For an extra $180-200 for the i7 over the i5 and to be 30% faster, I would say that yes it is worth it.
Sorry I'm not familiar with that situation. Were they hard or easy to upgrade?
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
For an extra $180-200 for the i7 over the i5 and to be 30% faster, I would say that yes it is worth it.
Sorry I'm not familiar with that situation. Were they hard or easy to upgrade?
My soon to be recycled computer, after I take a hammer to it, is a Pentium 4 Windows machine with a Geekbench score of 1664. To replace it, I chose the i5. After seeing some of the i7 benchmarks, I had reservations thinking my choice was a mistake. I was almost ready to call and change my order. Now, after more thought, I decided the i5's performance will likely far exceed the needs of any work or play that I do. For me, the change from P4 to i5 will be like going from a horse and carriage to a Porsche 911. I'll be thrilled when the doorbell rings and it's here.
Don't stress about these numbers. Enjoy your machine. I totally get the obsession, but 30% better numbers doesn't necessarily translate into an equal real world boost and there is no point caring about it now.
I suggest never reading this thread again.
Lol I think this is probably the best piece of advice I have gotten in this forum. The numbers are fine but I want to know how much REAL WORLD benefit will I have? I mean, will there be a significant lag? I am coming from a 2.8 ghz 24" iMac which scored 3865 Geekbench. I hate lag. Will I be able to enjoy my machine or should I be paranoid about the i7 because I am paranoid about it as we speak :-(
Thanks for making me LOL. I needed that it was a long hard day.But you could upgrade to the 911 Turbo for only $200 more.
Good advice.
30% faster does SOUND worth $200, but the gaming benchmarks (one of the few real world things that might tax my computer) don't seem to be that different. It's certainly not going to make web pages load 30% faster. Would it rip my CD's 30% faster? That's another thing I use my computer for a lot.
Ok thanks for explaining that. However my assumption is that it would be different going from an i5 750 to an i7 870 (or 880/890 if they come out) vs. a jump in a mobile CPU. The jump to a higher 800 series CPU would give you HT and a faster GHz CPU in the process. Wouldn't be a bad upgrade if/when the price comes down. Right now it would be too expensive!
But you could upgrade to the 911 Turbo for only $200 more.
hahaha thats awesome. i cant wait for my imac rs2 turbo s
Ya, for you you're getting a faster computer all around! My 2.66 Quad at work Geekbenched at 6100 or so
My 8 Core 3.2 gets a score of 12761 so i'll be loosing a bit of raw processing power, but the iMac has double the memory performance and almost 3x the memory streaming, so I think in day to day use it'll still "feel" faster. the 27" display is gonna be nice as well!
Please run the benchmark again and upload your results to the Geekbench Result browser. Thanks.
So, after reading many of the sites that give game performance it is a wash. If I want to win a benchmark then the i7 does it. Lord knows how well benchmarks translate into every day life.
If I buy an i7 from Apple (BTO is hard to find elsewhere) it is 2199 + 154 in tax, or 2353 total. If I buy an i5 from Club Mac it is 1849 + no tax. Oh, I get parallels 5 after rebate for free too.
I will probably own a second 27 before the end of 2010 as I figure my 24 which moves to the upstairs office/exercise area will be deemed insufficient after seeing the 27 in my main.
Now I just got to hope they come out with a 2nd gen near June with an even better video card!
If I buy an i7 from Apple (BTO is hard to find elsewhere) it is 2199 + 154 in tax, or 2353 total. If I buy an i5 from Club Mac it is 1849 + no tax. Oh, I get parallels 5 after rebate for free too.
I will probably own a second 27 before the end of 2010 as I figure my 24 which moves to the upstairs office/exercise area will be deemed insufficient after seeing the 27 in my main.
Now I just got to hope they come out with a 2nd gen near June with an even better video card!
iMac Core i7:
Other machines:
Let me see if I am reading this correctly, the i7 scores:
Single core render= 4164
Multiple core render= 15217
At the bottom of that graph it says "When comparing these systems the green box is probably a better indication of how fast the machine is 'under your mouse' so to speak." So if that is true that single core render is a better indication, it means the iMac i7 is faster than everything except the 2009 3.33 Octad and the 2009 3.2 Octad for the single core render. Is that right?
Also its multiple core render score of 15217 beats a 2009 2.93 Quad at 14753 . How good of a comparison is this chart?Let me see if I am reading this correctly, the i7 scores:
Single core render= 4164
Multiple core render= 15217
At the bottom of that graph it says "When comparing these systems the green box is probably a better indication of how fast the machine is 'under your mouse' so to speak." So if that is true that single core render is a better indication, it means the iMac i7 is faster than everything except the 2009 3.33 Octad and the 2009 3.2 Octad for the single core render. Is that right?
It's a decent comparison. While something may score higher in a single core render, do you want to wait for your one core to churn through it?
In the updated Cinema 4d, so many more things have been multithreaded - displacement, shadow maps, etc. There is a massive difference in rendering speed with an 8 or 4 core processor vs a single thread (in C4d 11.5). So cinebench, running the C4d core at r10, is not going to have the enhancements of the latest version of C4d. When rendering many of the same scenes in C4d 10 vs. 11.5, 8 core machines saw a greater speed increase than 4 core machines.
I use C4d and After Effects all the time. I encode to video a lot. The question is- what do you do all the time? If you're ripping movies, converting video, etc, the iMac will be a great machine. This purchase is very highly dependent on what you spend most of your time doing.
If you are going to spend a lot of time rendering, then the 8 core mac pros are faster. If you spend a lot of time running simulations that may not be multithreaded, then the 4 core iMac with turbo boost is going to be a sweet machine.
Then again, once we start going down that road, the iMac is pretty much faster than the 4 core mac pros for less money, plus you get a 27 inch monitor!
It all comes down to money. The iMac is a very solid piece of kit for what you will end up paying. Sweet deal.
Then again, once we start going down that road, the iMac is pretty much faster than the 4 core mac pros for less money, plus you get a 27 inch monitor!
Sweet deal indeed. Whoever thought we would see this day come when an iMac could keep pace with some of the lower end MPs and get a high quality 27'' to boot!
So is Cinebench a better mechanism of testing rather than, say Geekbench?
It seems you recovered most of your original cost as well. How much did you end up paying for that MacPro, purchase minus sale divided by time?
I suspect a typical PC costs several times as much net.
Enjoy your new toy.
Rocketman
Keep in mind it's the last generation MacPro, not the current one.
I figure in day to day use it'll be faster, it takes up less space, has a much nicer monitor than my current 23" cinema display, draws half as much power, and for what I use it for (Logic, Creative Suite) I don't need 4 bays or PCI-E slots.
Plus when I sell the old tower and monitor, I pay for the iMac and get $1000 cash back
Good call, that's what I did.
Just to get a sampling of the 64bit data we have so far:
i7 w/ 4gb= 9656
i7 w/ 4gb= 9638 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/183671)
i7 w/ 4gb= 9508 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/183410)
i7 w/ 8gb= 9554 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/183534)
So it looks like a ~9600 average of the four sets of data we have so far. Not bad, not bad!!!
i7 w/ 4gb= 9656
i7 w/ 4gb= 9638 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/183671)
i7 w/ 4gb= 9508 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/183410)
i7 w/ 8gb= 9554 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/183534)
So it looks like a ~9600 average of the four sets of data we have so far. Not bad, not bad!!!
Geekbench 64-bit app and OS X 64/32 bit Kernel
I don't think there is any need (or benefit) to booting the 64-bit kernel to run the Geekbench 64-bit application. Snow Leopard is perfectly capable of running 64-bit applications without booting the 64-bit kernel, and in my limited testing on a 2009 Mac Pro, Geekbench scores are identical between 64-bit and 32-bit kernel. This leads me to believe that the Geekbench 64-bit application is not (yet) utilizing any of the benefits of 64-bit kernel extensions.
I don't think there is any need (or benefit) to booting the 64-bit kernel to run the Geekbench 64-bit application. Snow Leopard is perfectly capable of running 64-bit applications without booting the 64-bit kernel, and in my limited testing on a 2009 Mac Pro, Geekbench scores are identical between 64-bit and 32-bit kernel. This leads me to believe that the Geekbench 64-bit application is not (yet) utilizing any of the benefits of 64-bit kernel extensions.
Yeah I agree. I booted up into 64-bit kernal and ran the Geekbench 64 bit application on my MBP. There was no difference in booting up in 64bit vs. 32bit for the test.
Now there has been a lot of discussion weather or not the 1333Mhz memory modules works with the i7 iMac. If anyone has access to those, we would all LOVE to know if it's working, and if it is, how it affects the benchmarking result.
Won't somebody please tamper with their brand new, shiny iMac in the name of science?
Won't somebody please tamper with their brand new, shiny iMac in the name of science?
I'm a bit concerned that I won't notice any discernible difference between my current home iMac and my soon to be delivered Core i7 8GB RAM iMac, what do you think?
Here's the full result:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/183779
Here's the full result:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/183779