How do you think 2011 iMac would score?

[iSayuSay]

Well .. Sandy Bridge iMac is getting closer, likely will be released this week, or worst possibility this month ... oh come on

Now, how much improvement do you think would happen on the new iMac?

I´m not gonna discuss about hardware prediction, there are a bunch of another excellent threads which already discuss that.

I just wanna have fun about guessing how much the 2011 iMac would score on Geekbench, now that´s what i´m talking about


My guess (for standard model and no additional BTO options and benched on 64bit OSX):

21.5¨ 2011 iMac base model ($1200) : 7000 - 8000
21.5¨ 2011 iMac high end model ($1500) : 9000 - 11000
27¨ 2011 iMac base model ($1700) : 9000 - 11000 --> should be identical to hi end 21.5¨ iMac, as usual
27¨ 2011 iMac base model ($2000) : 13000 - 14000


Now what´s your guess, we don´t know the specific configuration yet, but my guess is that we can have 30 - 40 % improvement compared to 2010 iMac

Your thoughts?

 

[DucktapeFanboy]

I think we can expect results ranging around your prognisis. A 15k+ Score on the new i7 2600 would make me really happy. Well we'll see soon anough

 

[lvlarkkoenen]

I would personally think these numbers are a bit low perhaps. 7k is what the 13" MBP scores, surely the low-end iMac will do better? Especially because the Mini is expected to be pretty much the same as the 13" MBP, they'll want iMacs to score a tad higher.

 

[iSayuSay]

I would personally think these numbers are a bit low perhaps. 7k is what the 13" MBP scores, surely the low-end iMac will do better? Especially because the Mini is expected to be pretty much the same as the 13" MBP, they'll want iMacs to score a tad higher.

Right now standard base model of 13"MBP with thunderbolt score roughly 5000 - 6000, equal to low-end 21.5¨ iMac i3

So I think base iMac 2011 revision with 7000-8000 score should make everyone satisfied, but i wouldn´t be angry if they make it with higher score

 

[TrollToddington]

Right now standard base model of 13"MBP with thunderbolt score roughly 5000 - 6000, equal to low-end 21.5¨ iMac i3

So I think base iMac 2011 revision with 7000-8000 score should make everyone satisfied, but i wouldn´t be angry if they make it with higher score

If the only change between 2010 i3 base is 2011 i3 base @3.1GHz SB, then you can expect about 20% improvement which means the new base will score around 6000-7000 points on geekbench.

 

[Diesel-Benz]

geekbench is not a good benchmark. It does not touch graphical performance, which is half of the computer's job.

 

[Lesser Evets]

From 9000 to 14000?? I doubt it. We'll see, though. I'd take a wild guess at 12,000 and a bit. If you get over 13,000 I'd be amazed with such a huge leap within one year. 14,000+ would be zany-incredible.

I wish they'd leap up to 20,000, but realistically that won't happen.

If processor power doubles every couple years, you'd multiply by 1.41 for an average expectation. Don't get carried away and expect more.

 

[ndraves]

I know that the 2.2GHz i7 MBP has a score of about 10500 so with not using mobile chips and likely a faster clock speed then over 12000 is realistic for the high end 27".

If the scores are above 15k then time for new chips in my MP as thats what I get!! Would be really cool to have that power in an iMac though. Will really eliminate the need for the base MP other than expandability.

 

[madonionrings]

I might be wrong, but wouldn't the scores be very similar to the new MBP as they use the same chipset?

 

[MythicFrost]

I just want 40+ FPS in Crysis 2 w/ lowest settings at native

 

[ndraves]

I might be wrong, but wouldn't the scores be very similar to the new MBP as they use the same chipset?

The main difference between the desktop and mobile versions is that the desktop version wasn't designed with power limitations (to conserve battery in a laptop)

This just gives it a little more juice to play with. I normally run on the assumption that all things equal the desktop proc will run about 20% faster.

Also more than likely the clock speed will be higher.

 

[iSayuSay]

I might be wrong, but wouldn't the scores be very similar to the new MBP as they use the same chipset?

Sorry .. i don´t follow .. what chipset? If you mean the processor, no they are not, iMac use desktop processor, and too bad .. mobile GPU

While MBP use both mobile processor and GPU

But we can safely assume that GPU on iMac will be better than 2011 MBP for equivalent price

 

[lvlarkkoenen]

Right now standard base model of 13"MBP with thunderbolt score roughly 5000 - 6000, equal to low-end 21.5¨ iMac i3

I stand corrected. Still, if Mac Mini will go along with 13" MBP (as I and others on here expect) the faster Mini will score 6000-7000 and I still believe the base iMac would be faster than the fast Mini. So if they're in the 7k-8k range they'll atleast be high up there.

 

[kevin2223]

Looking solely at the i7-2600 (likely to be introduced in either the $2199 or $1999 model), there is roughly a 31% performance gain compared to last year's i7-870. The

Using PassMark, last year's processor is ranked 43 and scores 6,101, the i7-2600 is ranked 13 and scores 8,858. There is only a 9% difference between the 2009 i7-860 and the 2010 top-end i7.

The unlocked 2600K can score more than 17K in GeekBench.

Should GeekBench show a similar performance boost compared to PassMark, it would score about 13.8K (64-bit). Some scores would obviously be higher. With this score, it would fall in-between the 2.27GHz 8-Core Mac Pro/Xserve and the Mid 2010 3.33 8-core Mac Pro models.

Using PassMark for further overall performance, the other models should also see between 20-30% performance gain (unless a QC model is introduced at the DC price point).

At least one overall benchmark puts both the i5-2500 and the i7-2600 (although unlocked) ahead of the 980X, a 6C/12T ($1049.99 on Newegg) and the 975 Extreme, a 4C/8T ($1049.99 on Newegg).

We won't see the huge jump in performance the MacBook Pro lineup saw, but it will be quite significant.

 

[lvlarkkoenen]

We won't see the huge jump in performance the MacBook Pro lineup saw, but it will be quite significant.

The MBP line came from C2D's, right? Or did high end MBP's already house core i's?

 

[kevin2223]

The high-end 15-inch MBP went from a 2.8GHz Core i7 (2 cores/4 threads, turbo to 3.46GHz) which came at a ~$400 premium over the standard 2.53GHz Core i5. Score in GeekBench 64-bit was 6519.

The 2011 high-end 15-inch MBP went to a 2.3GHz Core i7 (4 cores/8 threads, turbo to 3.4GHz and double the cache). Score in GeekBench 64-bit is 11,283, which is even faster than the top-end i7 2010 iMac (10,544).

13-inch 2010 MBP (2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 2C/2T) went from a 3663 score to 6482 (essentially as fast as the highest-end MBP of the year before) now utilizing 2C/4T.

In the top-end iMac, we won't be making the significant jump from 2 cores/4 threads to 4/8 but instead (likely) staying with 4 cores/8 threads. Clock speed will increase from 2.93GHz to 3.4GHz and turbo frequency will increase form 3.6GHz to 3.8GHz plus a faster bus speed.

Although there is only a ~16% difference in clock speed of the high-end iMac, it is likely there will be a ~30% performance gain due to the more modern architecture Sandy Bridge brings.

 

[iSayuSay]

The high-end 15-inch MBP went from a 2.8GHz Core i7 (2 cores/4 threads, turbo to 3.46GHz) which came at a ~$400 premium over the standard 2.53GHz Core i5. Score in GeekBench 64-bit was 6519.

The 2011 high-end 15-inch MBP went to a 2.3GHz Core i7 (4 cores/8 threads, turbo to 3.4GHz and double the cache). Score in GeekBench 64-bit is 11,283, which is even faster than the top-end i7 2010 iMac (10,544).

Yeah right, last year´s hi-end model is today´s low-end .. apple or not apple, when it comes to computer or electronic, we´re just getting ripped off, such a bad investment .. yet we love it

That´s why i think the base Sandy Bridge 21.5¨ iMac would score around 7000-8000, close to 27¨ i5 iMac

But i just hope for better GPU, since i´m gonna use it for Diablo III (TBA release date, as usual ) ... slaying demons on 1440p gotta be awesome .. style