my current i7 has maybe 2 flaws, thats just high pitch brightness problem i quite used to now plus brightness on quite low so don't notice as much my preferred brightness as well and maybe noisy hdd, but looking around problem just seem practically the same in the new refresh model just been debating to self is it worth messing round for the slight bump and chance of getting a machine that may have more problems like the yellow tinting which would just pee me off current i had 2 imacs altogether first one was marked but no yellow tinting and current one no yellow tinting.
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 of the new iMacs (Mid 2010) compared to the old ones (Late 2009)
- Thread starter Felias
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
concerning the gpu this shows a significant increase in performance at native resolution for portal.
http://barefeats.com/imac10.html
http://barefeats.com/imac10.html
Can someone explain the very last part where they compare the 09 i7 and 10 i7 on 'Steam Portal' with the following results:
We received our 2010 Core i7 and are busily running tests. Here's a tidbit to chew on: Steam's Portal at 2560x1440, High Quality, 4X AA
2009 Core i7 = 19 fps
2010 Core i7 = 59 fps
I don't know anything about this test but I am surprised to see such a huge difference in fps considering how minor of an upgrade the GPU is supposed to be.....
How so?
The difference between the the low end i5 in the macbook pro and the base imac with the i3 3.06 is about 700 points. The difference between the core i5 540M and the i3 550 is almost a 1000 points.
The difference between the last generation C2D and the i3 are huge. So how did you expect it to perform better? 6400 for the 3.06 and 6700 points for the 64 bit geek bench is not impressive?
So what do you consider impressive.
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+core+i3
Here is my machine. 6644
My old C2D E8600 3.33 has a top score of 5130. The Core i3 is a big improvement. I can feel the difference in day to day use.
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=MacBook+Pro+i5&commit=Search
Now compare the i3 results with these. Not impressive?
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i5+&commit=Search
Forgive me, but how much of an improvement is the 1333mhz RAM over the previous 1066mhz? I am eying a refurb quad core i5 but am curious if the difference between the new and previous RAM is significant. And if upgrading RAM yourself, can you mix and match 1066 with 1333mhz?
21.5 imac processor
The product page for apple states that the entry level processor for the imac is the i3 3.06Ghz
However, at the geekbench results page (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i3&commit=Search)
there are imacs with i3 @ 2.93 or 2.97Ghz
Can anybody explain why is this the case? Thank you
The product page for apple states that the entry level processor for the imac is the i3 3.06Ghz
However, at the geekbench results page (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i3&commit=Search)
there are imacs with i3 @ 2.93 or 2.97Ghz
Can anybody explain why is this the case? Thank you
They seem to be Hackintoshes, look at the model number. 11,2 for real iMac and 11,1 or 11,3 for hacks
Cant wait full results on the gap between new 27" vs old 27" in games.
I also wonder what are the impact of CPU with 5850M (which choose between dual i5, quad i5 and quad i7)
But there are 11,2 with i3-550 as well. It doesn't matter though. i3-530 is the cheapest iX CPU available so it's pretty common plus it could be the same machine but just ran several times
The advantage in 3D games is not that dramatic in most cases. It will be interesting to how much of the Portal improvement is due to drivers (since the latest OS X updater won't work on the 2009 iMac). The documentation says it "Resolves ... performance-related graphics issues," among other things:
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1065
Hopefully Apple will release that update for all Macs soon so we can see.
As the question has been coming up a lot lately, i did some mathematics to give an answer to the question "How much performance do I get for my dollars?"
Please see the analysis based on the numbers of this thread in the separate thread here.
Please see the analysis based on the numbers of this thread in the separate thread here.
iMac i5-680 3.6GHz results now beginning to appear on Geekbench site. Two results posted so far, both in 32-bit mode.
6896
6830
Not too shabby at all
Thanks for the hint, i updated the initial post.
This was to be expected though, as the difference between the dualcore i5 and the quad-core will come to play when running apps using all 4 cores. 64-bit-tests should also be better on the 4core i5.
Oh definitely. I still suspect the 680 is going to pull up around the 7400 mark though in 64-bit, which you have to admit is pretty impressive for a dual-core processor.
That is an amazing score for the iMac i5-680. I'm one of those who are thinking about paying the extra $200 for it for the high-end iMac 21.5". Every "expert" has been saying that the difference between the i3 and i5 (dual core) is so tiny that one shouldn't even think about it. I do not know how a Geekbench-score compares to real-life use, but if the iMac i5-680 looks to be pretty much as good or even better than last year's quad core i5 2.66GhZ, the extra $200 offers great bang for the buck.
What do you think? Have these scores just proven every "if you choose i5 dual core over i3, you are only adding inches to your ePenis" wrong?
What do you think? Have these scores just proven every "if you choose i5 dual core over i3, you are only adding inches to your ePenis" wrong?
I took a closer look at the Geekbench scores of the new 21.5" iMac models, i3 550 and i5 680. I realized that the scores posted on this thread were avarages only. For example, the avarage score for the i3 was 6000 and the i5 score was 6800. When taking a closer look at the i3 scores, you see that many people got a score of 6600-6700. One such person did have 8 gigs of RAM but most seemed to have only 4 gigs. I wonder why one person can score 5900 and the other 6600 with the same model and with the same amount of RAM.
Anyway, I guess this, once again, evens things out and makes the i5 look not so super great -- especially since the tested model has 12 gigs of RAM.
Anyway, I guess this, once again, evens things out and makes the i5 look not so super great -- especially since the tested model has 12 gigs of RAM.
holy smokes! add that to the GeekBench website for archiving
EDIT = just realized that's i5 2.8 quad, not the i5 3.6 dual core that I though I had read. Oh well. Good numbers though