Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Geekbench-results of the new iMacs (Mid 2010) compared to the old ones (Late 2009)

F

Felias

macrumors member
Original poster
Jul 29, 2010
74
0
Germany
Hi there,

i know Geekbench only has a limited significance, but still is an interested value for comparison.

When browsing through the Geekbench-results of the last 24 hours there are several entries of iMacs with the CPU-numbers of the new iMacs.

From what i can see there average results are:

NEW iMACs:

32bit

64bit:


OLD iMACs

32bit

64bit

How much performance do I get for my dollars? --> see here

I'll try to keep the list updated, as more results are probably coming in today and in the next days to come.

Please be aware: In Geekbench there always are some very strange readings, as people can give the name of the system themselves. The only relevant facts is the CPU used. Only the average number is relevant, which does not proof anything before there is a reasonable high number of results are available.
 
There were about 4-5 entries for both the CPU-classes, but: yes, thats what the current results are saying. I find this strange as well, as i expected the new i5 to be closer to the old i7... lets just wait for more results maybe.

Update: First result of a 2,93Ghz i7 added. About 500 points more than the average "old" i7. But this is just the first number, so it's just a hint, nothing more.

Update2: All results are 32bit.
 
Have just searched on Geekbench and found a 600 point difference between the new i7 and a previous iMac i7....is it really worth the difference for a new i7 vs a refurb i7??
 
MathijsDelva said:
Hey, can you tell me why the difference in 32bit & 64bit benchmarks? I don't mean the real difference in points; just why there ARE 32bit & 64bit benchmarks. Aren't all these computers 64bit with Leopard and/or Snow Leopard?
Click to expand...

32-bit cannot utilize more than ~3.3GB of RAM and AFAIK cannot take the full advantage of 64-bit CPU so we need 64-bit to get good result with no other apps open
 
And how do you 'set' it to 64bit? That's automatically i guess? Then why are there so many 32bit benchmarks?
 
-list updated-

I don't know how the guys from Geekbench summarized the numbers for the late 2009-model, but it doesn't match the readings i can see in the results browser... i've put my own readings in there instead.

Update: Okay, screw my own list, i've linked the results from the browser. I haven't found a way to differ between 32bit and 64bit in the search, so both are combined.
 
MathijsDelva said:
So you mean the difference between the i3 3.20 & i5 2.8 Quad is only 800 points?
Click to expand...

I guess we can say now that the 32bit-results are indeed poor... but when running 64bit (which will be the situation), the difference is a lot higher (1400 points)
 
I take it nobody has yet received a 21.5" i5 machine then. Impressive improvements all the same. Certainly knocks on the head this idea that the i3 offers no extra performance over a C2D.
 
At first glance, the i3 results are certainly impressive compared to the previous generation. Although the performance difference between the 3.06 and 3.2 processors does seem a bit marginal. Not sure it justifies the increased asking price if all you're after is speed...
 
Hmm, so how are these scored compared to other computers then mac?
And what seems to be the best buy here?
 
dexthageek said:
How is there iMac i7-870 in that list tested 8 months ago? They only came out last week.
Click to expand...

Probably someone created a hackintosh and put in an i7-870 and called it an "iMac"... as the name can be set freely. Maybe even a Windows-System that has been named "iMac" by the user.
 
lets just say on average the refresh i7 has 800 better benchmark than pre-refresh i7 is that a big different i dont know much about benchmark stuff? because i really debating if not i should try get upgraded to the refresh version or stick with my current i7 2.8
 
Do not place too much emphasis on 400 or even 600 points difference in Geekbench. I have a Dual G5 that scored 2500 and an old iMac Core 2 Duo that scored 2900 points and I'll swear that the G5 seemed faster to me. You probably need a difference of 700 or even a 1,000 points before you can see any real difference with your eyes and even then it's probably got to be processor or memory intensive process.
 
azza2988 said:
lets just say on average the refresh i7 has 800 better benchmark than pre-refresh i7 is that a big different i dont know much about benchmark stuff? because i really debating if not i should try get upgraded to the refresh version or stick with my current i7 2.8
Click to expand...

The benchmark is just a hint.

If you have a flawless iMac and/or you're out of the time to give it back, i would keep it. All the current issues with the iMacs (noise, yellow-tint, gray banding,...) are more important than a 5-10% speed bump.
 
So back to the ultimate question for people interested in the 21.5" models. Is the i5 3.6 worth it, or is it better to stick to the i3 3.2.

FYI, if you have an educational discount, the apple store discounts the i5 upgrade from $200 to $180. Not a whole lot but appreciated.
 
SiMBa37 said:
So back to the ultimate question for people interested in the 21.5" models. Is the i5 3.6 worth it, or is it better to stick to the i3 3.2.

FYI, if you have an educational discount, the apple store discounts the i5 upgrade from $200 to $180. Not a whole lot but appreciated.
Click to expand...

buy it, benchmark it, and let us know :) Then we'll tell you.

Or wait until someone else does...
 
Felias said:
buy it, benchmark it, and let us know :) Then we'll tell you.

Or wait until someone else does...
Click to expand...
Someone in one of the other threads was waiting for theirs to be delivered today. A bit of gentle persuasion by bombarding them with PMs linking to Geekbench might get them to post some results :)
 
Hmmm so new i5 versus old i5 is about an 8% to 9% difference in ideal conditions. Not worth paying an extra $470 for, IMO, but it is a good bump.

I got a feeling the next Mac revision will be early to mid 2011 and contain a similar small bump, followed by a major revision late 2011 or early 2012.
 
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