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

2011 iMac models Geekbench score

Question?

Question about the benchmark scores?
If system "A" has a score of 3500 and system "B" has a score of 7000, Does it mean system B is 2 times faster than system A?

I know real world results may vary, but how should these numbers be interpreted?

Thanks
 
I just ran the latest release of Geekbench on my Aug 2007 2.8 Ghz Extreme 24" iMac. It came in at 3890. I think the new base 27" 2.7 i5 Quad-Core at 7926 will be a nice improvement. :)
 
dlastmango said:
Question about the benchmark scores?
If system "A" has a score of 3500 and system "B" has a score of 7000, Does it mean system B is 2 times faster than system A?

I know real world results may vary, but how should these numbers be interpreted?

Thanks
Click to expand...

the speed is rarely a one to one ratio . Ie a geekbench of 15000 is not twice as fast as 7500 in every single job or test. But the 15000 machine is faster in just about every job you run over the 7500 machine.
 
It's nice to see these collected in one place. It's possibly steering me toward the 2.93 i7 from last year that's $1569 in the refurb store (when available) instead of the new 3.1 i5, which is a bit under $1999 at MacMall. Now I just have to decide if dual Thunderbolt ports or a high-def webcam are worth going new instead. :)
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Cheers mate i was expecting charts like this. 27 i5 2.7 is my choice. Geekbench was not decisive but it reflects the specifics properly. According to me best value.

I also think that results on geekbench are 32bit
 
trackbikes said:
there are a few threads on here where I've posted my geekbech scores and 1 hadnbrake test, also those geekbench scores seem to be 32bit 64 is quite higher
Click to expand...
Ah cool, and good to know :)
dlastmango said:
Question about the benchmark scores?
If system "A" has a score of 3500 and system "B" has a score of 7000, Does it mean system B is 2 times faster than system A?

I know real world results may vary, but how should these numbers be interpreted?

Thanks
Click to expand...
No, not in every task. If you break the GeekBench score down it consists of different smaller scores in specific areas. I.E, it might perform 4x better in one area, but only 2x better in another.
CoryBoyUSA said:
It's nice to see these collected in one place. It's possibly steering me toward the 2.93 i7 from last year that's $1569 in the refurb store (when available) instead of the new 3.1 i5, which is a bit under $1999 at MacMall. Now I just have to decide if dual Thunderbolt ports or a high-def webcam are worth going new instead. :)
Click to expand...
Nice, I'm after the 6970 myself :p
 
I've been flip-flopping a bit about what I'll ultimately go with when I buy my 2011 iMac, scrutinizing performance results and reading through the various posts that dissect everything about these machines.

Then, today I decided to Geekbench the iMac that has served me well and that I'll be replacing.

It's score? 552

***

The basic, 2011 21.5" model's score is a 1,200 % improvement over my 2003 machine. I'm beginning to suspect I'll be satisfied by whichever I end up with.
 
My Geekbench score: 11817 (32bit)


System Information

Operating System Mac OS X 10.6.7 (Build 10J4138)
Model iMac12,2 Motherboard Apple Inc. iMac12,2
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz
Processor ID GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 42 Stepping 7
Processors 1 Threads 8
Cores 4 Memory 12.0 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
Processor Frequency 3.40 GHz Bus Frequency 100.0 MHz
L1 Instruction Cache 32.0 KB L1 Data Cache 32.0 KB
L2 Cache 256 KB L3 Cache 8.00 MB
BIOS Apple Inc. IM121.88Z.0047.B0A.1104221555
 
I have to say, as many other I am disappointed, last year iMac refresh was all the rage because they were faster than some MP.
This year with the new MBP I was extremely excited to maybe see iMacs tht were completely off the charts... Instead we get closer tho MBP than MP.

Im not saying they aren't powerful, I just hoped the jump in encoding times from mi 2007 MBP would be bigger. Clearly its not a matter of life or death for my needs but now it has me debating on whether to etch out another year from my MBP.
 
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