iMac Performance Benchmark

[gormond]

Hey,

This has probably been mentioned before but looking at benchmarks for:

PC - http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/08/pc-performance-august-2007/
Mac - http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/08/mac-performance-august-2007/

The Intel E6850 (3.0Ghz) scores 3372 and the iMac 2.8Ghz scores 3740

Shouldn't a faster desktop processor beat a slower laptop processor or is there something here i'm missing?

Gormond

 

[AlexisV]

You'd think so.

Strange.

 

[edesignuk]

One is a Core 2 Duo (PC) and the other is a Core 2 Extreme (iMac). I don't know the exact technicalities and I can't be bothered to go researching it all. There is more to processor performance than raw clock speed though, as this demonstrates. I would imagine it's the size and type of cache in this case, possibly combined with different chipsets/BUS speeds.

 

[JWFerne]

It's related to all the extra love and attention Steve gives every computer. Then it's passed along to some Buddhist Monks who say a prayer for faster processing speed and finally sprinkled with pixie dust and shipped to your home or office.

I can believe!!!!

 

[gormond]

One is a Core 2 Duo (PC) and the other is a Core 2 Extreme (iMac). I don't know the exact technicalities and I can't be bothered to go researching it all. There is more to processor performance than raw clock speed though, as this demonstrates. I would imagine it's the size and type of cache in this case, possibly combined with different chipsets/BUS speeds.

E6850 - 3000 MHz, 4096 KiB Cache, 1333 MT/s FSB
X7900 - 2800 Mhz, 4096 KiB Cache, 800 MT/s FSB

So looking at specs the E6850 is the better chip.

 

[edesignuk]

E6850 - 3000 MHz, 4096 KiB Cache, 1333 MT/s FSB
X7900 - 2800 Mhz, 4096 KiB Cache, 800 MT/s FSB

So looking at specs the E6850 is the better chip.

That shut me up then didn't it. Dunno, I'm stumped.