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

2011 Quad-Core 3.4GHz i7 Unboxing & Geekbench..Over 12,000!

So .... it's scores only 1000 points more than a cheapo Sandy Bridge laptop from Dell? ( the laptop XPS Sandy Bridge scores around 11000 ) The 2011 MBP scores also around 11000.

Something must be wrong with those iMac's. A 3.4 ghz i7 desktop CPU should destroy a 2.2 ghz i7 laptop CPU.
 
Anyone else deeply concerned why the 2.66GHz i5 w/ 4850M 512MB from 2009 is only 1 FPS less than the new 3.1GHz i5 w/ 6970 1GB? Why is that?
 
mark28 said:
So .... it's scores only 1000 points more than a cheapo Sandy Bridge laptop from Dell? ( the laptop XPS Sandy Bridge scores around 11000 ) The 2011 MBP scores also around 11000.

Something must be wrong with those iMac's. A 3.4 ghz i7 desktop CPU should destroy a 2.2 ghz i7 laptop CPU.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it just makes me want the MacBook pro even more. Video of one of our members benching his 2011 MB Pro at 11495:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDNgcjwAe3M

So what is up with that 3.4 quad?

As for gaming, seeing as the new top end iMac can have a 2GB top end MOBILE ATI card I wouldn't worry too much, I would imagine it's pretty capable?
 
I'm not seeing shocking outperformance what you would expect from laptop vs desktop components.
Click to expand...

Ask yourself if the iMac is closer internally to a MBP or a Mac Pro? If you want to squeeze an entire computer inside a flat panel display, you are going to have to use a lot of laptop components!

Gregg
 
tulsamal said:
Ask yourself if the iMac is closer internally to a MBP or a Mac Pro? If you want to squeeze an entire computer inside a flat panel display, you are going to have to use a lot of laptop components!

Gregg
Click to expand...

iMacs have used desktop processors for a long time now.
Also your comparison is incorrect, the thermal and energy constraints in a laptop are what truly restrict their performance. The iMac has no such constraint.
 
MythicFrost said:
Anyone else deeply concerned why the 2.66GHz i5 w/ 4850M 512MB from 2009 is only 1 FPS less than the new 3.1GHz i5 w/ 6970 1GB? Why is that?
Click to expand...

The ATI 6970m in the iMac is not performing much better than 2011 2.2 ghz i7 MBP also :confused:

Only 7 fps more in CoD 4 then the 2011 MBP?

There is no way the ATI 6970m is only 7 fps faster than the 6750m. I think Apple hasn't got good drivers yet.
 
mark28 said:
The ATI 6970m in the iMac is not performing much better than 2011 2.2 ghz i7 MBP also :confused:

Only 7 fps more in CoD 4 then the 2011 MBP?

There is no way the ATI 6970m is only 7 fps faster than the 6750m. I think Apple hasn't got good drivers yet.
Click to expand...

Something's wrong with those benchmarks. The numbers are far too close all across the line, with the exception of the 09 c2d iMac with the 9400m.
 
mark28 said:
The ATI 6970m in the iMac is not performing much better than 2011 2.2 ghz i7 MBP also :confused:

Only 7 fps more in CoD 4 then the 2011 MBP?

There is no way the ATI 6970m is only 7 fps faster than the 6750m. I think Apple hasn't got good drivers yet.
Click to expand...
That's very disturbing :p I hope we see some more realistic, better results, soon.
 
I would check whether Apple underclocked the CPU, GPU, RAM or any other component in the iMac.

Apple is known to underclock components to maintain a certain internal temperature or power consumption efficiency.

Just wish Apple made a design concession to allow for an all desktop component setup at the original clock speeds.
 
Can I ask something that may sound stupid ?? Why are the geekbench between the new macbook pro 2.3ghz i7 quad core and the iMac 3.4 ghz i7 quad core so close ??? Shouldn't the iMac be much more higher ??
 
noire anqa said:
iMacs have used desktop processors for a long time now.
Also your comparison is incorrect, the thermal and energy constraints in a laptop are what truly restrict their performance. The iMac has no such constraint.
Click to expand...

It does have that constraint, just for different reasons. A laptop's need for portability and lightness imposes those constraints; with the iMacs, it is a self-imposed design principal of a sleek, all-in-one machine that results in pretty much the same restrictions.

You certainly can argue the merits of that design principal, but since it is what defines the iMac line of machines, I think it's wrong to simply state that there are no such constraints.
 
mrzeigler said:
It does have that constraint, just for different reasons. A laptop's need for portability and lightness imposes those constraints; with the iMacs, it is a self-imposed design principal of a sleek, all-in-one machine that results in pretty much the same restrictions.

You certainly can argue the merits of that design principal, but since it is what defines the iMac line of machines, I think it's wrong to simply state that there are no such constraints.
Click to expand...

I disagree, the size of the iMac far exceeds the size of a MacBook Pro, this affords it all kinds of benefits not afforded to a notebook form factor. Saying the iMac and notebooks have the same constraints (one by necessity & the other by design) is simply false. I appreciate you say "pretty much the same constraints" & not 'exactly the same constraints' but it's still wildly misleading, it's nowhere near "pretty much" - a notebook's constraints are vastly greater than an iMac's - they're not even close.

For a start the iMac's heatsink is much larger allowing for significantly greater passive cooling, combined with the fact there is much more room for heavy duty fans in the iMac which is there is not in the MacBook Pro. Also, the air inlets on a MacBook Pro are tiny, the corresponding inlet on an iMac is huge. This allows for much more heavy duty parts that require greater cooling.

The other major constraint on a notebook is energy consumption - this constraint simply does not exist for an iMac.
 
I'm willing to bet it's driver issues.

Only a 2,000 point increase over last year's iMac is not that great. I was expecting around 14-15,000.
 
TMRaven said:
I'm willing to bet it's driver issues.

Only a 2,000 point increase over last year's iMac is not that great. I was expecting around 14-15,000.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this.
GPU has to be a driver issue .. it feels like there's optimisation missing on the CPU's too ..
 
noire anqa said:
I disagree, the size of the iMac far exceeds the size of a MacBook Pro, this affords it all kinds of benefits not afforded to a notebook form factor. Saying the iMac and notebooks have the same constraints (one by necessity & the other by design) is simply false. I appreciate you say "pretty much the same constraints" & not 'exactly the same constraints' but it's still wildly misleading, it's nowhere near "pretty much" - a notebook's constraints are vastly greater than an iMac's - they're not even close.

For a start the iMac's heatsink is much larger allowing for significantly greater passive cooling, combined with the fact there is much more room for heavy duty fans in the iMac which is there is not in the MacBook Pro. Also, the air inlets on a MacBook Pro are tiny, the corresponding inlet on an iMac is huge. This allows for much more heavy duty parts that require greater cooling.

The other major constraint on a notebook is energy consumption - this constraint simply does not exist for an iMac.
Click to expand...

I certainly won't argue that the iMacs aren't bigger than a laptop, but by the same token I don't think you'd argue that they have as much space to work with as a conventional desktop with a separate monitor. Because it's sort of a tweener, I think it's tough to figure out what realistic expectations/comparisons should be for this line.

I don't know much about the guts of a machine, but I would expect that energy consumption is directly related to the heat that components radiate ... and hasn't that been a design issue with the iMacs? I suspect energy consumption might not be a primary design concern, but its heat product would be.
 
Yeah I bet their still working on sandy bridge drivers. The scores are much lower then I expected. My first gen i7 hackintosh scores 10k-11k stock.
 
I called this and calculated it yesterday before the release ever came.

12,000 and and a bit. using the old benchmark I did x1.41 and got 12,800.
There might be surprises in the future, but the trend is generally x1.41 every year.

People expecting over 13,000 were just building themselves up for a let-down. Next year you can expect about 18,000, if trends continue. One thing is certain: computers don't suddenly jump some unprecedented amount of processing power. By 2015 we will have iPads about as powerful in processing as a 2005/6 MacPro, and iMacs beyond the power of the topline 2011 MacPro. Don't think it will come sooner. If it does, it's a bonus of delight.
 
Lesser Evets said:
I called this and calculated it yesterday before the release ever came.

12,000 and and a bit. using the old benchmark I did x1.41 and got 12,800.
There might be surprises in the future, but the trend is generally x1.41 every year.

People expecting over 13,000 were just building themselves up for a let-down. Next year you can expect about 18,000, if trends continue.
Click to expand...

I don't quite get the post, really. Last year's top-end iMac scored 10,000 on geekbench, and multiplying that yields a score of 14,100. And also, this wasn't just an incremental upgrade like last last year's iMac. This is a completely new cpu architecture.
 
Hey Jonathon, great videos as usual! Awesome to see someone respectful on YouTube still partaking in forums like this one! Peace.
 
ezekielrage_99 said:
+1 to that..

If I were to buy I would only use it for games and ripping/converting video.
Click to expand...

I'll be working on those over the next couple days.

SideStepSociety said:
You said Quad-core twice at the end of the unboxing.

"OMG, duz that mean it can haz double quad-cores!? Octo-core!!?" :p

Great unboxing though, I thoroughly enjoyed it. :D
Click to expand...

Ha. I had missed that :D thanks for watching!

drambuie said:
Could you check "target display mode" in the 2011 iMac's help file, to see if it accepts Thunderbolt display input only, or if it also accepts minidisplayport video/audio in. I looked at the manual on-line, and on page 33, it said to refer to the help file for info on "target display mode".
Click to expand...

I'll check that this afternoon as well and let ya know!

hipnotizer said:
Did you get the 1gb or 2gb gpu?
Click to expand...

I got the 1GB Model.

iSayuSay said:
Wow .. that's crazy compared to standard i5 3.1Ghz .. :apple: should just make 3.4 Ghz a standard option, i'm okay with $2200 price tag as long as they're standard. Means they're easier to get rather than get yourself an i7 iMac for BTO option

Good job Jonathan, as always .. well how about 2Gb DDR5 GPU, do you think GDDR will increase benchmark score significantly?
Click to expand...

I don't think the 2GB would increase it too much. To be honest I'd say the extra 2GB would really come in handy if you do plan on using external monitors and not just the iMac monitor.

mackage said:
Jonathan,

What did the 3.4 do at 32 bit? I am just trying to judge the difference in score.
Click to expand...

I'll make sure and test that this afternoon and let you know :D

archer75 said:
For me I want to see:
Gaming at native resolution.
video encoding in handbrake

I'm sure some people would like to see some photoshop/aperture numbers.
Click to expand...


Cool. I'll get working on those.


Chazn said:
Subscribed :)
Click to expand...

Thanks!
 
Lesser Evets said:
I called this and calculated it yesterday before the release ever came.

12,000 and and a bit. using the old benchmark I did x1.41 and got 12,800.
There might be surprises in the future, but the trend is generally x1.41 every year.

People expecting over 13,000 were just building themselves up for a let-down. Next year you can expect about 18,000, if trends continue. One thing is certain: computers don't suddenly jump some unprecedented amount of processing power. By 2015 we will have iPads about as powerful in processing as a 2005/6 MacPro, and iMacs beyond the power of the topline 2011 MacPro. Don't think it will come sooner. If it does, it's a bonus of delight.
Click to expand...

That analogy hasn't held true with the MacBook Pro's though, my top end 2010 MB Pro in my sig benches at 5 to 6000, half of what the top end 2011 models get.
 
Gaming benchmarks! That's what I want to see! Pleaaasee! :D

I'm not sure if you dual boot Windows or not MacHead, but if you do some benchmarks for your games (with either FRAPS (free) or built in benchmark) would be great. I'm particularly interested in Crysis 2 on "High" at native settings, if you have it.

Otherwise, OS X benchmarks are good too :D no pressure, but if you get the time, or have the games, would appreciate it! Cheers
 
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