Sidebar Sidebar
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

spcdust said:
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?

geekbench.jpg



Here's the full result:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/183779
Click to expand...

You run that benchmark on your toaster?
 
Rocketman said:
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
Click to expand...

Hi Rocketman,


I bought the MacPro(2007) "on Sale" (Brand new, in box etc) from a reseller, when the newer MacPro(2008) was being released.
Purchased for (AUS) $2690.00.
I think they were originally priced at (AUS)$3999.00.
But correct me if I'm wrong.

I had purchased the 20" Cinema display 6 months prior for (AUS) $1100.00.
Which was used with my ....(embarrassing admission) XP machine.

So yes, in some ways the added Cinema display did make the re-sale look more attractive as a complete package.

I'm glad I sold it when I did (4 weeks ago) because now there are a hell of a lot of MacPro's on eBay with better specs than my old machine.
 
Can anyone with a quad core iMac verify (not speculate or guess) if the GPU is the mobile or desktop 4850?

You might have to use Windows to be sure (since Mac OS X said that the 4850 in the early '09 iMacs were desktop when they were really mobility).
 
avihappy said:
Can anyone with a quad core iMac verify (not speculate or guess) if the GPU is the mobile or desktop 4850?

You might have to use Windows to be sure (since Mac OS X said that the 4850 in the early '09 iMacs were desktop when they were really mobility).
Click to expand...

They are the mobility. 0x944a

I've read that the performance is comparable to an 8800 GTS. I have yet to get enought time to play any games, but I do have a 8800 GTX in my PC desktop so I should see similar results when I get the chance to try it out.
 
avihappy said:
Can anyone with a quad core iMac verify (not speculate or guess) if the GPU is the mobile or desktop 4850?

You might have to use Windows to be sure (since Mac OS X said that the 4850 in the early '09 iMacs were desktop when they were really mobility).
Click to expand...

They are mobility.
 
Techhie said:
Such a shame they couldn't squeeze a full-sized die in there.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. Was really hoping for a full fledged desktop version. Wonder if the final decision was based on cost analysis or if it was heat related?
 
So what do you guys think about these results? Makes the i7 look like the clear choice without a doubt:

For 64bit

i7= ~9500-9600
i5= ~ 7100

For 32bit

i7= ~8200-8400
i5= ~6400-6500
 
53x12 said:
Yeah I agree. Was really hoping for a full fledged desktop version. Wonder if the final decision was based on cost analysis or if it was heat related?
Click to expand...

I would say a heat issue. They've had a bit more leway with full aluminium enclosure and the inherent bigger physical space from a 27" screen. I think with the quad core processors, the heat from the screen, hard drive and power..they probably saved the heat problems. I don't know, I'd happily pay 200 bucks more for a better graphics card. I think this imac is so close to being a great gaming machine, but as usual, just about falls short.
 
Boot time needed please

To those of you who have already been blessed with an i7 iMac, could you do us a favour by timing how long it takes for your iMac to do a cold boot?

Many thanks in advance.
 
Atom =911 put the i7 in perspective

ASUSTeK Computer INC. 1000HE
Submitted on November 13 2009 (3 seconds ago)
Chart performance of similar systems
Summary

Section Description Score Geekbench Score 911
Geekbench 2.1.4 for Windows x86 (32-bit)
Integer Processor integer performance 925
Floating Point Processor floating point performance 778
Memory Memory performance 1033
Stream Memory bandwidth performance 1092
System Information

Operating System Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
Model ASUSTeK Computer INC. 1000HE Motherboard ASUSTeK Computer INC. 1000HE
Processor Intel Atom N280
Processor ID GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 28 Stepping 2
Processor Frequency 1.66 GHz Processors 1
Cores 1 Threads 2
L1 Instruction Cache 24.0 KB L1 Data Cache 24.0 KB
L2 Cache 512 KB L3 Cache 0.00 B
Memory 1.99 GB SDRAM 0 MHz FSB 167 MHz
BIOS American Megatrends Inc. 1002
 
juliancs said:
I would say a heat issue. They've had a bit more leway with full aluminium enclosure and the inherent bigger physical space from a 27" screen. I think with the quad core processors, the heat from the screen, hard drive and power..they probably saved the heat problems. I don't know, I'd happily pay 200 bucks more for a better graphics card. I think this imac is so close to being a great gaming machine, but as usual, just about falls short.
Click to expand...

Considering this iMac has a heatsink for both the CPU and GPU, I don't think that squeezing a desktop chip would have been that much of a problem.
 
dave92029 said:
ASUSTeK Computer INC. 1000HE
Submitted on November 13 2009 (3 seconds ago)
Chart performance of similar systems
Summary

Section Description Score Geekbench Score 911
Click to expand...

I have an ASUS 1000HE as well and it still is a pretty snappy machine for what its worth.
 
Techhie said:
Considering this iMac has a heatsink for both the CPU and GPU, I don't think that squeezing a desktop chip would have been that much of a problem.
Click to expand...

Likely could well have done it, but there is a chance the fans might have had to kick it up a notch to cover it.

Considering that people seem to be complaining about noisy drives right now, and have complained about noisy fans in the past might have made them stick with the mobile parts.
 
nicroma said:
Sadly, I cannot give you any more results today as my iMac and I have parted ways. I just left for work. :( Oh, the agony!!!
Click to expand...
LOL. If I were in such agony, I certainly would have called in sick! :p


cloudstrife13 said:
DDR3 1333MHz RAM would be quicker then the 1066MHz DDR3 RAM Apple sends the machines with.
Click to expand...
Is it really true that we can remove the stock RAM and install 1333MHz DDR3 RAM and have it work without a hitch? And what happens if one keeps the 1066 4GB but then adds another 4GB spec'd at 1333?


sfmountainbiker said:
Will this translate to, say, 30% better performance running games?
Click to expand...
Who cares about the games! I want to know real world performances for "working in the Finder, duplicating files, deleting 100,000 files, and app launch times." These are real-world tasks that affect each of us every single day.

Now if the i7 can launch bloated apps like Illustrator CS4 in something like 2 seconds, then that is something to get "excited" about. But of course, raw hard disk speed is also critical to accomplishing that.
 
JDW said:
Now if the i7 can launch bloated apps like Illustrator CS4 in something like 2 seconds, then that is something to get "excited" about. But of course, raw hard disk speed is also critical to accomplishing that.
Click to expand...

Just did a quick stopwatch test i7, 8GB ram, 2TB drive.

Illustrator CS4 launch - 3 seconds

Photoshop CS4 Launch - 2.5 Seconds
 
Found this online. Might be useful for us:

imac-core-i7-core-i5-benchmarks.jpg



The i7 will literally be 205% faster than my current MBP!! :D
 
juliancs said:
I would say a heat issue. They've had a bit more leway with full aluminium enclosure and the inherent bigger physical space from a 27" screen. I think with the quad core processors, the heat from the screen, hard drive and power..they probably saved the heat problems. I don't know, I'd happily pay 200 bucks more for a better graphics card. I think this imac is so close to being a great gaming machine, but as usual, just about falls short.
Click to expand...
hmm i guess heat is the main issue. i had a really good point but now i forget. :(

JDW said:
Is it really true that we can remove the stock RAM and install 1333MHz DDR3 RAM and have it work without a hitch? And what happens if one keeps the 1066 4GB but then adds another 4GB spec'd at 1333?
.
Click to expand...

i am fairly certain that apple has disabled the RAM running at 1333MHz (even though it is suported via the chipset). generally, if you have 4GB @ 1066 then add 4GB @ 1333 the 1066 would become the standard across all memory DIMMs.
 
These geekbench results aren't really useful for anything since (as I understand it) geekbench doesn't account for any hard disc performance.

Quite possible the hard disc performance on any new mac will be bottlenecked, i.e the limiting factor of system speed. Thus in real life use the overall system speed should be fairly similar among C2D, i5 and i7 - i think.
 
Hmm, I would have thought it would be slower to start up CS4 due to no SSD. Will SSD not make a big difference anymore in app startup with an i7?
 
time to upgrade from the last iMac G5 to the latest Core i7 iMac ?!

Cinebench 10 going from a total score of: 1317 to 15217 on the rendering benchmark; openGL from 1787 to 7346 :D
and geekbench from 1180 to something like 7500...

I would think it's time to upgrade!
 

Attachments

  • Picture 1.png
    Picture 1.png
    48.2 KB · Views: 154
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