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

New iMacs Offer 25% Performance Improvement Over Previous Generation

blue22 said:
It still doesn't make much sense to me why the 2011 iMacs are barely faster than the 2011 MacBook Pro's (outperformed by them on the 21.5" models mind you) as they should be even faster, unless there is some truth in what OS X Dude said earlier:





Overall, I'm personally not too impressed by these new iMacs, as are some others for similar reasons:












Either way of it, from these SandyBridge iMac benchmarks they make the current 2011 MBP's look even more fantastic, albeit pricer when compared to an iMac, but nonetheless impressive in terms of performance. I think the ONLY reason(s) I'd consider picking up one of these new iMacs are for the following:

- lower price point (when compared to the MBP's).
- capacity for dual internal hard drives without losing the optical drive.
- high-resolution screen.
- more RAM capacity (27" model goes up to 16GB)
- no need/desire for portability.

Outside of these considerations I think the MBP is currently the better computer by Apple overall at the moment over these SNB iMacs, and if I had an iMac from either '10, '09 or even '08 I would wait until '12 to see how they improve the iMac line-up. :)
Click to expand...

the iMacs support higher resolutions and the MBP's have i7 CPU's

it's like the Xoom vs the iPad 2. the iPad 2 smokes the Xoom in benchmarks but it has a lower resolution which means it's processing less data
 
Hej,

I just ordered the better 27" with the 2048 mb GPU. I hope, this was a good idea. My aim was to spend now a couple of $ more to have a use- and powerful machine for a few years. I mean, RAM can be upgraded at any time. But the GPU not. So I chose the better one. :)

I will see. It will replace my old 1.83 Ghz G5. :D
imacg5_repairprogram.jpg


>

E_000082002361_DE_800.jpg



Cheers
 
If these tests were run in 32 bit and the ones for MBP in 64, the article should really make that clear. It's great that Geekbench has a free version, but I think that having the 32 bit version free and 64 paid may skew the results and give a wrong impression sometimes.

keruah said:
13 GB for iTunes and surfing? Really?
Click to expand...

Please read more carefully, he also listed Aperture (which is a 64 bit app) with a huge photo library.
 
Upgrading from Core I Duo

I placed my order yesterday for the most basic of the machines, the 21.5 inch 2.5 GHz with 8GB RAM, extended keyboard, and Applecare. All for the juicy price of $1527 with tax. :D

We are upgrading from a 1.8GHz Core I Duo dating back to sometime around 2006, I think. It was the first of the White Intel iMacs with a 17 inch 1440pixel screen. I've been trying to figure out how much faster the new machine will be, but the closest I have come is a rough guess that it will be about twice as fast. It does not sound a lot, but I am sure it will make a huge difference.
 
Thares said:
Hej,

I just ordered the better 27" with the 2048 mb GPU. I hope, this was a good idea. My aim was to spend now a couple of $ more to have a use- and powerful machine for a few years. I mean, RAM can be upgraded at any time. But the GPU not. So I chose the better one. :)

I will see. It will replace my old 1.83 Ghz G5. :D
Image
Cheers
Click to expand...

Wow! Your upgrade is even more extreme than mine from the Core I Duo! Any idea how many times faster the new one will be? I'd guess at least 100%, maybe even 150-200%. Sweet! We went with the 21 because the 27 is too big for the place it has to go. Have the 27 (2.9 GHz i7) in my office and it is amazing!
 
I got the i7 3.4 with 2GB GPU

it should come tomorrow, I will post some benchmarks if you guys want, other than Geekbench I guess.

I bought it mainly for Aperture/CS5 editing thinking I will not need as much room for it than for a macpro.
:D
 
pcharles said:
Wow! Your upgrade is even more extreme than mine from the Core I Duo! Any idea how many times faster the new one will be? I'd guess at least 100%, maybe even 150-200%. Sweet! We went with the 21 because the 27 is too big for the place it has to go. Have the 27 (2.9 GHz i7) in my office and it is amazing!
Click to expand...

I have no idea. :D But I think: a lot. I'd guess way more than 100 %. :)
I'm excited. Finally I can play some games or don't have to wait for Spotlight to find my searched item or wait seconds til iCal loads.


Cheers
 
I don't doubt that with Sandy Bridge and anywhere from a 512MB AMD Radeon HD 6750M to a 2GB AMD Radeon HD 6970M (or rather, an underclocked desktop AMD Radeon HD 6850), these iMacs will be awesome fast, but for desktops, for this price, it's kind of a rape. I could build a hackintosh and buy a simpler caliber display and still save $500 and have access to all of the components that I'd ever want to upgrade and they'd never overheat. Plus, said hackintosh would probably have an even faster Sandy Bridge CPU for the money.

Don't get me wrong. I love Apple and I love their computers. I may still find myself getting a Blu-Ray equipped iMac, should Apple ever produce them; I've had two iMacs before the Mac mini listed in my sig, and I've loved them dearly. But given the price tag, the problems they have with heat, and now the problems detailed here:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1152046/

...it just doesn't seem like a good Mac to gun for unless you can't go with a Mac Pro, or find yourself wanting more than either a Mac mini or a MacBook Pro, and even then, a Hackintosh seems more sensible. The MacBook Pro I'm saving for will be more upgradable than any iMac I can buy new today. Something about a laptop being more upgradable than a desktop seems inherently wrong.
 
Last edited:
Thares said:
I have no idea. :D But I think: a lot. I'd guess way more than 100 %. :)
I'm excited. Finally I can play some games or don't have to wait for Spotlight to find my searched item or wait seconds til iCal loads.
Cheers
Click to expand...

I was able to run Geekbench on my old machine and the new 2.5GHz i5 iMac will be about 3.3 times faster.
 
Yebubbleman said:
...it just doesn't seem like a good Mac to gun for unless you can't go with a Mac Pro, or find yourself wanting more than either a Mac mini or a MacBook Pro, and even then, a Hackintosh seems more sensible.
Click to expand...

Actually, having owned most of these computers at one time or another I would argue exactly the opposite:

1. The ONLY reason to buy a MacPro is if you need a machine that must have more internal drives, must have special AV cards, must have special drive cards such as eSATA, or want to share internet over ethernet (server-ish). Remember that the iMac has FW800 and Thunderbolt, so you can have many fast external drives.

2. I suppose you could get a 17 inch MacBook Pro, but I feel it is still a superior work experience on a desktop when you have a lot to do. Even the best notebooks are a compromise and I would never want anything as large as a 17. My 15 inch Powebook was big enough. They generally have inferior keyboards, they do not have mice, the screens are smaller, drives are smaller and often slower. I went with a 13 inch Macbook because I wanted portability, but now I have an iPad the Macbook spends most of its time in my office at home ripping DVD's for my Apple TV and Sony BluRay.

3. Unless you already have a decent monitor, keyboard, and mouse, I see absolutely no good reason to buy a Mac Mini. Its performance lags everything else by such a margin that it is not worth owning right now. The only good reason to buy one of these is if you want to build a geek media center and something like an Apple TV or Roku do not cut it.
 
Last edited:
# 25 % performance increase

# 100% less hdd upgradability

# 300% (or more) profits for Apple technician-upgraded hdds
 
go 2009 i7! hahaha not too bad coming in 4th, not much of a difference between the 2009 and 2010 i7 but they both got slaughtered by the new 2011 version.

but the best thing is that my 2009 looks identical to a 2011 and it does exactly what i want it to do. graphics could be slightly better though
 
Will it matter?

I'm finally ready for my upgrade next week, and I have two options to replace my 2001 733 MHz PowerPC G4 Quicksilver, 768 MB SDRAM, running 10.4.11 (!). Yeah, I'd say it's time, too.

Anyway, I'm choosing between the 2010 iMac 27" 3.2 GHz i3 550 processor or the 2011 iMac 27" 2.7 GHz i5 2500S processor. I will primarily use it for your standard web, email, music, photo, school work (no major gaming, high-tech editing, graphics, etc.); however, I do want it to remain relevant for a few years and not be obsolete in a generation or two.

I've seen the bench test scores, know the on-paper differences when comparing the two, blah blah blah, but the other catch: the 2010 is 15% cheaper ($1396) than the 2011 ($1650).

Is the newness of the latter worth the possible savings of going once-removed?
 
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
Back