Check out Barefeats tests. http://barefeats.com/imac10o.html
Here is Barefeats' conclusion:
The 'mid 2010' iMacs are incrementally faster than the 'late 2009' iMacs. Because of that, many readers reported they are pouncing on the closeout prices of the 'late 2009' iMac.
Both the 2010 and 2009 iMacs are signficantly faster than the 2007 and older iMacs -- at least in some cases. Cinebench and Geekbench are designed to show the maximum potential of the Mac. iTunes shows the other extreme. It is representative of many apps we use daily that don't take advantage of multiple cores and may be slowed by multiple disk accesses.
Some of you are waffling between the low-end Mac Pro and high-end iMac. As you can see, the performance is very close. The main advantages of the Mac Pro are ease of upgrades and choices (displays, drives, GPUs). The main advantages of the iMac are cost and compactness.
As a result of this analysis, I ordered a refurb iMac i7 instead of a new low end Mac Pro and saved over a $1,000. Thank you Barefeats.
Here is Barefeats' conclusion:
The 'mid 2010' iMacs are incrementally faster than the 'late 2009' iMacs. Because of that, many readers reported they are pouncing on the closeout prices of the 'late 2009' iMac.
Both the 2010 and 2009 iMacs are signficantly faster than the 2007 and older iMacs -- at least in some cases. Cinebench and Geekbench are designed to show the maximum potential of the Mac. iTunes shows the other extreme. It is representative of many apps we use daily that don't take advantage of multiple cores and may be slowed by multiple disk accesses.
Some of you are waffling between the low-end Mac Pro and high-end iMac. As you can see, the performance is very close. The main advantages of the Mac Pro are ease of upgrades and choices (displays, drives, GPUs). The main advantages of the iMac are cost and compactness.
As a result of this analysis, I ordered a refurb iMac i7 instead of a new low end Mac Pro and saved over a $1,000. Thank you Barefeats.
