Benchmarks of 2009 iMacs, Mac minis show negligible speed-ups

[AppleInsider]

Although Apple is touting the performance of its new iMac and Mac mini desktops, a new test shows that newer processors from Intel have had little impact on the computers' true speed.

Benchmarks run by Primate Labs through its own Geekbench test suite have confirmed that any benefit from the updated Core 2 Duo processors comes purely through clock speed.

When clock speeds are identical between systems, such as with the new low-end 2.66GHz iMac and a mid-range predecessor from last year, the difference in test scores becomes almost unnoticeable, coming down to 11 points in the case of the two all-in-ones. Even the 2.93GHz iMac, which replaces a 2.8GHz model, has only a 189-point advantage -- or about a 5 percent speed difference that directly maps to the higher clock rate.

The largest relative gain in tests is for the Mac mini, which still only gains about 7 percent despite leaping two generations ahead in processor technology at 2GHz.

Primate isn't shocked by the results as it notes that both of the home computers' performance is dictated by a processor architecture fundamentally identical to what has existed for the past two years. This won't advance for the notebook-grade chips used by Apple until Intel brings its "Nehalem" architecture to the processors through the "Calpella" platform due this summer. As such, the test developer warns that those solely interested in clock speed may want to avoid buying new.

Geekbench tests of the 2009 iMac and Mac mini updates, courtesy of Primate Labs.

"You might be better off getting a discontinued (or refurbished) previous-generation Mac rather than one of the new Mac models," the company says.

However, Primate also acknowledges that Geekbench only tests CPU- and memory speed-intensive features such as floating point math, not video performance. As a result, it's possible for the systems to be much faster in 3D and other areas that depend as much or more on graphics processing, such as the Mac mini's 5X speed-up in moving from the Intel GMA 950 chipset to NVIDIA's GeForce 9400M. The iMac's GeForce 9400M and GT120 are also claimed to accelerate performance over the Radeon HD 2400 and 2600 in older versions.

The tests also downplay disk-related factors such as newer hard drives and more RAM; most of the new Macs have twice as much memory as their predecessors and don't have to page to disk as often as earlier systems.

[g3pro]

But, but, but, but Apple says they're better!

If they're not, why did I stop paying my mortgage so that I could buy 5 each of the newest computers with 2 new iPhones to go with each computer?

[blake.irvin]

I should think Xbench is a better tool in this case.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

However, Primate also acknowledges that Geekbench only tests CPU- and memory speed-intensive features such as floating point math, not video performance. As a result, it's possible for the systems to be much faster in 3D and other areas that depend as much or more on graphics processing, such as the Mac mini's 5X speed-up in moving from the Intel GMA 950 chipset to NVIDIA's GeForce 9400M. The iMac's GeForce 9400M and GT120 are also claimed to accelerate performance over the Radeon HD 2400 and 2600 in older versions.

The tests also downplay disk-related factors such as newer hard drives and more RAM; most of the new Macs have twice as much memory as their predecessors and don't have to page to disk as often as earlier systems.

[backtomac]

Not surprising.

The updates were pathetic. I surprised the mini didn't see more of a benefit from the decent 9400 graphics. Just goes to show that cpu speed does count for something and that imply adding a faster fsb and memory only give negligible improvements.

I am beginning to question Apple's commitment to desktop machines at this point. They just don't seem to care.

[mrjoec123]

Originally Posted by backtomac

Not surprising.

The updates were pathetic. I surprised the mini didn't see more of a benefit from the decent 9400 graphics. Just goes to show that cpu speed does count for something and that imply adding a faster fsb and memory only give negligible improvements.

I am beginning to question Apple's commitment to desktop machines at this point. They just don't seem to care.

Did you bother reading the whole article? The tests they ran don't account for any gains that might be present in video speed. They are only talking CPU by itself here, not the whole user experience.

[teckstud]

This whole iMac update sucks:

1.) Tapered stand. Woo-hoo!

2.) Same racoon face- the only Mac with this fugly look. Either make it all metal or all black.

3.) White cord and white keys left over from the White Duke.

4.) The godawful mouse.

5.) Keyboard - don't get me started , don't even get me started.

6.) And now these benchmarks???????????

I'm thinking of buying the Mini now- at least I'll save $1,000.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by mrjoec123

Did you bother reading the whole article? The tests they ran don't account for any gains that might be present in video speed. They are only talking CPU by itself here, not the whole user experience.

I think the article is structured in a bit of a troubling way. The headline and first 80% of the column space talks about how there's little improvement, and then the last 20% talks about the limitations of test in testing what was actually improved. I don't think Apple said much about the iMac and mini having faster processing. The marketing for mini says the mini is more powerful, which is true, the graphics are much improved, and as the article says, pretty much untested.

[BuffyzDead]

I like the results in these charts.

Show's that my iMac 24" 3.06 GHz, from last June, is still KING of this heap.

[bastula]

Originally Posted by BuffyzDead

I like the results in these charts.

Show's that my iMac 24" 3.06 GHz, from last June, is still KING of this heap.

Yep I love it! That machine rocks! Especially with the 8800 GS.

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by mrjoec123

Did you bother reading the whole article? The tests they ran don't account for any gains that might be present in video speed. They are only talking CPU by itself here, not the whole user experience.

Good point. Missed that.

The updates still suck (Mac Pro not included). If this is all you get for waiting 19 months in the case of the mini and 11 months in the case of the iMac, that sure doesn't give me a lot of optimism fro the future.

PS. Isn't anyone at Apple embarrassed that the fastest iMac is the one from last year?

[whatever00]

Originally Posted by backtomac

Good point. Missed that.

The updates still suck (Mac Pro not included). If this is all you get for waiting 19 months in the case of the mini and 11 months in the case of the iMac, that sure doesn't give me a lot of optimism fro the future.

PS. Isn't anyone at Apple embarrassed that the fastest iMac is the one from last year?

Actually, you should include the Mac Pro. They removed the only professional video card from the list of BTO options. In addition, they are only offering a single PCIe 16X slot. This is not acceptable for a machine that's targeted at scientific computing, high-end video compositing and 3D design.

[cameronj]

Originally Posted by backtomac

Not surprising.

The updates were pathetic. I surprised the mini didn't see more of a benefit from the decent 9400 graphics. Just goes to show that cpu speed does count for something and that imply adding a faster fsb and memory only give negligible improvements.

What it actually shows is that CPU speed doesn't matter for shit.

[warpdag]

Inconvenient truth?

[gmcalpin]

Originally Posted by teckstud

This whole iMac update sucks:

blah blah blah blah blah fucking blah

Yeah, we read it from you in twenty other threads. Stop, already.

You're thinking of buying a Mini now? Really? So then you already own a keyboard and mouse, and your complaining about the ones that come with the iMac is... just for the sake of complaining?

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by cameronj

What it actually shows is that CPU speed doesn't matter for shit.

Sure, whatever.

Hey do you work for Apple?

[wizard69]

Originally Posted by backtomac

Not surprising.

The updates were pathetic. I surprised the mini didn't see more of a benefit from the decent 9400 graphics. Just goes to show that cpu speed does count for something and that imply adding a faster fsb and memory only give negligible improvements.

I am beginning to question Apple's commitment to desktop machines at this point. They just don't seem to care.

CPU performance is always important, which is why this release of hardware is pretty much a NON-UPGRADE, except in the case of the Min which is actually a fairly solid update. Even on the Mini though they could have managed a bit more clock rate on the high end model. Lets face it separating two models by a measly 0.2 Giggle Hertz is pretty stupid.

So contrary to some post here I support your position that Apple doesn't care as the IMac update is disgusting! They have this vast and ever widening gulf between the performance of the iMac and the high end with the Mac Pro. If you need or want something that is not two to three years behind PC performance you are pretty much out of luck. To the detractors that wish to respond yes it is now two to three years behind as Apple has overlooked both Penryn and i7 based machines and is effectively now using CPUs that are very old laptop parts. One can only hope for Apples sake that these machines are short term improvements.

Of course they aren't short term machines as they are using new Nvidia system chips. In my mind this means the platform will be around a lot longer than is reasonable. I really hope that Apple has something more up its sleeves that is due out very soon.

Dave

[mark2005]

Quite a few caveats at the end there for these tests.

So in recapping, these tests really only test CPU speed and we can see that the CPU-speed has only increased marginally. So tell me again, what's the point or value of these tests?

[mark2005]

Originally Posted by backtomac

Not surprising.

The updates were pathetic. I surprised the mini didn't see more of a benefit from the decent 9400 graphics. Just goes to show that cpu speed does count for something and that imply adding a faster fsb and memory only give negligible improvements.

I am beginning to question Apple's commitment to desktop machines at this point. They just don't seem to care.

The tests didn't test video performance. It's best to read the whole article and all those caveats before commenting.

[wizard69]

Originally Posted by cameronj

What it actually shows is that CPU speed doesn't matter for shit.

Clearly you must have had problems in school grasping facts and reality. The reports clearly indicate that the machines have gained nothing from this update as far as CPU performance goes. For many of us that CPU performance is pretty good as some things will never be speed up via GPU processing.

Which brings up an interesting point, I expect in the future that we will see many reports of much better graphical performance on the new machines. That is all well and good if it applies to the way you use the machine, if not it is just a way to detract from the fact that each new iMac sold these days is in effect grossly outdated hardware. In a nut shell you are paying for 2 year old CPU performance.

Dave

[warpdag]

Originally Posted by mark2005

Quite a few caveats at the end there for these tests.

So in recapping, these tests really only test CPU speed and we can see that the CPU-speed has only increased marginally. So tell me again, what's the point or value of these tests?

The point is simple: Apple on their website is saying their new "beasts" are faster (please have a look). Very misleading, as they should actually stress "faster graphics". The point is, when you release something that is about the same as what you released up to 2 years ago (mac mini), at the same price (or even more for some countries outside of the US), it's a real shame. Come on, how many mac users are hardcore gamers? These guys use windows/xbox/ps3 for that, not a mac... Nvidia 9400? Real joke for the average Joe.

[winterspan]

- I still cannot even BELIEVE they didn't use a low-power quad-core part, even in the highest end model. Clearly they think everyone is a sucker and didn't bother to revise the cooling system to support a low-power quad core. They hardly use any more power than the fastest Core 2 Duo.

- Integrated graphics as standard in the first two models?? Pathetic..

- Although it SHOULD BE STANDARD in a freaking $2000 machine, At least the ATI 4850 is available as an option. It's an excellent card for this type of computer. The GT120/GT130 are crap.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by gmcalpin

Yeah, we read it from you in twenty other threads. Stop, already.

You're thinking of buying a Mini now? Really? So then you already own a keyboard and mouse, and your complaining about the ones that come with the iMac is... just for the sake of complaining?

What's your problem? Didn't you read the other's calling this a pathetic update? This is the first time I've mentioned this iMac update. And for future reference, your should be spelled you're.

[wizard69]

Originally Posted by teckstud

.............

I'm thinking of buying the Mini now- at least I'll save $1,000.

Yep the Mini is a much better update for many people. Plus you can link it to a modern LED backlit display. I honestly expect to see Mini sales sky rocket. You still have the storage space issue but FireWire 800 makes a big difference there too.

This also makes me wonder if the new Minis CPU is still socketed and if so can it be upgraded by the average user. If the Mini can go to 2.4 or 2.6 GHz it might make for a very nice machine.

Dave

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by mark2005

So in recapping, these tests really only test CPU speed and we can see that the CPU-speed has only increased marginally. So tell me again, what's the point or value of these tests?

To temper users expectations?

Hey I'm all for better gpus and faster HDDs but lets face it, when it comes to all around performance the CPU does the heavy lifting.

If it doesn't change or change much, users aren't going to notice much difference.

Maybe that's the point.

[gmcalpin]

Originally Posted by teckstud

What's your problem? Didn't you read the other's calling this a pathetic update? This is the first time I've mentioned this iMac update. And for future reference, your should be spelled you're.

Actually, no, it shouldn't be "you're." I was referring to "your complaining," as in the complaining that you have been doing, Grammarstud.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by wizard69

Yep the Mini is a much better update for many people. Plus you can link it to a modern LED backlit display. I honestly expect to see Mini sales sky rocket. You still have the storage space issue but FireWire 800 makes a big difference there too.

This also makes me wonder if the new Minis CPU is still socketed and if so can it be upgraded by the average user. If the Mini can go to 2.4 or 2.6 GHz it might make for a very nice machine.

Dave

Thank you Dave. I currently have the 20" white iMac with the better resolution & matte screen than the current 20". I really was hoping to get a new one after 3 years but now I think it's gonna be the Mac mini. I'll use the Air Mouse App on my iPod Touch along with my old bluetooth keyboard with the number pad sitting in the closet .

[wizard69]

Originally Posted by winterspan

- I still cannot even BELIEVE they didn't use a low-power quad-core part, even in the highest end model. Clearly they think everyone is a sucker and didn't bother to revise the cooling system to support a low-power quad core. They hardly use any more power than the fastest Core 2 Duo.

The Min got what I expected, that is a small clock rate boost but the iMac is pathetic. The Mini isn't that bad.

What is amazing is that they went to the trouble of designing a new motherboard, for the iMac, to offer up this so called update. From what i can see it is basically the same 9400M approach they used on the Mac Book Pros.

- Integrated graphics as standard in the first two models?? Pathetic..

Yep entry level only, which by the way has its place. The problem is they are delivering the entry level equivalent of a two year old machine. But as you allude to above Quad Cores are a requirement and should have entered the line up someplace midlevel. Especially considering that Snow Leopard isn't very far off at all. People will be paying top dollar today for hardware that can hardly be leveraged on what will be the new OS strategy going forward.

- Although it SHOULD BE STANDARD in a freaking $2000 machine, At least the ATI 4850 is available as an option. It's an excellent card for this type of computer. The GT120/GT130 are crap.

Agreed that the top line machine ought to be - well top of the line.

Like wise we really shouldn't be getting last years CPU performance as for many users these machines offer up absolutely nothing.


Dave

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by gmcalpin

Actually, no, it shouldn't be "you're." I was referring to "your complaining," as in the complaining that you have been doing, Grammarstud.

SInce when is critiquing complaining, you, who have so little to say?
What exactly have you brought to this discussion that's constructive besides calling people "complainers" and other names of sort?

[yensid98]

Will the average user have noticed the difference if these updates included the high end specs so many of the commenters here demand? Isn't it true that most people use with Macs for email, internet, photos, movie making and word processing? Has there been a mass outcry from current iMac users that their computers are underpowered and preforming badly? I haven't heard those complaints. Apple gave us a nice bump up. Nothing hugely dramatic, but it's something. My question is would a dedicated graphics card, and quad-core machines really make a difference for users doing basic tasks?

[mark2005]

Originally Posted by wizard69

Of course they aren't short term machines as they are using new Nvidia system chips. In my mind this means the platform will be around a lot longer than is reasonable. I really hope that Apple has something more up its sleeves that is due out very soon.

Snow Leopard Grand Central.

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by yensid98

Will the average user have noticed the difference if these updates included the high end specs so many of the commenters here demand? Isn't it true that most people use with Macs for email, internet, photos, movie making and word processing?

Hell yes!

I use my machine. Have you ever encoded a home made movie with iDVD to watch on a TV?

Give that a try and come back and tell us if you wouldn't want a faster processor.

Have you heard of the new image stabilization feature in iMovie? People run that OVERNIGHT because it can take so long.

Heave you heard of Handbrake? Try ripping a DVD to watch on an iPhone or iPod touch and see how long that takes.

Lastly if people are ONLY going to surf the net and use email on their computer they ought to just get a cheap pc and run linux.

But I like to DO things with my Mac. Apple makes it EASY. That's why I PREFER it.

[plokoonpma]

Originally Posted by wizard69

Clearly you must have had problems in school grasping facts and reality. The reports clearly indicate that the machines have gained nothing from this update as far as CPU performance goes. For many of us that CPU performance is pretty good as some things will never be speed up via GPU processing.

Which brings up an interesting point, I expect in the future that we will see many reports of much better graphical performance on the new machines. That is all well and good if it applies to the way you use the machine, if not it is just a way to detract from the fact that each new iMac sold these days is in effect grossly outdated hardware. In a nut shell you are paying for 2 year old CPU performance.

Dave

I think you are very lost on what processors mean in todays computers.
Intel as the biggest processor manufacturer acknowledge and changed their stand regarding this, they went from speed mindset to multicore processing (nothing new to mac users)
If you take a look on the entire list of products that Intel has you wont see anything blazing fast regarding speed.

That was in general, now looking that Apple has finally upgraded their entire computing offering to support 100% Snow Leopard and OpenCL which uses a lot of the processing power of the GPU. The overall experience will greatly improved.

It is pretty unfair to judge a computer by some of their components and not by the whole thing.

For the first time most mini users will have the chance to play decent games and make use of some more specialized software and in the other hand I can't recall so many choices regarding video cards on any iMac until this release. Those choices are more than enough to satisfy anyone demands regarding speed/video punch.

[warpdag]

Originally Posted by yensid98

Will the average user have noticed the difference if these updates included the high end specs so many of the commenters here demand? Isn't it true that most people use with Macs for email, internet, photos, movie making and word processing? Has there been a mass outcry from current iMac users that their computers are underpowered and preforming badly? I haven't heard those complaints. Apple gave us a nice bump up. Nothing hugely dramatic, but it's something. My question is would a dedicated graphics card, and quad-core machines really make a difference for users doing basic tasks?

Good point. One could still argue that for tasks like movie making, a faster CPU is definitely a plus... As for the bump, I'm still wondering which one, unless you meant graphics bump (that, I agree, but for the basic tasks, it's useless).

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by backtomac

Hell yes!

I use my machine. Have you ever encoded a home made movie with iDVD to watch on a TV?

Give that a try and come back and tell us if you wouldn't want a faster processor.

Have you heard of the new image stabilization feature in iMovie? People run that OVERNIGHT because it can take so long.

Heave you heard of Handbrake? Try ripping a DVD to watch on an iPhone or iPod touch and see how long that takes.

Lastly if people are ONLY going to surf the net and use email on their computer they ought to just get a cheap pc and run linux.

But I like to DO things with my Mac. Apple makes it EASY. That's why I PREFER it.

Hear, hear!

[gmcalpin]

Originally Posted by teckstud

SInce when is critiquing complaining, you, who have so little to say?
What exactly have you brought to this discussion that's constructive besides calling people "complainers" and other names of sort?

I have not called anyone a complainer, nor any other name, except for you. And all I called you was "Grammarstud," which was clearly ironic because your "correction" of my non-existent error was so amusingly wrong. You complain here constantly.

I have mostly lurked here, and I know this to be a fact: I am not the first to call you out on your behavior here. I will certainly not be the last, either. So don't act all offended like this is some novel thing.

What have I added to this conversation? Nothing. I've had nothing to add that hasn't been said: namely that Geekbench is a useless benchmark for a computer whose primary improvement was with the GPU, which it does not measure. GPUs, as you should know and probably do but are ignoring, are used by OSX for much of the UI, and will be used even more under Snow Leopard — so this is not a trifling factor that should be ignored by anyone (Primate Labs, that is) attempting to offer useful information about the new system.

And, incidentally, those tasks that backtomac was talking about? Almost all of them would benefit from a better GPU.

[warpdag]

Also, remember when Jobs kept stressing that PowerPCs were better, faster, blah, blah? Remember the keynotes with sections all about CPU speed? Apple got caught at its own game, once more. Only difference here, they were not limited by their partner (intel this time, not IBM/Moto), they limited themselves...

A little history:
http://lowendmac.com/musings/08mm/power-mac-g5.html

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by wizard69

But as you allude to above Quad Cores are a requirement and should have entered the line up someplace midlevel. Especially considering that Snow Leopard isn't very far off at all. People will be paying top dollar today for hardware that can hardly be leveraged on what will be the new OS strategy going forward.

++++

I imagine people who buy iMacs and minis today will be very disappointed later this year when SL comes out and their machines are barely able to take advantage of it.

I'm not going to be one of those people.

[plokoonpma]

Originally Posted by backtomac

Hell yes!

I use my machine. Have you ever encoded a home made movie with iDVD to watch on a TV?

Give that a try and come back and tell us if you wouldn't want a faster processor.

Have you heard of the new image stabilization feature in iMovie? People run that OVERNIGHT because it can take so long.

Heave you heard of Handbrake? Try ripping a DVD to watch on an iPhone or iPod touch and see how long that takes.

Lastly if people are ONLY going to surf the net and use email on their computer they ought to just get a cheap pc and run linux.

But I like to DO things with my Mac. Apple makes it EASY. That's why I PREFER it.

I don't get your point, I really don't.
If you really use your computer and know or keep yourself up to date with Mac news as I do think you do since you are here. You should now that all this new hardware including the entire MacBook lines had been prepared to support Snow Leopard and all the improvements regarding processing.
You can buy one now and buy Snow Leopard later or wait until Snow Leopard is released and it is included on every new Mac computer.

People come to the forums to look for information, clear doubts and share their knowledge.

It will be nicer and responsible if your post where closer to reality.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by warpdag

The point is simple: Apple on their website is saying their new "beasts" are faster (please have a look). Very misleading, as they should actually stress "faster graphics". The point is, when you release something that is about the same as what you released up to 2 years ago (mac mini), at the same price (or even more for some countries outside of the US), it's a real shame. Come on, how many mac users are hardcore gamers? These guys use windows/xbox/ps3 for that, not a mac... Nvidia 9400? Real joke for the average Joe.

Pot, meet kettle. To suggest that gaming is the only thing that really benefits from the improved graphics over the previous version is misleading or ignorant on your part. Anything that is core image or core video enabled should be a lot faster, and that's now, in current operating systems. Not to mention OpenCL, Grand Central and any other enhancements in Snow Leopard.

A faster CPU, bigger stock memory would have been better, but to say it isn't faster isn't quite right, it's just not measured using a benchmark that reflects what OS X is about.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by gmcalpin

I have not called anyone a complainer, nor any other name, except for you. And all I called you was "Grammarstud," which was clearly ironic because your "correction" of my non-existent error was so amusingly wrong. You complain here constantly.

I have mostly lurked here, and I know this to be a fact: I am not the first to call you out on your behavior here. I will certainly not be the last, either. So don't act all offended like this is some novel thing.

What have I added to this conversation? Nothing. I've had nothing to add that hasn't been said: namely that Geekbench is a useless benchmark for a computer whose primary improvement was with the GPU, which it does not measure. GPUs, as you should know and probably do but are ignoring, are used by OSX for much of the UI, and will be used even more under Snow Leopard — so this is not a trifling factor that should be ignored by anyone (the authors, that is) attempting to offer useful information about the new system.

And, incidentally, those tasks that backtomac was talking about? Almost all of them would benefit from a better GPU.

Complain? I actually like to think of it as a fine whine.
All kidding aside, I appreciate your responding with ideas. But you really have to understand that many of us are frustrated that we have waited so long for this and it's simply not delivering. How can you call that a complaint. It's a criticism -that's all.