New iMacs post modest gains over predecessors (benchmarks)

[AppleInsider]

Apple's new 24-inch iMac taps a faster Intel Core 2 Duo processor and front-side bus to post modest speed gains over its predecessors, a series of Geekbench benchmark tests has revealed.

Primate Labs recently pit the new 2.4Ghz 24-inch iMac against previous generation 2.33GHz and 2.16GHz 24-inch systems, each of which was running Mac OS X 10.4.10 with 2GB of 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM.

The new 24-inch iMacs sport two major advantages over the older 24-inch iMacs; they have faster processors, and they use the new Santa Rosa chipset (instead of the Napa chipset used in the older 24-inch iMacs).

After running a set of Geekbench tests on the three systems, Primate Labs reports that the new iMac's faster processor helps increase both integer and floating point performance, while its faster front-side bus on the Santa Rosa chipset helps increase memory and stream performance.

"So if you’re running memory-intensive applications (like Aperture or Photoshop) you’ll certainly notice an increase in performance with the new 24-inch iMac," the firm wrote. "Heck, the fact that the new 24-inch iMac supports 4GB of RAM while the old 24-inch iMac supports 3GB of RAM might be enough to convince you to get one."

In reporting the benchmark scores for the systems, Primate opted to use the baseline score, rather than the raw score. The results follow:

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[cygnusrk727]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Apple's new 24-inch iMac taps a faster Intel Core 2 Duo processor and front-side bus to post modest speed gains over its predecessors, a series of Geekbench benchmark tests has revealed.

Primate Labs recently pit the new 2.4Ghz 24-inch iMac against previous generation 2.33GHz and 2.16GHz 24-inch systems, each of which was running Mac OS X 10.4.10 with 2GB of 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM.

The new 24-inch iMacs sport two major advantages over the older 24-inch iMacs; they have faster processors, and they use the new Santa Rosa chipset (instead of the Napa chipset used in the older 24-inch iMacs).

After running a set of Geekbench tests on the three systems, Primate Labs reports that the new iMac's faster processor helps increase both integer and floating point performance, while its faster front-side bus on the Santa Rosa chipset helps increase memory and stream performance.

"So if you’re running memory-intensive applications (like Aperture or Photoshop) you’ll certainly notice an increase in performance with the new 24-inch iMac," the firm wrote. "Heck, the fact that the new 24-inch iMac supports 4GB of RAM while the old 24-inch iMac supports 3GB of RAM might be enough to convince you to get one."

In reporting the benchmark scores for the systems, Primate opted to use the baseline score, rather than the raw score. The results follow:

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

I don't think there was any question that the new iMacs would be faster than the old ones. The gripes seem to be that Apple bumped them as little as they possibly could and could have gone farther.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by cygnusrk727

I don't think there was any question that the new iMacs would be faster than the old ones. The gripes seem to be that Apple bumped them as little as they possibly could and could have gone farther.

Why the down turn? I thought you were getting a new iMac. Love to hear how you would do it and still price it $200 lower than previously.

And supply references to "the gripes."

[Thataboy]

OMG who cares. Obviously a slightly faster version of the same processor will be slightly better.

Why doesn't someone test out the Core 2 EXTREME iMac???

[RyanS]

Originally Posted by Thataboy

OMG who cares. Obviously a slightly faster version of the same processor will be slightly better.

Why doesn't someone test out the Core 2 EXTREME iMac???

NO DOUBT!!! I'm with you on that one!

Also, does anyone know how noisy the machines are? Is there much of a difference between models? I neeeeed my silent!

[cygnusrk727]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Love to hear how you would do it and still price it $200 lower than previously.

And supply references to "the gripes."

LOL! I order an iMac so I'm not griping. But as far as references for the griping, umm how bout every thread on Appleinsider dealing with the new iMacs.

My point is the story is about how the new iMacs are faster than the old ones. Which I think is kinda like a 'duh." The real debate going on apparently is should they have gone farther with GPU and/or processor...

Again, I ordered a new 20" iMac. So that is where I stand on the issue.

[aplnub]

I have a 2.33 GHz 24" white iMac now, ordered it after they came out with the 24" maxed out. I ordered a new 24" to replace that one maxed out the day they came out with the black  iMac. I am curious to see if I can even tell a difference because my current one screams.

[Strawberry]

Another iMac C2E speed test vote here

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by cygnusrk727

LOL! I order an iMac so I'm not griping. But as far as references for the griping, umm how bout every thread on Appleinsider dealing with the new iMacs.

My point is the story is about how the new iMacs are faster than the old ones. Which I think is kinda like a 'duh." The real debate going on apparently is should they have gone farther with GPU and/or processor...

Again, I ordered a new 20" iMac. So that is where I stand on the issue.

What real debate? Screen? Keyboards?

Most of the gripes are from those that haven't seen or touched a real iMac and looking a some of their profiles and previous blogs, most haven't bought an new Mac in years (some quite a few years). Certainly none of them has had a real-world experience.

Perhaps a look a Macworlds just posted benchtest should help reduce the concern. http://www.macworld.com/2007/08/firs...arks/index.php

[palegolas]

Matte vs glossy screen is a make it or break it for me. Unfortunately Apple seem to have gone glossy only leaving us with no build to order matte screen. I'm glad I bought the previous iMac. It would have been permanently bugging me all days long with a reflective screen in my bright office. I don't understand why these glossy screens are so popular...

[Lafe]

Originally Posted by aplnub

I have a 2.33 GHz 24" white iMac now, ordered it after they came out with the 24" maxed out. I ordered a new 24" to replace that one maxed out the day they came out with the black  iMac. I am curious to see if I can even tell a difference because my current one screams.

I've got the 2.33 GHz 24" white iMac also -- bought it early this year . . .

The new model is such a small improvement, I'll probably skip this generation. Don't get me wrong -- it looks great. It's just not a huge performance improvement. I love the one I've got, and it cranks just fine! I disagree with the original article's assertion that the extra 1GB of memory might just be enough to convince me to get one. HUH? Is that all it takes?

Of course, I'll be putting iWork and iLife '08 and HOPEFULLY LEOPARD on my baby soon . . .

[ascii]

It's not really accurate to say the new iMacs are only "modestly" faster than the old ones, if you have just outright ignored the top model.

[britwithgoodteeth]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Most of the gripes are from those that haven't seen or touched a real iMac and looking a some of their profiles and previous blogs, most haven't bought an new Mac in years (some quite a few years). ]

Way to do your research, you ***** weirdo.

[nagromme]

"Modest"? Only if you decide that speed is a function of screen size!

If you decide speed is a function of price, then you'll note that the models all dropped hundreds of dollars in price. Therefore, a fair comparison is to the next model UP. The old 2.33 Ghz 24" iMac should be compared to the new 2.8 Ghz (because the price is the same), NOT to the new 2.4 which is cheaper! Ditto for the 20." And the old 17" should be compared to the new 20" which costs the same.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by britwithgoodteeth

Way to do your research, you ***** weirdo.

I gather then you can come up with references to support the statement, "The gripes seem to be that Apple bumped them as little as they possibly could and could have gone farther," which I challenged.

Well, my research indicates that there is none.

As evidenced in the forum commenting on the article, "Apple unveils new line of 20- and 24-inch iMacs*," out of the 364 responses posted, just one questioned to any degree Apple's choice of processor or GPU. To which there were a considerable number of challenges and some very harsh.

To suggest that there is a, "…real debate going on apparently is should they have gone farther with GPU and/or processor..." is totally unfounded.

So smartass. lets see your evidence.

*http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...nch_imacs.html

[ecking]

I kinda figured there'd be modest proc gains but how do the GPUs stack up? I know people say the new one's GPU isn't that great but is it still better than the old one? How much better?

[southerndoc]

I just ordered a 24" iMac 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo Extreme. This should be a good speed bump from my old 1.8 GHz G5 iMac.

[aegisdesign]

Originally Posted by Thataboy

OMG who cares. Obviously a slightly faster version of the same processor will be slightly better.

Since the performance difference between the old 2.33Ghz iMac and the new 2.4 isn't that much and the old model looks way, way better, has a matte screen, a keyboard that matches and quite possibly a better GPU (though I'm not really bothered about that), this test is useful.

I'm just waiting to see what they go for in the Apple refurb store and dealers clearing old stock now.

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

I gather then you can come up with references to support the statement, "The gripes seem to be that Apple bumped them as little as they possibly could and could have gone farther," which I challenged.

Well, my research indicates that there is none.

As evidenced in the forum commenting on the article, "Apple unveils new line of 20- and 24-inch iMacs*," out of the 364 responses posted, just one questioned to any degree Apple's choice of processor or GPU. To which there were a considerable number of challenges and some very harsh.

To suggest that there is a, "…real debate going on apparently is should they have gone farther with GPU and/or processor..." is totally unfounded.

So smartass. lets see your evidence.

*http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...nch_imacs.html

There have been plenty of gripes about the GPU. I'm not sure how you've missed them all. Selective reading maybe. Sorry, I'm not going to look for them but they're not that hard to find.

[NeedAnewMac]

Originally Posted by southerndoc

I just ordered a 24" iMac 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo Extreme. This should be a good speed bump from my old 1.8 GHz G5 iMac.

I would think you are going to be one happy camper. Just looking at the numbers that 2.8 GHz wonder has got to be at least 20% faster than the old 2.16 GHz iMac. I'm able to run the Final Cut Suite on my 2.16 GHz iMac better than my 2.5 Dual GHz G5 did. In short there fast.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

So smartass. lets see your evidence.

*http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...nch_imacs.html

OK, Mr. britwithgoodteeth.... that seems like a fair challenge?

[slughead]

I notice no graphics benchmarks.

Gee, I wonder why...

[ouragan]

New iMacs post modest gains over predecessors

That's what you get from using laptop parts inside what should be a desktop computer. Had Apple used desktop components, the price and performance would have been noticeably better.

Moreover, other computer manufacturers use a desktop CPU and motherboard to manufacture a desktop computer. With laptop components, Apple iMacs can't be competitive on a price vs. performance scale. It's another missed opportunity to expand the Mac market share (as much as it could be done if Apple really cared about its customers).

[MacTel]

Originally Posted by ouragan

That's what you get from using laptop parts inside what should be a desktop computer. Had Apple used desktop components, the price and performance would have been noticeably better.

Moreover, other computer manufacturers use a desktop CPU and motherboard to manufacture a desktop computer. With laptop components, Apple iMacs can't be competitive on a price vs. performance scale. It's another missed opportunity to expand the Mac market share (as much as it could be done if Apple really cared about its customers).

The iMac has its place, but I would have liked to see, as I'm sure you and others would have, an xMac. A mini-slim-tower/desktop with enough expandability to satisfy the likes of you and me. I can see that Apple just wants to make consumer electronics more than a computers.

[thedonga]

So smartass. lets see your evidence.

*http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...nch_imacs.html

um I see two references to the GPU on the very first page

I'm very unimpressed by the graphics options. But this is apple's delusion and I don't have much option other to buy the 20" model.

What's with the Radeon graphics solution?
Logistically speaking, wouldn't it be more efficient to use the same nVidia solutions as are employed in the MacBook Pro?

and more follow

A "pro" will have little use for a glossy screen and a shit GPU.

Aluminium = great!
Choice of 2.8 processor = great!
2600 Pro video chip = Nooooooooooooooooo!

This chip is a dud and Apple have jumped right on the bandwagon. It is ATIs worst work in ages.

But because it is $30 less than NVidia that is all that matters to the suits at Apple."

I don't think 3D games performance @ 1920x1200 was on their mind, when they selected the gpu

Personally I'm more happy about full bitstream VC1 acceleration in hw, IF ATI provides the drivers for that (that's a big if).

My hope in Apple to make an affordable machine as practical and usable as the operating system is just about gone. Instead we shall get products like the iMac where form is significantly more important than function.

I'm really disappointed in the GPU offering....I hope we can upgrade to something better.

ok I'm going to stop now...point made.

[southerndoc]

With all the stuff I've been reading about how hot the new iMacs get, I wonder just how much heat the 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo Extreme machine will produce.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by caliminius

There have been plenty of gripes about the GPU. I'm not sure how you've missed them all. Selective reading maybe. Sorry, I'm not going to look for them but they're not that hard to find.

You are right.

[smithfrenzy]

Originally Posted by ascii

It's not really accurate to say the new iMacs are only "modestly" faster than the old ones, if you have just outright ignored the top model.

I totally agree. Look at the processor speeds. Sure the 2.4 is only a little faster. The 2.8 should be even faster, and the BTO options with larger drives and more RAM returns the iMac to the digital hub strategy.

[revich]

Since the previous 24" iMac with a 2.33 GHz processor could be ordered with either the stock nVidia 7300 GT or else the faster nVidia 7600 GT graphics card, I find the Primate Labs tests to be lacking in detail. The real performance question with these new machines concerns the ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO card v.s. the previous best option, the nVidia 7600 GT, especially as it pertains to 3-D graphics.

[Soonlar]

Come on guys.....
Where are the benchmarks for the 24" iMac 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo Extreme?

Not to mention we are missing graphics comparison benchmarks.

[extremeskater]

Picked up the new 24" iMac last night at my local Apple Store. Only 24" they had in stock. Already had an extra 1gig stick of ram so the only upgrade over standard is it now has 2gigs of ram.

I love it so far. Love the new glossy screen, love the new keyboard, far better than the old apple keyboards. This thing is plenty fast even for CS3 work which I use all the time.

My opinion its very quite, but maybe not as quite as the previous model. Im in my office right now no noise at all and you can hear just a bit of fan noise, thats it. The clock next to me is ticking louder.

Any other question feel free to ask.

[davebarnes]

Originally Posted by southerndoc

I just ordered a 24" iMac 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo Extreme. This should be a good speed bump from my old 1.8 GHz G5 iMac.

Me too. Very excited.
Don't play games so the graphics card debate (bitching) is meaningless to me.
1 GHz means a lot.
Intel (and therefore Parallels/Fusion) means a lot.

[petrokalis]

Originally Posted by Strawberry

Another iMac C2E speed test vote here

It's not a Core 2 Duo Extreme in the 2.8GHz iMac. It's just a higher frequency bin of the mobile Merom (Core 2 Duo). It definitely a mobile part to work with the mobile chipset.

[sennen]

Originally Posted by ouragan

That's what you get from using laptop parts inside what should be a desktop computer. Had Apple used desktop components, the price and performance would have been noticeably better.

your complaint here doesn't make sense to me - desktop components of course would be faster than laptop ones. however the previous imac used laptop components as well, so naturally the gains wouldn't mirror a laptop/desktop comparison...

why should it be a "desktop computer" (ie a box and a monitor)? the imac obviously trades performance for form factor, footprint and quiet operation.

had apple used desktop components, it would have needed a hellava lot bigger box behind that screen.

[petrokalis]

Originally Posted by petrokalis

It's not a Core 2 Duo Extreme in the 2.8GHz iMac. It's just a higher frequency bin of the mobile Merom (Core 2 Duo). It definitely a mobile part to work with the mobile chipset.

Damn, I'm a moron. That's what I get for not knowing Intel's marketing names. Ignore my retarded comment.

[lundy]

There have been plenty of gripes about the GPU. I'm not sure how you've missed them all. Selective reading maybe. Sorry, I'm not going to look for them but they're not that hard to find.

There has never been a new Apple computer released that the GPU nuts didn't complain about the GPU.

No matter what GPU Apple would put in the machine, the gripes would always be the same.

Almost all of the gripes come from people who wouldn't buy an iMac anyway.

[ascii]

Originally Posted by petrokalis

It's not a Core 2 Duo Extreme in the 2.8GHz iMac. It's just a higher frequency bin of the mobile Merom (Core 2 Duo). It definitely a mobile part to work with the mobile chipset.

It's the Core 2 Extreme Mobile which was announced in July.

"SANTA CLARA, Calif., July 16, 2007 – Addressing demand for even faster laptop computers for hardcore gamers, artists and media enthusiasts, Intel Corporation today introduced its first Intel® Core™2 Extreme mobile dual-core processor -- the world's highest-performing mobile processor1 -- adopting the brand from the company's flagship desktop offerings"

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archi...0716corp_a.htm

[jdmlight]

I just ordered a base 24" iMac upgraded with the 2.8ghz C2E. (I can install my own RAM for $60 less, thank-you-very-much) I think it will run circles around anything that I have previously owned (or own now). I am typing this on a 12" iBook G3 500mhz. The computer that the iMac will be replacing was a Dual 1ghz Quicksilver tower with a 9800Pro graphics card...that earned me a hefty chunk of change on eBay...gotta love low depreciation on Macs... Anyway, back to the point, this should outpace anything I've ever known, and I find it to be the perfect computer for me. It's compact, quiet, and looks awesome (I think so anyway). I am glad it comes with a laptop-style keyboard because I am actually able to type faster on one such as my iBook's keyboard. (Although it is too bad that they hacked off the number pad on the wireless one...I would've bought a wireless one if it had a number pad) It should be able to run CS2 bounds better than my previous systems, and CS3 (when I recoup from this $2000) as well. It's very exciting, this being my first new computer ever. I laid out some paper in the proper 16:10 widescreen format, 24" diagonal and...holy crap, that's a huge monitor. Mmm...approximately 3 times the screen real estate of this 12" iBook...

[JDW]

I myself had planned to get a new iMac after Apple's revised models came out. But after seeing the stupid looking black border around the screen, and after seeing there was no option for a non-glossy LCD model, I couldn't care less if these machines had the power of a hundred Mac Pros. I refuse to buy something this bad. Of course, I have no budget whatsoever for an expensive Mac Pro setup, even though it would get me a matte LCD and eliminate that frightful black border.

So I will continue to wait until Apple comes out with a reasonable line of iMacs. Hopefully, Apple will sell a very low number of these new models. That will help to drive the point home about the glossy screen and ugly black border! Jonathan Ive, you really screwed up this time!

[ascii]

I don't think the black frame is so ugly. There's glass over that whole part - it would look wierd with white under the glass.

What would be cool is if the frame was a USB device, and the computer could flash it red when new email arrives, so even if you are in a full screen game you still know.