24" iMac beats out Mac Pro in some tests

[ipoddin]

According to Macworld's just published test results comparing low end Mac Pro to the high end iMac:

http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/imac233bench/index.php?lsrc=mwrss

You would expect an iMac powered by the fastest Core 2 Duo chip available to outperform iMacs with lesser clock speeds. And that was certainly the case when we ran our benchmark testing on Apple’s build-to-order iMac Core 2 Duo with a 2.33GHz processor—it easily beat its fellow Core 2 Duo models as well as an older Intel-based iMac running on a 2GHz Core Duo chip.

But what you might not expect is for that high-end consumer machine to beat out a professional tower powered by two dual-core chips in Macworld Lab tests. Nevertheless, that’s exactly what happened—the 2.33GHz iMac Core 2 Duo edged past the 2GHz Mac Pro.

Been waiting to see some benchmarks on the 24" iMacs.

 

[carfac]

cool- I like the 24"

 

[iGary]

Nevertheless, that’s exactly what happened—the 2.33GHz iMac Core 2 Duo edged past the 2GHz Mac Pro.

Wow, you mean a faster chip beat a slower chip at some things?

 

[amin]

Already posted in a a different thread.

 

[autumn]

Wow, you mean a faster chip beat a slower chip at some things?

With a Speedmark score of 259, the beefed up iMac (with 8 percent faster processing cores) was 6 percent faster than the standard configuration 24-inch iMac. More impressive, it was about 2 percent faster than the quad-core 2GHz Mac Pro in Macworld’s overall system performance benchmark. Granted, the clock speed of the optional Core 2 Duo is considerably faster than the Xeon, but doing the math: the iMac’s 4.6GHz of processing power versus the 8GHz of processing power on the Mac Pro, gives the Mac Pro with a 74-percent theoretical speed advantage. The tests do not indicate that the higher-end desktop is always exploiting that advantage.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

With a Speedmark score of 259, the beefed up iMac (with 8 percent faster processing cores) was 6 percent faster than the standard configuration 24-inch iMac. More impressive, it was about 2 percent faster than the quad-core 2GHz Mac Pro in Macworld’s overall system performance benchmark. Granted, the clock speed of the optional Core 2 Duo is considerably faster than the Xeon, but doing the math: the iMac’s 4.6GHz of processing power versus the 8GHz of processing power on the Mac Pro, gives the Mac Pro with a 74-percent theoretical speed advantage. The tests do not indicate that the higher-end desktop is always exploiting that advantage.

Macworld's reputation has just been flushed down the toilet.

 

[Chaszmyr]

Macworld's reputation has just been flushed down the toilet.

Ouch, you're right.

 

[sigamy]

They did the exact same thing with the first Intel iMac came out. They compared it to the Quad G5 and concluded that the iMac was nearly as fast on Quicktime encoding...someone ripped apart their review by instead of encoding just one file at a time, encoding multiple files. The Quad G5 crushed the iMac.

 

[QCassidy352]

doing the math: the iMac’s 4.6GHz of processing power versus the 8GHz of processing power on the Mac Pro, gives the Mac Pro with a 74-percent theoretical speed advantage. The tests do not indicate that the higher-end desktop is always exploiting that advantage.[/B]

LOL how could they make such a basic mistake??

 

[nchu429]

lol thanks.... now i want to get a 20" iMac

 

[suneohair]

They did the exact same thing with the first Intel iMac came out. They compared it to the Quad G5 and concluded that the iMac was nearly as fast on Quicktime encoding...someone ripped apart their review by instead of encoding just one file at a time, encoding multiple files. The Quad G5 crushed the iMac.

Exactly. This is where the Mac Pro shines and will continue to shine. Even in the single applications once the optimizations are made for multi core action.

This comparison is by far the worst I have ever seen. In addition, Macworld really made themselves look stupid with the speed of the cores. Macworld has lost credibility with that comment.

Also, how the heck is 8Ghz a 74 percent more processing power over the 4.66? My calculation shows a 56% increase in processing power.

 

[nagromme]

Also, how the heck is 8Ghz a 74 percent more processing power over the 4.66? My calculation shows a 56% increase in processing power.

My calculation shows a 72% increase in Ghz. Split the difference?

Anyway... yes, 4 cores really shine when doing, say, 4 things at once. But not everyone does, so it's not a bad thing to point out that more GHz-per-core can beat more cores, for some usage. Especially since the iMac uses a laptop chip while the Mac Pro uses a server chip. The results DO surprise me, and make me impressed with the iMac. It should all have been better explained though.

 

[JAT]

4.66 + 72% = 8
4.6 + 74% = 8

Does that explain it? Rounding is annoying.