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.
iMac 2011 Sandy Bridge CPU vs iMac 2010 CPU Summary Charts
- Thread starter theSeb
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Seconds to transcode from mpeg2 to H.264. I am guessing a video clipand they don't mention what the clip is or how long it is.
LOL, I got that. I was just curious if anyone knew behind the scenes details. The lowest end to highest end difference is significant with no background (2.03 vs. 3.25 minutes is ~1/3 faster) but again, without background who knows what that means.
lol. I am going to dig around tomshardware and see if I can find more information. It only says "High Profile".
I've now added the 2010 benchmarks (approximate) to the first post and will add pretty bar graphs later.
Enjoy.
where's 2.93ghz i7?
I would like to see the top i7 sandy bridge versus its 2.93ghz predecessor. Trying to decide whether to grab the killer deal on the refurb right now or shell out for the sandy bridge.
I would like to see the top i7 sandy bridge versus its 2.93ghz predecessor. Trying to decide whether to grab the killer deal on the refurb right now or shell out for the sandy bridge.
Wow! the 2011 base is 35% faster than 2010 base.
Edit: Sorry wrong math, it's actually ~70% faster. 2 times wow.
Edit: Sorry wrong math, it's actually ~70% faster. 2 times wow.
Last edited:
I know!!! And I don't even have the i3, but rather the Core2Duo which is the 2009/early 2010 version.
I WANT ONE!
well yeah i knew it meant seconds i was just curious what they were basing it on... like the video transcode... how long was the video... how big... etc....
and itunes transcode from WAV to AAC... 69 seconds for.... one track? an entire album? how many songs? etc... seems long to say it'll take 69 seconds to transcode one song from WAV to AAC.
just thought the chart could be clarified a little better.
and itunes transcode from WAV to AAC... 69 seconds for.... one track? an entire album? how many songs? etc... seems long to say it'll take 69 seconds to transcode one song from WAV to AAC.
just thought the chart could be clarified a little better.
When it comes to one of the most demanding tasks (video transcoding), the difference between 2.7 GHz Quad-Core i5 and 3.4 GHz Quad-Core i7 is 60 seconds. The price difference is $500, which seems like a lot to pay for a 1 minute difference.
So the question is: Is it better to go with 3.4 GHz Quad-Core i7 + 1TB Serial ATA Drive or 2.7 GHz Quad-Core i5 + 1TB Serial ATA Drive + 256GB Solid State Drive?
So the question is: Is it better to go with 3.4 GHz Quad-Core i7 + 1TB Serial ATA Drive or 2.7 GHz Quad-Core i5 + 1TB Serial ATA Drive + 256GB Solid State Drive?
1 minute = 1/3 though so that is misleading. That means 3 hours worth of video encoding will take 2 hours. Actually 3.25 hours would take 2 hours if you do the exact math. That's not trivial depending on your needs. You can't just say its only 1 minute. What if one theoretical processor took 5 seconds to accomplish a task and another, much older one took 1 minute 5 seconds. You wouldn't just say its only a minute and buy the old processor.
Yes, the reason is that they have a nearly identical CPU: an i7.
Lower TDP on the 21" means a slightly lower clock (hence speed) when all the 4 core are used, but identical speed when only 1 core is up...
Lower TDP on the 21" means a slightly lower clock (hence speed) when all the 4 core are used, but identical speed when only 1 core is up...
You'll be happy to know I've found explanations for the benchmarks. The encode from wave to AAC is the Terminator 2 soundtrack. The handbrake transcode is a 5 minute clip (check out the first post - it's been updated with more info).
Considering...
My 2009 model iMac i7 (2.8 ghz i7) benched at 10061.
These new machines ought to be more than just respectable.
My 2009 model iMac i7 (2.8 ghz i7) benched at 10061.
These new machines ought to be more than just respectable.
Last edited:
Interested in seeing a comparison, but realistically my MBA still does everything I need, these are awesome but they are bragging rights for the most part.
Still, for those of you doing a lot of processor heavy work (encoding, decoding, ripping ect) these machines are very nice!!
Still, for those of you doing a lot of processor heavy work (encoding, decoding, ripping ect) these machines are very nice!!
The post has been updated with the new info. So the 1 minute difference is for a 5 minute clip.
I guess the question is: does that equate to a 20 minutes difference for a 60 minute clip?
I'm going to ignore the "lower = better" and just assume my mid 2010 iMac is the greatest of them all - WIN!
Honestly though, the new models seem a hell of a step up compared to the last refresh
Honestly though, the new models seem a hell of a step up compared to the last refresh
I'm going to ignore the "lower = better" and just assume my mid 2010 iMac is the greatest of them all - WIN!
Honestly though, the new models seem a hell of a step up compared to the last refresh
The SB CPUs are monsters, but it remains to be seen what Apple has done with them. I am hoping that they have not put any limitations in there due to heat etc.