Performance results on iMac 24" (new and old)

Discussion in 'iMac' started by jesteraver, Aug 13, 2007.

  1. jesteraver macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    Montreal, QC
  2. cloudstrife13 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    #2
    Nice results! now my 24" 2.8GHz needs to hurry up and ship!
     
  3. jesteraver thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    Montreal, QC
    #3
    I wish I had an extra gig of memory in my iMac G5 see the difference between this and my soon too be new computer.
     
  4. Zwhaler macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #4
    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
     
  5. LouTreize macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
  6. jesteraver thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    Montreal, QC
    #6
    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.
     
  7. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #7
    That's a lot faster than the difference in clock speed implies. Is something else going on inside the C2E?
     
  8. LouTreize macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    #8
    Oh s*** u live in Mtl! ahaha...when are you getting your 2.8?
     
  9. jesteraver thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    Montreal, QC
    #9
    Yup getting the 2.8 :D *drools*

    I can't wait for barefeats results.
     
  10. soosy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    #10
    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...
     
  11. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #11
    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.
     
  12. jesteraver thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    Montreal, QC
    #12
    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
     

Share This Page