TMR explained it nicely lol.
but omg that guy is a noob! how much did it cost you all up? i was looking at getting 8GB CL7 from crucial.com for about $500 i think it was.. pretty expensive though!
hahahahahahahah!
i missed that!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Geekbench results - iMac Quad Core w/ i7
- Thread starter nicroma
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
but omg that guy is a noob! how much did it cost you all up? i was looking at getting 8GB CL7 from crucial.com for about $500 i think it was.. pretty expensive though!
i missed that!
hmm. it should be on the memory box, or on the website that your purchased the RAM from. it cant be retrieved through the computer AFAIK.
google your specific ram type and brand name, you're sure to find its cas latency!
CL7 dude
I can't believe apple sales stuff are that stupid I though Apple offer their staff great training... And also 1 piece of information I miss was when I ask the Apple Speciaits staff at the George Street Sydney store about the RAM for i7 iMac u know what he ask me umm "SIR DO YOU KNOW WHAT YEAR IS YOUR IMAC? My reply was Feb 2010 Build, he goes umm do you know if you are running SL or not.. I goes yes it is.. He then come back and ask me What screen size is it? I goes 27" iMac i7 that runs on 4GB DDR3 1066Ghz and his reply was every mac use different ram... I goes yes i know but if you want I can go to te apple site to show you which mac I have... The sale guys then take me to the computer and we look up www.apple.com.au and I said to him this is the mac that I have and I'm looking for 4x 4GB DDR3 1066GHz RAM please... He then goes o ok iMac... Man he much be a be thick
Sorry guys I just have a look at the website it actually said CL8/9 sorry for the wrong info before... So is that preety good RAM that I bought??
And for the price all I spend was $1000 AUD...
sick man ta!
oh, CL9? no performance issues? $1000!? OMG! thats amasingly cheap! can you link me to the website?
apple didnt hire me. im a pretty tech-savvy guy, and an apple savvy guy too. i have been using macs since i was 3. i know most product inside and out.
apple focuses on their customer service and not the tech side of things. i HATE it. a guy didnt know what 720p was one day, or the fact that you can take out the MBP battery. it friggen annoys the hell out of me!
its rediculous that they dont know the answer. you said "i7 imac". that INSTANTLY tells me that its DDR3 1066MHz RAM for a 27" IPS iMac @ 2.8GHz, 4cores, 8 threads... how hard is that?
im furious right now.
i cant recall if it was the CL7 or CL9 - a few users tried and were having lots of problems, but i cant recall which one it was. maybe CL7 was the "non compatible" one.
Sorry for the noob question, but isn't OS X 64-bit by default, or do one have to hold down a key to boot it up in 64-bit or else it will boot up in 32-bit??
hmm seems to be impressive to some if a i7 iMac 2.8 ghz with 8gb ram scores over 8000 ..but not to me
my eMac scores 871
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/221543
so the i7 is just 10 times better scoring then a 4 year old computer with only a single core , running at half the ghz ,and a quarter of the ram and 10%of the bus speed , and its harddrive is already in constant use since 4 years,not to mention that it cost me under £150 and it still does what i need a computer for (constantly using mactheripper,final cut studio 5, watching films ,office work and general surfing)
so for the i7 to score 10 times better is only fair to the people who payed more then 10 times the amount of money for it , keeping in mind that most people who bought it will not use even a quarter of its performance
my eMac scores 871
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/221543
so the i7 is just 10 times better scoring then a 4 year old computer with only a single core , running at half the ghz ,and a quarter of the ram and 10%of the bus speed , and its harddrive is already in constant use since 4 years,not to mention that it cost me under £150 and it still does what i need a computer for (constantly using mactheripper,final cut studio 5, watching films ,office work and general surfing)
so for the i7 to score 10 times better is only fair to the people who payed more then 10 times the amount of money for it , keeping in mind that most people who bought it will not use even a quarter of its performance
i love my eMac too , i would not trade it in for anything ,its just perfect and i love the design ,
but that was actualy not the point of my post , i did want to point out that even the i7 imac is better,but considering the price you pay and that its from 2010 just 10 times better scoring then a 4 year old ppc computer is not really good in MY opinion ,
for the avarage user it might be sufficient , but for someone who does photoshop work or final cut pro or avid work for a living
would be better of with a macpro and 30"cinema display , ok cost more, but you get a lot lore performance
see the score of a macpro in comparison that dwarfs the i7
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/146405
but that was actualy not the point of my post , i did want to point out that even the i7 imac is better,but considering the price you pay and that its from 2010 just 10 times better scoring then a 4 year old ppc computer is not really good in MY opinion ,
for the avarage user it might be sufficient , but for someone who does photoshop work or final cut pro or avid work for a living
would be better of with a macpro and 30"cinema display , ok cost more, but you get a lot lore performance
see the score of a macpro in comparison that dwarfs the i7
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/146405
Ok, I am now convinced that something is very wrong with my brand new QuadCore i7 iMac! I found GeekBench because i felt that my computer wasn't performing as is should and your scores pretty much prove it to me.
My specs:
2.93 GHz Intel Core i7
16 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
ATI Radeon HD 5750
2 TB Hard Drive
My Geekbench Score: 3600
What in the world could be wrong?! I've had the computer for less than a week!
My specs:
2.93 GHz Intel Core i7
16 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
ATI Radeon HD 5750
2 TB Hard Drive
My Geekbench Score: 3600
What in the world could be wrong?! I've had the computer for less than a week!
Interesting stuff here.
So what determines the score? I have a 27" i7 with 4 GB of RAM and I got a score of 10700. Seeing that some people with 8 GB or ram get less then that makes me wonder how accurate this thing is.
So what determines the score? I have a 27" i7 with 4 GB of RAM and I got a score of 10700. Seeing that some people with 8 GB or ram get less then that makes me wonder how accurate this thing is.
is tha the 32-bit or 64-bit of the benchmarking software? that IS wrong. take out the RAM! just leave 8GB in there and try again. do you hvae the original RAM?
Late to the party...
Here's my 2.8 ghz Corei7 with 12 gigs of DDR3 1066 mhz ram:
I really want to update to the 1333 ram at some point but this is pretty good I think.
Here's my 2.8 ghz Corei7 with 12 gigs of DDR3 1066 mhz ram:
I really want to update to the 1333 ram at some point but this is pretty good I think.
Here's my 2.8 ghz Corei7 with 12 gigs of DDR3 1066 mhz ram:
I really want to update to the 1333 ram at some point but this is pretty good I think.
impressive numbers, ive yet to run a test with my 12GB. what do you use it for?
very nice very nice
i just got 9231 on mine, 28days uptime though
and most of the RAM is used!
Here's my 2.8 ghz Corei7 with 12 gigs of DDR3 1066 mhz ram:
I really want to update to the 1333 ram at some point but this is pretty good I think.
Guys, you're posting in a thread for the late 2009-series.
Please find the Geekbench-Thread for the new 2010-series here.
Your result is perfectly normal and in the average range... as you can see in the linked thread
That's because they have late-2009 iMacs. Seems to me that they're posting in the correct thread.Guys, you're posting in a thread for the late 2009-series.
Please find the Geekbench-Thread for the new 2010-series here.
Your result is perfectly normal and in the average range... as you can see in the linked thread