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

[namethisfile]

Yeah, most people could honestly still get by on dual core machines, as most people spend about 99% of their time in a web browser, looking at Facebook.

And yes, a newer generation quad core can be faster than an older octo core machine at certain tasks that don't leverage the extra CPUs. At that point, the speed of the individual cores is more important.

But that doesn't change the fact that even the newest iMac isn't faster than a Mac Pro at what a Mac Pro is designed for. It might clock faster in benchmarks, but try rendering out a complex scene or splice together a high resolution movie with one. Even the Pro with it's 3+ year old architecture will run circles around the iMac. Why? Because it's utilizing more of those slower cores. In that situation, 8 or 12 slower cores will still outpace 4 faster ones.

obviously, the quad-core mac pro available right now would be equal to the quad-core i7 BTO imacs. if not slower, since the RAM speed is slower and the cpu is from an older generation. maybe there will be some task the quad-core mac pro will excel more due to its larger caches but these programs are programs that apple doesn't even make.

 

[Sjhonny]

is that all?

blame Intel.

 

[steve119]

Everyone seems to be jumping on the boat over how ivy bridge isn't that much faster than sandy bridge(or in the respect of geekbench results)......er duh!! Its not meant to be. google it, its not difficult. for those who cannot be bothered, allow me.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405317,00.asp

If you are going from a 2011 to a 2012 imac then don't expect a huge jump, the 2012 iMac is my first iMac aio and have accepted this fact. Can't wait.

I get the impression that the chip has been built to be smaller.

 

[flavr]

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!

No issues with the 8500...Games run fine and it drives my 120 inch (yes 12 foot) 1080p projector in desktop mirror mode without a hitch.

 

[Renzatic]

obviously, the quad-core mac pro available right now would be equal to the quad-core i7 BTO imacs. if not slower, since the RAM speed is slower and the cpu is from an older generation. maybe there will be some task the quad-core mac pro will excel more due to its larger caches but these programs are programs that apple doesn't even make.

Yeah, I'd say a quad core Pro would probably be a little slower than the iMac, even with the larger caches on the Xeons. It might be able to match it in rendering, but everything else it'd be a tiny bit slower.

Now a modern architecture Pro vs. the current high end iMacs? No contest. Specially when you start throwing in more cores. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a modern Pro at the moment, so it's all academic...

And yeah, Apple makes programs that can take advantage of higher end hardware. Final Cut Pro and Logic love eating up all the bandwidth you can give them.

 

[joesegh]

It would’t be unreasonable if Apple didn’t concentrate on thinness in a desktop computer so much. You could have easily made an iMac 2x faster if the concentration was on performance and efficiency of the components, and not on the thinness of the enclosure.

Assume for a moment that they used the same chassis as last year.

What components would you put in to achieve two times the performance of a comparable 2011 model?

 

[Sjhonny]

Not really, this round of updates is just socket drop-ins for LGA 1155 in fancy 22nm. Wait for Haswell to see something impressive.

But right now, Haswell is rumoured to be all but impressive in the raw numbers department (10-15% - like Ivy).

 

[talk]

The new imacs

I love the design, and I am probably going to get one.

One thing that I don't understand about the pricing, is the difference between the highend 21 and the 27th.

For $300 more (lowend 27th vs highend 21") you get:
larger screen + better video card + expendable ram = no brainer.

If you're customizing the 21" with fusion + CPU = $1949, and I'd rather go with $2,500 for the 27". At least I'd get larger screen, better CPU (3.4 vs 3.1), much better video card (675 vs 650).

To me it's rather obvious: low end 21" or any of the 27th".

Ideally, the one for me whould have been the low end 27", and I would have upgraded it to a 3.1 i7 (like the 21") for +$200, and and a fusion drive for extra $250.

However, Apple does not allow you to upgrade the low end 27" to i7, so I am stock with paying $200 just to be able to upgrae the cpu to 3.4 (another $200). At least I am getting the better card, but I am not sure if it's worth it.

 

[joesegh]

But right now, Haswell is rumoured to be all but impressive in the raw numbers department (10-15% - like Ivy).

Bingo.

Geekbench measures processor and memory performance. If the off-the-shelf parts that make it in to both Macs and PCs are receiving performance gains of 10-15% every cycle, it is unreasonable to expect that any computers built on those components would see any gains above and beyond that.

 

[Sjhonny]

Bingo.

Geekbench measures processor and memory performance. If the off-the-shelf parts that make it in to both Macs and PCs are receiving performance gains of 10-15% every cycle, it is unreasonable to expect that any computers built on those components would see any gains above and beyond that.

I agree, mostly, except it used to be true that computers gained 50% a year. But we'll probably gonna have to accept that we wouldn't see substantial performance gains in the coming decennium (until silicon get's abandoned all together). On the other hand we will see enormous increases in energy efficiency.

 

[Mike Valmike]

I’m curious what do you actually do that you need such power?

Future-proofing.

USB3 right now is relevant to some users and not most. Three years from now, all USB peripherals or nearly all will be USB3 and any computer that has only USB2 ports will be left out in the cold. It can make the difference between getting 3 years or 5 years out of a pricey iMac purchase.

That's only one example but you get the idea. Heck, Apple themselves cause some of this by limiting how many generations back a new version of OS X will run. At some point down the road, and we don't know when this will be, OS X 10.? Ocelot will run on the 2012 iMac but not the 2011 iMac, for no reason whatsoever, completely arbitrarily, as forced obsolescence. Just like Mountain Lion won't run on early Airs etc. When will Ocelot come out and force that break? Maybe not for many years, but maybe in 2015. We just don't know. So, future-proofing.

 

[ThirteenXIII]

Interestingly enough the entry point is higher, however compared to a maxed out 27-Inch iMac 2011 vs 2012, the 2012 is cheaper.

I believe it was roughly ~$3479 for a 3.4 i7 4GB stock Ram, 2GB GPU, 2TB+256GB SSD

2012 27-inch maxed ~$2749 3.4 i7, 8GB stock ram, 2GB GPU, 3TB Fusion, add $29~ for Thunderbolt to FireWire adapter, ~$79 for SuperDrive if necessary. and still cheaper for the maxed out model.

not bad.

Also for me, more piece of mind when getting it repaired or service or even upgrading as the glass/lcd are one piece and chance of dust or smudges between glass & lcd are a nonissue...though i wonder how tough and strong the bond between the glass/lcd fused on the new imac really is.

 

[stridemat]

I just benchmarked my 2009 iMac for the first time c6,300ish.

That means a new 2012 top end iMac has double the performance!



would make iFlicks conversion times fly by!

 

[mjtomlin]

Wow, making me think the Mac mini may really be a good way to go!

My 27" iMac (Core i7, late 2009) is still holding up pretty well. So, I don't see any need to upgrade anytime in the near future. But when the Mac mini surpasses (doubles) the performance of this iMac, I'll just get one and use my iMac as a display for it - the display is still beautiful no reason to get rid of it. (I may also use the iMac as a media server since it has a 2TB HD.)

 

[Shanpdx]

Want the display

Just want that 21.5" display not the iMac anymore with mac mini (with SSD).

Wish Apple Makes 21.5" thunderbolt display for may be $300!

Where can I get similar quality display? (not spending $999 on 27" display). Thanks.

 

[JayJayAbels]

Awesome! Picking one up later this month.

 

[zin]

Oh, god, here we go again . . . . .

Don't get me wrong, I'm not moaning. Just seems illogical to make a desktop even thinner, especially considering it was already in its own class of "thin" for all-in-ones.

The irony of that, is that the "speed" of computers is not nearly as important as it used to be, because for the most part, they are already more than fast enough for just about anything you care to use one for...

Fair point. I suppose my thinking is tending more towards the minority than the majority.

 

[flopticalcube]

But right now, Haswell is rumoured to be all but impressive in the raw numbers department (10-15% - like Ivy).

It will shine in two areas. GPU, probably allowing the low-end iMac to drop the dGPU, and TDP. With TDP rumored to be about half of the counterpart IB, it opens up a whole host of possibilities. I agree that raw CPU improvements in HW will be marginal, however.

 

[Stridder44]

I’m always curious what people who say this do with their computers. I look at people like Louis C.K. who edited the first two seasons his show on a 13" MacBook Pro and then come here and see people moaning about benchmarks … so I’m curious what do you actually do that you need such power?

Well if it's fast enough for Louis C.K. to edit his TV show on, then it must be good enough for anyone!

 

[mjtomlin]

Well, my 2009 27" iMac benches over 10,000:

See:
http://madsound.dyndns.org/geekbench.jpg

I want thunderbolt but honestly I'm happy with an optical drive and the firewire800 setup I have now works but I wish I had faster i/o (thunderbolt obviously).

Then I could boot off an external drive and not have to wait eons or do multichannel audio or video editing off an external drive without wanting to gouge my eyes out waiting.

I'll wait to see what benchmarks come from the 27" i7 bto model.

Nice... I have the same iMac and I'm thinking about replacing the optical drive with a SSD and creating a Fusion Drive. Should beef up performance significantly. Parts and tools should only cost $200. (While you're in there, you could also upgrade the internal HD.)

Of course you have to be willing to do the work yourself. It's really not that difficult if you take your time and keep everything organized.

 

[podlasek]

Those numbers look off, Mid-2011 27" iMac Geekbench Score is 12624?

 

[Mike Valmike]

Wish Apple Makes 21.5" thunderbolt display for may be $300!

Well, sure. I wish Ferrari Makes 2013 GTO for may be $300 too.

/sorry to be the bearer of bad news for ya

 

[Renzatic]

Well, sure. I wish Ferrari Makes 2013 GTO for may be $300 too.

olol cars r liek macs zoom

 

[Bubba Satori]

Assume for a moment that they used the same chassis as last year.

What components would you put in to achieve two times the performance of a comparable 2011 model?

Or even an inch thicker.
You know, so that form doesn't cripple function for twice the price.
It's a freakin' desktop. Limp wristed pansies doen't have to carry it around.

What components?

The fastest desktop CPU and GPUs available instead of gimped mobile junk
that gets too hot and throttles down 50% under heavy loads.
2-3X faster and less expensive.

That was easy. Magic.

 

[mjtomlin]

I’m always curious what people who say this do with their computers. I look at people like Louis C.K. who edited the first two seasons his show on a 13" MacBook Pro and then come here and see people moaning about benchmarks … so I’m curious what do you actually do that you need such power?

Benchmark whores like to brag and jerk off! And when they're done with that, play World of Warcraft at 800fps.

Unless you're folding proteins or predicting weather patterns, today's computers are basically more powerful than what most need - which is why the iPad has become so popular, back to basics and simplicity.

Honestly though, it's more about multitasking than anything else. I can have a dozen or so applications open at once when programming or doing web work. The most taxing is running virtual machines with VMWare. OS X programming I like to have a vmachine running Snow Leopard to test against. And web development I like to have a vmachine running Windows to test various versions of IE. I also have a vmachine running OpenBSD as my web server.

I've honestly never benchmarked my machine... What do I have to gain from it? Nothing. I may eventually when I start thinking of getting a new machine, but that's at least a few years down the road.