Performance results on iMac 24" (new and old)


Zwhaler

macrumors demi-god
Jun 10, 2006
6,790
983
Wirelessly posted (LGE-VX9900/1.0 UP.Browser/6.2.3.2 (GUI) MMP/2.0)

wow, the 2.8 is pretty fast. My 20 inch imac (2.33) got 3069... But whatever
 

jesteraver

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 16, 2006
333
0
Montreal, QC
I found the mecca of geekbench scores

Performances (June 2007)

iMac G5 1.8 GHz @ 1044 *
Power Mac G5 Dual-Dual 2.5 GHz @ 3284 *
iMac C2E 2.8 GHz @ 3791
Mac Pro Dual Dual-Xeon 2.0 GHz @ 3894 *
Mac Pro Dual Quad-Xeon 3.0 GHz @ 8618 *

I can't wait too feel the power.

iMac 2.8 from a geekbench test seems pretty good.

* not sure how much memory they were using for these tests.
 

LouTreize

macrumors regular
May 19, 2007
111
0
I found the mecca of geekbench scores

Performances (June 2007)

iMac G5 1.8 GHz @ 1044
Power Mac G5 Dual-Dual 2.5 GHz @ 3284
iMac C2E 2.8 GHz @ 3791
Mac Pro Dual Dual-Xeon 2.0 GHz @ 3894
Mac Pro Dual Quad-Xeon 3.0 GHz @ 8618

I can't wait too feel the power.

iMac 2.8 from a geekbench test seems pretty good.
Oh s*** u live in Mtl! ahaha...when are you getting your 2.8?
 

soosy

macrumors regular
May 6, 2002
215
1
That's a lot faster than the difference in clock speed implies. Is something else going on inside the C2E?
Really the clock speed is about 16% (2.8/2.4) and so is the overall score (3791/3243). The floating point is even better than that though so maybe it is unusual...
 

flopticalcube

macrumors G4
Really the clock speed is about 16% (2.8/2.4) and so is the overall score (3791/3243). The floating point is even better than that though so maybe it is unusual...
Moreover, I would not have expected the full benefit of the clock to come through, given the 800MHZ fsb and 667MHz memory bus. In one way it confirms a suspicion I had that the desktop architectures could not get much better results even with faster FSBs and memory speeds.
 

jesteraver

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 16, 2006
333
0
Montreal, QC
One thing that amazes me. That the Quad-Xeon 2.0 GHz is slightly faster then the C2E 2.8 GHz. The Quad-Xeon has a slightly faster FSB. Plus the cache must have something too do with it also.

One thing. I am happy that I am getting a new mac. 260% increase in speed, now that is something.

I just wish Apple would use slightly better memory DDR2-800 instead of 667. Just imagine how much faster these babies would be.

One thing for sure by 2010, I'll get another mac. Hopefully it be a Mac Pro or wtv it will be called by then :D