Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I have to assume these benchmarks don't take hyperthreading into account. Otherwise the top 4 results make very little sense to me.


Hyperthreading doesn't turn a 4 core chip into an 8 core chip - even if software reports that it's 8 core.

Don't expect a hyperthreaded 4 core i7 system to be twice as fast as a non-hyperthreaded i5 at the same clock rate.

At best, assuming a fully multithreaded application, the HT i7 have be 20% to 30% faster than the i5.

At worst, the i7 could be somewhat slower than the i5 due to scheduler issues. (If the scheduler puts 2 threads on virtual cores on the same physical core - they'll run slower.)
 
I have found the resale value of any Apple product is ridiculously high. I sold my late 2009 27 inch iMac with i7 chip for $2000 , meaning I paid only couple hundred dollars more plus tax to get a brand-new i7 27 inch iMac. You might want check the resale value of yours through eBay and craigslist.

Have the same model you had! I've had terrible luck selling on eBay!
 
Apple should really overclock these sandybridge cpus they can run at 4.5 ghz just being air cooled. Leaving them at there stock frequency just seems like such waisted potential

Too hot and noisy. Plus this would reduce the longevity of the product. Also only some of the sandy bridge processors can be overclocked.

Apple Insider reports wireless N technology in the new iMacs exceeds the 300 mbps ... now 450 mbps. Wow...uses the 5 GHz band that has less traffic. The higher freq band is a little less wall penetrating.

Apple is on a roll for outstanding performance in computers. With Thunderbolt data transfer will be awesome. Look to sync and backup to be super fast. Here comes 'Lion" .... FWIW

Great, just wish my wireless provider provided more than 20 mbps speed. I know the connection speed is there but they only provide the content at these low speeds because there are so many people.
 
I don't play games, don't make movies or make music.

I do use it a lot for iTunes, iPhoto and Aperture and internet browsing.
(I've a huge photo and music library)

I think the perfomance improvements are great, but would I see any difference in performance?

My current iMac is a 3.06 27" with 13 GB ram and I just ordered from the refurbished store a 3.2 i3 27"

13 GB for iTunes and surfing? Really?
 
Wow I'm kinda surprised my iMac (mid 2010 quad core i7 2.93) has the 2nd best benchmarks of all the iMacs on that list. Only the higher end 2011 27 inch has better benchmarks.

For what I do with a computer, I probably wouldn't notice much of a speed increase with the new 2011 iMacs.

I'll probably upgrade again late 2012-early 2013. Hopefully this iMac will have good resale value on ebay by then.
 
better GPUs in the low end compared to 09, 10 models ...

SSD is the missing piece
The only models really worth upgrading over are the base model with the HD 6750M (compared to the old Mobility HD 4670) and the high end 27" with the 6970M (if you can not live without it.)

The middle is an average upgrade since Redwood and Turks are barely any different in performance.
 
With no restarts (34hrs uptime), mbp 2.2/15 gives me 11,348 on geekbench

Quite pleased wit my purchase now :)
 
The real test is real work with photoshop, iMovie exports, and the like, where the new base i5 2011 proves to be 70% faster than the base i3 2010. Geekbench proves nothing, if I put a SSD in my i3 iMac it might become faster than the new base i5
 
always good to see performance improvements as indicated by such tests but I was hoping something out of the extraordinary would have really made me go for these .... perhaps bluray ? :rolleyes:

I find it hilarious this guys comment is instantly marked down for the mere mention of the choice of having a Blu-Ray drive in his iMac. :D
 
Surely only an idiot would even put up with the performance of the last gen iMac when these new incredible super-fast iMacs are available for purchase? I can't imagine going back 2 or 3 generations; those machines are so slow. :eek:
 
are there any known problems with this new imac generation? i want to buy one, when the "back to school" programm will starts.

1 year ago i bought a 2009 model but they had all pixel failure and problems with the light dimming ... they made a bad high signal ... and for about 2300 euro I want a perfect system ... :)

greetings
 
I wonder why the 2.3 and 2.2 MBP are coming so close to the performance of the 3.4 iMac. Even if Turbo Boost is more aggressive on the notebooks (because max turbo closes the clock speed gap) the 30% increase in base clock speed should account for more.
 
Aye, I'm able to develop HD, console-quality games with my 2006 model. I just can't test out the high quality display options on my personal machine (for now!). They are fairly capable machines aren't they?

For all the negatives against Apple... they sure do make a long-lasting computer.

My first gen iMac still works, albeit VERY slowly. I've never seen anything like it. I had to replace a monitor in my dell laptop, as well as an HDD.
 
With no restarts (34hrs uptime), mbp 2.2/15 gives me 11,348 on geekbench

Quite pleased wit my purchase now :)

The iMac would get a higher score if it's test was also ran in 64bit mode which, yours was.
 
I ordered mine with 27" / i7 / 1TB disk, and 2GB gfx.

Meaning I decided to ditch the SSD, partly because of delivery time, but also that the extra $500 for the SSD can be put to better use in a year from now, by purchasing an external SSD Thunderbolt RAID.

Any opinions on this strategy? I'm thinking that now we finally can do this, because we have a connector (Thunderbolt) that's fast enough to put the SSD outside of the machine.

I'm thinking that a RAID0 of SSD drives connected via Thunderbolt will make a great boot drive and Aperture Library. And I can use Time Machine on a different external drive that's cheaper (not SSD) to keep the redundancy.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.