund. ;)

Finally, I'd bet I've been using Macs longer than you've been alive. Just sayin' . . .
 
W

WorldTravelBro

macrumors member
Nov 29, 2012
94
2
Naimfan said:
Apparently polite discussion is beyond you. Don't worry, you'll grow into it. Maybe . . .

When you work in an area that requires both wired ethernet and burning discs to transfer data, the loss of the optical drive and the price increase, combined with a performance increase that will be invisible to the overwhelming majority of buyers, the new iMac is a step backwards.

I, personally, don't care how thin it is. But when form takes precedence over function, as is the case here (and with the rMBP, the MBA, and the Mac Mini), I question the long term viability of the proponent. If you can't see the tradeoff, and recognize the potential danger, then you should go back to whatever online class you're taking and get a refund. ;)

Finally, I'd bet I've been using Macs longer than you've been alive. Just sayin' . . .
Click to expand...

Make your own computer. I made my own gaming computer and it comes out cheap. I store it in my closet when not in use so only apple products are in view when someone walks into my room (serious)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom