Unreleased 2012 MacBook Pro and iMac Models Showing Up in Benchmarks

[cwwilson]

I don't dispute your GPU is likely crap (depending on which 3.06GHz iMac you have, it's at worst a GeForce 9400m up to a Radeon 4850, which is actually pretty decent), but from what I can find all of those iMacs can run Mountain Lion.

yup, 9400 here. While I have seen that the C2D imacs are capable of running the ML beta, there is a strange cloud hanging overhead that come release, Apple will not allow them to install the OS. Theyre trying to banish the older hardware from existence and they want people with 3+ year old Macs to upgrade. Not that I blame them for it, but I was fortunate (or unfortunate depending on your opinion) to even be able to run Lion. We'll see what the future holds in regards to MountainLion.

 

[Matador Red]

Man, how unbelievably nice it would be to get a new MacBook Pro, iMac and maybe even new Mac Pro (one more thing-style) for WWDC. Heck, I´d even be happy with an 'iMac Pro'. As long as it doesn´t border on useless, like the current model.

But I guess they´ll just send Phil Schiller to tell us how 'great' the flamin' iTunes Store did, why exactly some new Version of iOS is more 'awesome' than anything else and how 'wonderful' the new iPad still is.

So I guess these benchmarks are good news, eh?

Tell me how the current iMac is "borderline useless"?

 

[Fandongo]

Looks like any Tuesday now we may get a nice surprise.

It's always been tuesday or thursday so it must be a tuesday or thursday...
nah.
I think it'll be a Monday
the 28th.
That's what I'd do, kick the world in the head on "holidays"
And then be closed for the holiday.

Pretty darn fast. My 3.2GHz quad Mac Pro 5,1 is 11175, not that I would ever trade if for an iMac. A hex 3.4 would cure its ills.

I was hoping for a hex ivy as well, unfortunately it doesn't exist.
However, this does present the perfect time to upgrade from C2D (oh god) to quad ivy MBP... I think it'll tide me over just fine for a Haswell or later desktop.

 

[pepelutivruski4]

Disappointing that the iMac scores slightly lower than the equivalent laptop.

I could be wrong, but i think the iMac is being benchmarked with half the RAM?

 

[MagicBoy]

I could be wrong, but i think the iMac is being benchmarked with half the RAM?

The amount of RAM has no effect on GeekBench scores.

 

[aliasfox]

It's always been tuesday or thursday so it must be a tuesday or thursday...
nah.
I think it'll be a Monday
the 28th.
That's what I'd do, kick the world in the head on "holidays"
And then be closed for the holiday.

Hah. My guess is that they'll either wait until WWDC or release them the day dual core Ivy Bridge is supposed to launch (June 5) - that way, they can release all iMac, MBP, and MBA machines at once.

Otherwise they'll just wait the one more week and announce at WWDC (also very possible).

 

[mcman77]

still hoping for a quad-core 13" powerhouse!!! well...14" display though

 

[ct2k7]

u wont know what u missed til u tried/have it

the same was said about HDTV a few years ago

I have an iPhone 4S and an iPad.

 

[bushido]

I have an iPhone 4S and an iPad.

and u r telling me u wouldnt mind going back to 3GS resolution?

 

[ct2k7]

and u r telling me u wouldnt mind going back to 3GS resolution?

The current MBP doesn't have a 3GS resolution, moot point.

 

[Ddyracer]

I wonder if the 3820qm vs 3770 is slightly faster? Or maybe more likely, whoever posted the benchmarks was running some tasks in the background on the iMac.

 

[Open Mac]

Thanks For The Help!

See ya!

The FULL quote was:

"I'm not singing from the hymnal anymore like I should, and should rightly leave the Apple community and buy the first non-Apple computer in my life. A nice Hackintosh."​

Constructive criticism for Apple's benefit has no place, and reflects nothing other than disloyalty and "sin" vis a vis "The Religion." Only positive comments. Only unalloyed agreement. Take issue on anything and you're banished. "Get lost, traitor."

So your casual, "See ya!" is sorely short-sighted and doesn't take into consideration that as a 30+ year Apple loyalist I've spent (conservatively) $200,000 on Apple hardware and software products (including three iPads and two iPhones). And that doesn't include the many thousands spent on third-party Mac wares (which ultimately helps Apple and the Mac platform).

So, "See ya" = real money, if that's now Apple's singular purpose. If they willingly forego hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Creative Pro like me, I would find that unwise.

It was we Creative Pros who provided just enough revenue during Apple's darkest days, when the Mac had 1.7% market share, had fallen behind the Pentium in speed and crashed every fifteen minutes. But we stayed.

We may have provided just enough revenue for Apple to escape by the skin of its teeth going out of business or being swallowed up by IBM (who would eventually get out of the personal computer business and sell the division to China's Lenovo, who is doing quite well), or to Sun, who said that if they bought Apple, they would not continue to use the Apple or Mac brand names.

But thanks for strengthening my point.

OH -- and you forgot to tag me as a "Troll"; but then again, I beat you to it and denied you the (odd) satisfaction.

Peace!

 

[bushido]

The current MBP doesn't have a 3GS resolution, moot point.

but it doesnt have a retina resolution either

 

[ct2k7]

but it doesnt have a retina resolution either

It doesn't high a "high" resolution either.

 

[NutsNGum]

The FULL quote was:

"I'm not singing from the hymnal anymore like I should, and should rightly leave the Apple community and buy the first non-Apple computer in my life. A nice Hackintosh."​

Constructive criticism for Apple's benefit has no place, and reflects nothing other than disloyalty and "sin" vis a vis "The Religion." Only positive comments. Only unalloyed agreement. Take issue on anything and you're banished. "Get lost, traitor."

So your casual, "See ya!" is sorely short-sighted and doesn't take into consideration that as a 30+ year Apple loyalist I've spent (conservatively) $200,000 on Apple hardware and software products (including three iPads and two iPhones). And that doesn't include the many thousands spent on third-party Mac wares (which ultimately helps Apple and the Mac platform).

So, "See ya" = real money, if that's now Apple's singular purpose. If they willingly forego hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Creative Pro like me, I would find that unwise.

It was we Creative Pros who provided just enough revenue during Apple's darkest days, when the Mac had 1.7% market share, had fallen behind the Pentium in speed and crashed every fifteen minutes. But we stayed.

We may have provided just enough revenue for Apple to escape by the skin of its teeth going out of business or being swallowed up by IBM (who would eventually get out of the personal computer business and sell the division to China's Lenovo, who is doing quite well), or to Sun, who said that if they bought Apple, they would not continue to use the Apple or Mac brand names.

But thanks for strengthening my point.

OH -- and you forgot to tag me as a "Troll"; but then again, I beat you to it and denied you the (odd) satisfaction.

Peace!

See ya!

 

[pepelutivruski4]

The amount of RAM has no effect on GeekBench scores.

ok, so putting it in simple terms; the macbook pro is going to outperform the iMac in everything?

reason i ask is cuz i've got $4000 burning a hole in my pocket and i need a new computer. stat!

i'd rather have an iMac, but i'll get the laptop if it's gonna have more balls. and the mobility wouldn't hurt of course....

TELL ME WHAT TO BUY SIR!!!!

 

[Winter Charm]

You don't think Apple runs Geekbench on their development boxes, at Apple? I asume that uploading the scores was an oversight.

I thought Geekbench automatically uploaded those scores, as part of the agreement to use the software?

 

[zen.state]

A couple have mentioned or hinted at the fact that they think HD speed as anything to do with the score... it doesn't.

GB only tests the CPU, FPU and RAM. No HD and no GPU at all. Everyone clear on that now?

 

[MagicBoy]

They're both pre-release machines so I wouldn't read that much into the scores yet. Firmware and driver changes can significantly effect the scores.

 

[dokujaryu]

Not sure what you're getting at with that. Turbo Boost speeds up the processor when fewer cores are running - if one core is being used, a processor can scale from 2.5 GHz to 3.2 GHz, for example. When all four cores are being used, you're still looking at 2.5 GHz.

Doesn't really change the fact that when a program uses two cores (and the processor ramps up to, say, 2.8 GHz), the other two cores will still be sitting there twiddling their thumbs. So while a quad core, Turbo Boosted machine may benchmark with 2x the performance of a dual core machine of similar clock speed, real world performance won't be anywhere close to the 2x faster you see in specialized benchmarks unless you do a lot of heavily threaded work.

Well, I don't know what processor you are talking about, but the 2860QM in the MBP 15" boosts from 2.5 to 3.6 Ghz for dual core operations where as the dual core 2.8 Ghz in the 13" (2640M) won't go any faster than that. ~30% faster isn't insignificant. In addition, the 2860QM has 8MB of L3 cache, which can make some programs faster as well, where as the dual core 2640M has only 4MB.

In applications that are literally only one thread the 13" and the 15" should be nearly identical. But anything that supports multi-threading should be faster on the quad core, even if it only has 2 threads.

In general, all these processors, all the way down to the MBA's 1.7 dual core with only 3MB cache should be plenty for everyday use. But the MBP's quad core will shine in Pro applications.

I do agree that benchmark envy is kinda silly.

 

[Pacwell]

ok, so putting it in simple terms; the macbook pro is going to outperform the iMac in everything?

reason i ask is cuz i've got $4000 burning a hole in my pocket and i need a new computer. stat!

i'd rather have an iMac, but i'll get the laptop if it's gonna have more balls. and the mobility wouldn't hurt of course....

TELL ME WHAT TO BUY SIR!!!!

I signed up for the site just to agree and laugh at this post.

I would have signed up forever ago but who wants to sign up for sites these days that dont allow facebook sign in. Sheesh. Too much work!

 

[Open Mac]

Brawly!

See ya!

Hae a guid rin!

 

[Drag'nGT]

Well that is a little more than triple the speed of my early 2009 iMac. At what point do you get off the treadmill and say fast enough? My MacBook is over five years old and is starting to decay so I'll update that which will then be triple the speed of my iMac.

Woo hoo... web pages will decode in 1/30th of a second instead of 1/10th of a second!

It's more about how photo and video editing will be speeded up. My '08 iMac is painfully slow in Aperture when processing RAW files or exporting a 1080p four minute slideshow.

It's interesting to see that the iMac was tested on 4gb ram while the MBP was using 8gb. The desktop i7 is faster in the test scores but the ram seems to push the MBP ahead. We'll see how it works after release and more people turn in their scores.

I'm hoping to see the i7 option (iMac) being standard at $1999.

 

[Sackvillenb]

YES. Some relatively solid "proof" about imminent new macs. Spec bumps are always good. Hoping graphics will see a nice boost though... Please Macs, embrace gaming without requiring exorbitant sums of money!

 

[levifig]

I like AMD, I have an AMD 6770 rn, but I hope they use NVIDIA for Cuda, and their drivers aren't absolute ****. I really wish AMD would step up though.

Since we seem to be on a "wishing spree", I'd love to see some high-end GPU: GTX 66xM.

Also: not hopeful. I predict Nvidia but nothing better than a GT 640M at best… :\