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
64!64!64!
Someone with an i7 iMac, force it to boot into the 64-bit kernel and run the 64-bit version of geekbench. I wanna know this things TRUE score.
Someone with an i7 iMac, force it to boot into the 64-bit kernel and run the 64-bit version of geekbench. I wanna know this things TRUE score.
Don't have a screenshot cause I'm at work but I quickly ran geekbench (32 bit mode) on my iMac 27 i7 2.8ghz w/8gig ram machine and got 8410 score.
Interesting sidenote is the machine running idle sits at about 88-90' F compared to my Early '09 24in 3.06 machine which sits around 93-96' F
I'm very very very very pleased so far. Can't wait to get home and run it through some games etc.
Interesting sidenote is the machine running idle sits at about 88-90' F compared to my Early '09 24in 3.06 machine which sits around 93-96' F
I'm very very very very pleased so far. Can't wait to get home and run it through some games etc.
Not going to see a big jump in benchmark numbers with more ram. It mostly measures processor calculations, memory read and write speeds, hard drive read and write speeds. More memory isn't going to make those speeds any faster.
Although DDR3 1333MHz RAM would be quicker then the 1066MHz DDR3 RAM Apple sends the machines with.
The Core i5/i7 have built in memory controllers right on the CPU and officially support 1333MHZ DDR3 RAM so it'll work no problem. Someone should find some and bench the system with that.
Although DDR3 1333MHz RAM would be quicker then the 1066MHz DDR3 RAM Apple sends the machines with.
The Core i5/i7 have built in memory controllers right on the CPU and officially support 1333MHZ DDR3 RAM so it'll work no problem. Someone should find some and bench the system with that.
That seems to be mostly limited by the read speed of your DVD reader nowadays. That's where MacTheRipper is handy, because it lets you import DVDs first, and then you can use multipass encoding without having to read the DVD twice, or make one copy for the iPod Touch and one for your computer.
Maybe run geekbench 64 bit once with a 64-bit kernel, and once with a 32-bit kernel, to make all the whiners shut up.
I can't even imagine the performance of a SSD with and i7. These scores are fast without them...
Did anybody see this Geekbench score:
9508!! Is that for real?
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/183410
Edit: Beat by fobfob as I was linking screen shot.
I don't understand how the amount of RAM (especially when we are talking such big numbers) could affect a test like this. Surely the benchmark itself uses a trivial amount of memory in comparison even with 4GB. The only way I can see it being beneficial is if the configuration of the RAM was in parallel such that you are using all SIMMS at a time, but is that really the case? Even with 4GB it is already in dual channel configuration.
Multithread-scalar and multithread-vector performance is off the edge and over the top. 40,000 ish is astounding.
If only we had something that could use it . . . . .
$2700/9508 = $0.284 per Geekbench point. Discuss. How does that compare to pretty good computers 2 and 4 years ago?
$2700-2900 is a typical configuration I have run.
Rocketman
If only we had something that could use it . . . . .
$2700/9508 = $0.284 per Geekbench point. Discuss. How does that compare to pretty good computers 2 and 4 years ago?
$2700-2900 is a typical configuration I have run.
Rocketman
Note the OS version on the 9508 score - it says "Geekbench 2.1.4 for Mac OS X x86 (64-bit)" which is interesting to say the least.
That would be a substantial increase in performance for the 64 bit version.
That would be a substantial increase in performance for the 64 bit version.
Yeah, I noticed that and think it is the first one that ran the Geekbench on the 64bit.
I also just ran it in 64-bit. I held down 64 at boot, not sure if it worked or not.
Anyway here are my results.
Anyway here are my results.
I also just ran it in 64-bit. I held down 64 at boot, not sure if it worked or not.
Anyway here are my results.
thanks for posting that! those numbers are pretty incredible, just on par with a 2.66 quad MP, which isnt all that bad!! half the power of the MPs *drool*
i think i can safely say that i can finally order mine now. has anybody found any issues with their i7 computers yet? screenflickering, high idle temperatures when only playing music or things like that?
there is a problem with the MPs when playing only itunes, CPU usage is around ~1% yet the temperature of the CPU hits 60°C when it is normally 30°C idle after around 10minutes of playback. can anybody confirm results? (this isnt an issue with the i5's it would seem, btw).
I'm with you there. I wonder how the i5 scores in 64bit? This i7 is a killer! I thought ~8400 was impressive for the i7!! 9656 is awesome!!
I'll do the iTunes test now, and then download Cinebench. So I'll just let itunes play music for roughly 10 minutes, check iStat for temps. No other programs will be open. Be back shortly.
Excuse my noobness, but how does the i5's ±6500 score compare to the ±8500 score of the i7 in overall performance? (Higher for both I guess, with 64bit enabled). I know the i7 is faster for tasks like encoding and HD editing, but from other i5 vs i7 CPU test the overall performance boost was about 5-10% or something like that? The 2000-point difference in these tests seems pretty high to me though.