or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's new 27" iMac boasts up to 54% performance improvement over predecessor
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's new 27" iMac boasts up to 54% performance improvement over predecessor

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
Benchmarks for Apple's redesigned 27- and 21.5-inch iMac models are now available, showing significant performance increases over the previous-generation models.

iMac


Among the first to get their hands on the 27-inch iMac was CNet, which published its review of the big-screen model on Friday. The 27-inch 2012 iMac won't become publicly available until later in December, with Apple's online store currently advertising estimated shipping times of two to three weeks.

In their tests, the new high-end 27-inch iMac, with a 3.4-gigahertz Core i7 processor, scored 7.49 points in a multi-core rendering Cinebench test. That bested the 4.85 score of the May 2011 iMac with 3.1-gigahertz Core i5 CPU by more than 54 percent.

The new hybrid Fusion Drive also offered major performance gains in iTunes encoding, as the new 27-inch iMac took 52 seconds in their test, compared with 86 seconds in the previous-generation model.

An image processing test with Photoshop also reduced time necessary from 236 seconds in the 2011 model to 199 seconds in the redesigned 2012 model.

Wider tests of the 27-inch iMac are not yet available with the hardware not on sale to the public, but a number of tests with the 21.5-inch variety were published on Friday by Primate Labs, maker of the Geekbench testing software. The late 2012 21.5-inch iMac with a 3.1-gigahertz Intel Core i7 processor scored 12,447, which was about 9 percent better than the mid-2011 27-inch iMac, and nearly 25 percent faster than the identically sized 21.5-inch model from last year.

iMac


In its review, CNet called the 27-inch model an elite all-in-one desktop that makes it one of the best available on the market. The publication gave the new iMac a score of 4 out of 5 stars.

"This is a computer for serious, performance-driven users, particularly those who need a high-resolution display, and fast graphics and disk performance," they concluded.

The 21.5-inch iMac is now available to order from Apple, while the 27-inch model is available for preorder. Official Apple authorized resellers are also offering preorders for both models, which are expected to be in limited supply this holiday.
post #2 of 29
That's crazy!
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #3 of 29
They're comparing the 2012 BTO 3.4GHz i7 model (a $200 upgrade) to the previous generation's standard (retail) high-end 3.1 GHz i5. They should be comparing the 2012 retail 3.2 GHz i5 model to last year's 3.1Ghz i5. The i7 upgrades have historically shown impressive gains compared to the standard i5 models.
post #4 of 29
2011 3.1GHz i5 vs 2012 3.4GHz i7? Why didn't they compare against the 2011 3.4GHz i7 instead?
post #5 of 29

My crazy comment is taken back. 

 

That's expected!

Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #6 of 29
Is AppleInsider independent from Apple, because articles like this, which are devoid of *any* integrity, make me wonder. That AI would compare an i5 to the new model with an i7 is just inexcusable. Shame on you, Apple Insider.
I got nothin'.
Reply
I got nothin'.
Reply
post #7 of 29
Flawed comparison.
post #8 of 29

Title should be "More powerful processor in new skin found to be more powerful than weaker processor in old skin", or simply "More powerful processor found to be more powerful"

post #9 of 29
The author needs to feed the 2011 i7 #'s into this article to compare more apples to apples. Do we have those numbers somewhere?

I guess the original cnet article is more a compare to PC all in ones than to similar 2011 macs.
Edited by xgman - 11/30/12 at 11:50am
{2010 Mac Pro-6 core 3.33-12gb 1333 ram-ati5870-velociraptor 600's-SL/win7/64-Konnekt Live/Onkyo-Dell3007wfp}
{2008 Mac Pro-8 core 3.2's-16GB-evga285} {MBP17}{ipad}{iphone 4 blk16gb}
Reply
{2010 Mac Pro-6 core 3.33-12gb 1333 ram-ati5870-velociraptor 600's-SL/win7/64-Konnekt Live/Onkyo-Dell3007wfp}
{2008 Mac Pro-8 core 3.2's-16GB-evga285} {MBP17}{ipad}{iphone 4 blk16gb}
Reply
post #10 of 29
Had they added the i7-3930K, 3.2GHz, w/12MB Cache, 6 Cores/12 Threads. It would be a beast of a machine and suitable for 3D work
post #11 of 29

For those whining about AppleInsider, CNet did the test comparisons. Read the freaken article.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #12 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by simtub View Post

Had they added the i7-3930K, 3.2GHz, w/12MB Cache, 6 Cores/12 Threads. It would be a beast of a machine and suitable for 3D work

http://ark.intel.com/products/63697/Intel-Core-i7-3930K-Processor-12M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz

 

It isn't feasible in the imac. First it's 130W rather than 77W. That could be problematic. The real limiting factor is it wouldn't fit in the same logic board. It uses the LGA 2011 socket. This means they'd require another design.

post #13 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by simtub View Post

Had they added the i7-3930K, 3.2GHz, w/12MB Cache, 6 Cores/12 Threads. It would be a beast of a machine and suitable for 3D work

You shouldn't want to do that on an iMac, that is what the Mac Pro is for. It's cheaper too.
post #14 of 29

Integer BASIC running on a 1978 Apple ][ -- 1 MHz 6502 CPU with 4K RAM outperforms the equivalent running on a 2012 iMac 27 -- 3.4 GHz Core I7 with 32 GB RAM...

 

...The only thing that comes close to the Apple ][ is The Surface RT -- but that lacks the Apple ][ UX.

"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #15 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


You shouldn't want to do that on an iMac, that is what the Mac Pro is for. It's cheaper too.


It's not possible anyway without a different logic board. The other sites were reporting much more modest improvements. I'd question the validity here on more points than those already mentioned. You need an accurate up to date test using a benchmarking tool on each with the same OS version installed, and they should be compared against comparable hardware or price points. People also miss hyperthreaded vs non hyperthreaded. Its impact in use varies. Overall I'd at least wait for the barefeats tests. They're not always perfect as many of them don't run long enough to analyze the effects of throttling under constant use, including within potential consumer uses like gaming. This is just more click bait like usual, although I suppose that could be stated for any unpaid news article.

post #16 of 29
I ran cinebench on my iMac 2011 i7 3.4GHz. Here are the results:

Multiple CPU - 6.76
Single CPU - 1.42
post #17 of 29
Having owned the "fastest Mac ever" since May 2011, I've been surprised this day took so long to arrive, and am happy for those who can and will take advantage of the new iMac's capabilities.

However, the differential isn't as great as alluded to here. My Mac is likewise a BTO 3.4 GHz 4-core i7 unit (with SSD, of course, and 16GB RAM). The overall performance improvements will come from the upgrade to Ivy Bridge over Sandy Bridge, faster SSD, and faster video card.

Significant as those are, what I have is still 'wicked fast,' and for me the difference isn't large enough to merit the hassle of upgrade. If the difference in processor performance was actually on the order of 54%, I'd be seriously considering one of these. As things are...nah.
Edited by Jeeves Staub - 12/1/12 at 3:04am
post #18 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman View Post

The author needs to feed the 2011 i7 #'s into this article to compare more apples to apples. Do we have those numbers somewhere?
I guess the original cnet article is more a compare to PC all in ones than to similar 2011 macs.

 

You can see from this article that the 2011 3.4GHz i7 is about 39% faster than the 2011 3.1GHz i5 referenced in the article above.

 

Using the figures provided above, that makes the 2012 3.4GHz i7 about 10.6% faster than the equivalent 2011 model.

 

This is less than the expectation (20% improvement) set by Intel when introducing the Ivy Bridge architecture.

 

It should be noted that these scores are for the processor only, and do not take into account improvements in SSD speed, availability of the Fusion drive, or increased speed of the iMac's newer NVIDIA video card.

post #19 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeves Staub View Post

Having owned the "fastest Mac ever" since May 2011, I've been surprised this day took so long to arrive, and am happy for those who can and will take advantage of the new iMac's capabilities.

However, the differential isn't as great as alluded to here. My Mac is likewise a BTO 3.4 GHz 4-core i7 unit (with SSD, of course, and 16GB RAM). The overall performance improvements will come from the upgrade to Ivy Bridge over Sandy Bridge, faster SSD, and faster video card.

Significant as those are, what I have is still 'wicked fast,' and for me the difference isn't large enough to merit the hassle of upgrade. If the difference in processor performance was actually on the order of 54%, I'd be seriously considering one of these. As things are...nah.

If you're on an i7 Mac it's not 'the fastest Mac ever' as those only come with Xeon.
post #20 of 29
Originally Posted by godrifle View Post
Is AppleInsider independent from Apple, because articles like this, which are devoid of *any* integrity, make me wonder. That AI would compare an i5 to the new model with an i7 is just inexcusable. Shame on you, Apple Insider.

 

I'm sorry, you've been here since 2005 and you don't know that APPLEINSIDER IS NOT RUN BY APPLE?!

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


If you're on an i7 Mac it's not 'the fastest Mac ever' as those only come with Xeon.

 

It was widely reported at the time--a year and a half ago--that the fastest i7 iMac was faster than the fastest Mac Pro with Xeon. Nothing has happened in the interim to change that.

 

http://www.macworld.com/article/1160469/ultimateimac2011.html

 

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/15/27-inch-imac-core-i7-with-ssd-is-fastest-mac-ever/

 

http://us.gizmodo.com/5812281/the-latest-imac-is-the-fastest-mac-ever

 

Of course, we're talking off-the-shelf and BTO product here. Modded equipment--specifically, with the addition of SSDs (RAID or not) in the Mac Pro--could be a different story. Apple never sold that configuration.


Edited by Jeeves Staub - 12/1/12 at 10:06am
post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeves Staub View Post

It was widely reported at the time--a year and a half ago--that the fastest i7 iMac was faster than the fastest Mac Pro with Xeon. Nothing has happened in the interim to change that.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1160469/ultimateimac2011.html

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/15/27-inch-imac-core-i7-with-ssd-is-fastest-mac-ever/

http://us.gizmodo.com/5812281/the-latest-imac-is-the-fastest-mac-ever

Of course, we're talking off-the-shelf and BTO product here. Modded equipment--specifically, with the addition of SSDs (RAID or not) in the Mac Pro--could be a different story. Apple never sold that configuration.

I guess you missed this in the first article you cited:
"It's important to note, however, that for massively parallel tasks like Handbrake encoding, Cinebench, Mathematica, and GeekBench benchmarks the Mac Pro still outperforms the iMac because it has more cores, especially with Hyper-Threading."

If you're not pushing your computer very hard, the iMac is certainly more than enough (and may even be faster than the Mac Pro for some simple, single threaded tasks - especially those that rely on disk access if you have an SSD in the iMac).

But for the people who really need massive computing power, the iMac doesn't beat a Mac Pro, particularly the dual CPU models.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #23 of 29
Nice design for sure, but I'll never get one. My 2011 BTO i7 27" with 16gb ram still screams and will be upgraded to 32gb and ssd when the price drops more. Then I'll finally get a Mac Pro when I need a new machine. The iMac has become (even more now) a large laptop with a separated keyboard. Fitting since it uses laptop components.
post #24 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I guess you missed this in the first article you cited:
"It's important to note, however, that for massively parallel tasks like Handbrake encoding, Cinebench, Mathematica, and GeekBench benchmarks the Mac Pro still outperforms the iMac because it has more cores, especially with Hyper-Threading."
If you're not pushing your computer very hard, the iMac is certainly more than enough (and may even be faster than the Mac Pro for some simple, single threaded tasks - especially those that rely on disk access if you have an SSD in the iMac).
But for the people who really need massive computing power, the iMac doesn't beat a Mac Pro, particularly the dual CPU models.

 

Didn't miss it. There's no doubt that I could make use of twelve cores (6 real and 6 virtual) rather than the eight (4 real and 4 virtual) to which my HyperThreaded iMac is "limited" now.

 

But like the Macs of the overwhelming majority of users, mine doesn't spend the majority of its time performing tasks that exploit its multiple core potential to the fullest. In fact, though there are definitely times it does so, it spends hardly any of its time performing tasks like those in comparison to the amount of time it spends performing more "mundane" tasks (particularly since I no longer use my EyeTV Hybrid, and rarely my EyeTV HD, which used to be major time-consuming cycle stealers). I can't justify spending an extra $2000 just to save an accumulated few hours' time that I might spend away from my office (or at night) anyway, while the computer does its thing.

 

If I was a professional movie editor I would have to do some serious analysis to rationalize whether it would be preferable to purchase one Mac Pro, or two iMacs for about the same price (taking workflow into consideration, of course--but the benefits go both ways). There's a very good chance that the dual-HyperThreaded iMac setup would win.


The normal pattern of application usage--to which every user must adhere to a large degree--is why inclusion of an SSD is generally the most useful step users can take toward improving the overall performance of their systems. Besides speeding up file read/write operations, it improves cache and swap file performance as well. If I had a Mac Pro, it would certainly have one.

post #25 of 29
I read all the comments on the difference in CPU between the iMac and Mac Pro, but what do you guys feel about dumping the display when you're upgrading the iMac? I've upgraded my MP more often than getting a new display... should be included in any calculation, no?
post #26 of 29
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post
I read all the comments on the difference in CPU between the iMac and Mac Pro, but what do you guys feel about dumping the display when you're upgrading the iMac? I've upgraded my MP more often than getting a new display... should be included in any calculation, no?

 

Hmm? Do you mean when your iMac's EOL? Just use it as an external monitor. 

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I read all the comments on the difference in CPU between the iMac and Mac Pro, but what do you guys feel about dumping the display when you're upgrading the iMac? I've upgraded my MP more often than getting a new display... should be included in any calculation, no?

Hmm? Do you mean when your iMac's EOL? Just use it as an external monitor. 

Oh I'm sure people use it for that, perhaps even with their smaller new iMac standing behind it (lol). But not me; I wouldn't buy an iMac if my ACD went dead.
post #28 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeves Staub View Post

 

It was widely reported at the time--a year and a half ago--that the fastest i7 iMac was faster than the fastest Mac Pro with Xeon. Nothing has happened in the interim to change that.

 

http://www.macworld.com/article/1160469/ultimateimac2011.html

 

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/15/27-inch-imac-core-i7-with-ssd-is-fastest-mac-ever/

 

http://us.gizmodo.com/5812281/the-latest-imac-is-the-fastest-mac-ever

 

Of course, we're talking off-the-shelf and BTO product here. Modded equipment--specifically, with the addition of SSDs (RAID or not) in the Mac Pro--could be a different story. Apple never sold that configuration.

Those were disproven. If you look at a real test like barefeats, the 6 core can complete well threaded tasks roughly 30% faster. If you were looking at gpu constrained tasks, the mac pro also retained a significant advantage. I haven't looked at the new ones. The 680MX should compare well to a higher end desktop gpu from the previous generation. The reality is that journalists tend to pick the dumbest possible testing methods. As for SSDs, Apple has offered the option since 2010 or 2011. It's just overpriced. Given that the parts are considered specifically user serviceable, I wouldn't call them modded if added aftermarket. The mac pro isn't using proprietary ram/drive configurations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeeves Staub View Post

 

Didn't miss it. There's no doubt that I could make use of twelve cores (6 real and 6 virtual) rather than the eight (4 real and 4 virtual) to which my HyperThreaded iMac is "limited" now.

 

 

 

Hyperthreading doesn't scale identically to real cores outside of Geekbench scores. Much of the time it's just used to balance loads. Part of the reason consumer cpus stopped at 4 cores and went on to allocate further transistors to integrated graphics was the inherent diminishing returns in a lot of software past that point.

 

Quote:
If I was a professional movie editor I would have to do some serious analysis to rationalize whether it would be preferable to purchase one Mac Pro, or two iMacs for about the same price (taking workflow into consideration, of course--but the benefits go both ways). There's a very good chance that the dual-HyperThreaded iMac setup would win.

it would come down to more than what you're suggesting.

post #29 of 29
@mjtomlin
Amen brother! CNET are the testing nubes, AI is just the reporting nubes.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's new 27" iMac boasts up to 54% performance improvement over predecessor