Benchmarks of 2009 iMacs, Mac minis show negligible speed-ups - Page 5

Originally Posted by elroth

Not quite - they didn't test the NEW 3.06 GHz iMac.

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the machine, if not it is just a way to detract from the fact that each new iMac sold these days is in effect grossly outdated hardware.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

Originally Posted by backtomac

I made a movie with iMovie and encoded with iDVD. The movie was 1-2 minutes long but I encoded with iDVD to play on my TV. With my C2D MBP (2.16ghz) it took 20 minutes! I want an ATV just to avoid this hassle.

2 hour handbrake rips take about 2.5 hrs to complete. A friend has a last gen octo core MP and says 2 hr movies take him 20 minutes.

I can easily use a more powerful Mac. Alas, the only one that really offers the performance I desire is the Mac Pro and its not in my budget.

Originally Posted by poxonyou

"Steve" has been the problem since 2005. He decided to kill the consumer affordable PowerMac desktop line and made people choose between an expensive non-upgradeable All-in-One (using laptop parts) or an insanely expensive mega "Pro" line. Steve was fine prior to 2005, when Apple offered a reasonable selection (iMacs for the cheap end, low-end PowerMacs for mid-range, high-end PowerMacs for the "professionals"). Unfortunately, they decided to turn Apple from the fun, alternative computer to a high end fashion brand like Gucci. Why not make higher profits on fewer items sold to a smaller demographic? Great for Apple shareholders, bad for the average person. Their market share has barely grown, despite people being fed up with Windows and not being locked into Windows like they were in the 90's.

Anyway, this is still the work of Steve. The early 2000's Steve was great, but things have changed. I honestly can't wait for him to go now.

Originally Posted by mark2005

Snow Leopard Grand Central.

Quote:
Originally Posted by poxonyou
"Steve" has been the problem since 2005. He decided to kill the consumer affordable PowerMac desktop line and made people choose between an expensive non-upgradeable All-in-One (using laptop parts) or an insanely expensive mega "Pro" line. Steve was fine prior to 2005, when Apple offered a reasonable selection (iMacs for the cheap end, low-end PowerMacs for mid-range, high-end PowerMacs for the "professionals"). Unfortunately, they decided to turn Apple from the fun, alternative computer to a high end fashion brand like Gucci. Why not make higher profits on fewer items sold to a smaller demographic? Great for Apple shareholders, bad for the average person. Their market share has barely grown, despite people being fed up with Windows and not being locked into Windows like they were in the 90's.

Anyway, this is still the work of Steve. The early 2000's Steve was great, but things have changed. I honestly can't wait for him to go now.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I had a circa 2003 eMac (decent machine for what the price was, and what you could do with it!) and in that era, it was about making the computer fun again. It was about making it easier, making it do more. The idea was to break away from Windows beige (1998 iMacs rocked!) and focus on creativity. Now, with this huge focus on "thin", it is the next clothing label. Hardware is the same (though a little outdated) than any other PC out there. True, software makes a difference. But again, you are paying for style, not substance like you used to.

Someone's gotta reign Apple back in. It's going to loose more and more people with updates like this (or lack of updates... the mini not being updated till now for HOW long?). It already lost one customer. The only Apple product I use now is a G4 Mac mini as a home server (which it does very well). I sold my other Apple machines with the newer ones showing signs of heat issues. I used to recommend Apple products. These days I only recommend them to those in the Film/Recording/Media industries. And even then, it still depends.

So sad... I used to like the company. They just drove me away with their practices.

Originally Posted by elroth

Not quite - they didn't test the NEW 3.06 GHz iMac.

I'm still laughing up my sleeve when I compare the performance that my Mac Pro gives me compared to the iMacs etc. I hope you to will be able to pick up a bargain, and enjoy the same level of value for money as I have...

Originally Posted by Messiah

The trick is knowing where and when to look for heavily discounted stock of previous generation kit. That's where the value of money is.

About five months after the 2nd generation Mac Pro hit the shelves, I stumbled upon a reseller that was having problems shifting their remaining stocks of the 1st generation Mac Pro. I knew from previous experience that there was no real-world benefit to me from the additional four cores present in the 8-core machine, so I decided to purchase a brand new, unopened 1st generation machine that was marked down from £1,799 to £999. Sweet.

After about two weeks of trawling through Ebay, I managed to secure another six DIMMs that were identical to the two already in the machine (Hynix). A couple of £45 500GB 7200rpm drives later, and I had a quad-core workstation with 8GB of RAM and a 1TB RAID 0 array. Pretty sweet rig for £1,249 all in. And by the time I claimed the VAT back I had only paid £1,063.

A few months ago I sold my 8-core machine, because frankly, the souped-up 4-core machine was performing so well that holding on to the 8-core was a complete waste of money. My only regret is that I didn't buy two of the discounted 4-core machines when I had the chance!

If I were you, I'd be out looking for stocks of the 8-core machine right now. It may be a bit early, but there will be pockets of retailers who are struggling to shift their current stocks because everyone thinks that the 3rd generation Mac Pros are twice as fast again.

I'm still laughing up my sleeve when I compare the performance that my Mac Pro gives me compared to the iMacs etc. I hope you to will be able to pick up a bargain, and enjoy the same level of value for money as I have...

Originally Posted by scoates


Instead of replacing my G5 iMac, I ordered a 15" MBPro (unibody refurb), and will look to the next iMac refresh for a reason to upgrade my G5. I need an Intel Mac now to start iPhone development.

Originally Posted by hiimamac

At $599, on paper you coyodnhave thrown in a entry i7. Why not, they bumped the GPU and realize laptops sell more and now, in some regard offerva machine with girewirenand decent audio video ( stop waiting for benchmarks), camcorder and slight possibility apple didn't cripple it. If so you'll see these in edit bays servers farms audio bay. So why not an entry level 7 chip. They are not xpensive and wouldhavenmade the mini one killer machine that is not portable but very strong. Woulndnhave sold millions. Think of all the promsumernmusicians,editors, mom and pop 1 to 1 users and all the IT users fir target mode. What could have been more epic will porbanly be an eclipse. Typing=iPhone

Originally Posted by backtomac

I've never really considered a Mac Pro. Maybe I will.

Oddly enough I LIKE the form factor of the iMac. It would fit nicely in our house in the location I have in mind.

I guess I'll start looking on ebay for a single processor Mac Pro. They almost never turn up as a refurb at the Apple web site.

Originally Posted by hiimamac

Only she they went to intel did thy improve.

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.

Originally Posted by Messiah

I've had the best luck finding marked down stock in large chain stores. Ever so often you'll find a location where those in charge are clueless about the latest Mac developments to the extent that they've kept the older generation of product at full price. These sort of locations often try to mark the product down a little, and when it still doesn't sell they slash the price in order to clear what is now really outdated stock. Of course it's only outdated in theory, in practice it can often enjoy a really long and productive life.

I suspect you won't be so lucky if you deal with Apple directly, or with smaller more switched-on dealers.

Originally Posted by backtomac

There aren't many places in Kentucky that carry Mac hardware.

There's an Apple store in Louisville and Best Buys. The Best Buys don't carry Mac Pros, AFAIK.

The idea of a Mac Pro is growing on me. I'd rather have too much machine rather than too little.

Originally Posted by talkshowonmute

My opinion is that apple is just restuffing the same old stuff to show those products are still alive before a real update when Snow Leopard comes out..

oh wait thats probably just me fantasizing again

Originally Posted by Carmissimo

I hope we're not talking two more years for that to happen though that is possible.

Originally Posted by Carmissimo

I don't doubt that the iMacs will be updated sooner than later but I'm wondering how long it will take for Apple to move the mini to the Nehalem architecture.

I hope we're not talking two more years for that to happen though that is possible.

I might just upgrade to iLife, maybe the new OS and stick it out with my current mini for a while, hoping that this time next year we'll see a really impressive upgrade of the mini.

Originally Posted by solipsism

I think that 18 months or more is to be expected on Mac Mini updates. If Snow Leopard will speed up the Mac Mini even more then Apple will have even less reason to push it to newer architecture. I think if you want a Mini and you want it to be current, for a Mini, then you'll need to buy now.

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I wonder if it's the cheapest computer to ever have Firewire 800 out of the box.

Originally Posted by Abster2core

What I would be looking at is the benchmarks that Macworld, Engaget, etc., will report relative to my needs, whether it be video/audio editing or gaming for example.

Next, I would like, if possible, get real time hands on and review respected professional comprehensive benchmark testing*. Not the off-the-wall idiots posting that profess just how stupid one can be and certainly NOT Primate Labs singualar clock speed tables.

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.

Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.

What happened to insanely great?

Originally Posted by PB

Some precise power consumption data would help here. From what I remember, the low-power quad chips are running at 65 W at least, which is more than the G5 used in the (then noisy) iMac.

The real problem here is the really slim form factor of the iMac. You cannot do much if the computer is like that.

Originally Posted by nvidia2008

Liquid cooling?

Originally Posted by solipsism

I think that 18 months or more is to be expected on Mac Mini updates. If Snow Leopard will speed up the Mac Mini even more then Apple will have even less reason to push it to newer architecture. I think if you want a Mini and you want it to be current, for a Mini, then you'll need to buy now.

Originally Posted by copeland

[OPINION]
I think you're right. Apple had to keep even the higher priced Mac mini at 2 GHz in the standard configuration to differentiate the iMac with clockspeed.
Apple won't play the same clockspeed game when it can transition the iMac to Nehalem mobile.
After the iMac gets its update to the new platform, the mini's clockspeed will raise a bit (hopefully even up to 2.5GHz) and will stay there for at least another year.
[/OPINION]

Originally Posted by copeland

[OPINION]
I think you're right. Apple had to keep even the higher priced Mac mini at 2 GHz in the standard configuration to differentiate the iMac with clockspeed.
Apple won't play the same clockspeed game when it can transition the iMac to Nehalem mobile.
After the iMac gets its update to the new platform, the mini's clockspeed will raise a bit (hopefully even up to 2.5GHz) and will stay there for at least another year.
[/OPINION]

Originally Posted by Spiffy1

You misread the article, then you spout off like you actually know something.

GPUs actually handle more tasks than just graphics these days. And even more so with the new MacOS coming out soon. Read your dang Appleinsider!

Thus performance of the CPU alone is not the measure of the machine.

Having slapped you down... I will say this update is a bit underwhelming...

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Question:Who the hell buys a computer based solely on clock speed?

Answer: Idiots

Question:Who the hell relies on benchmarks based solely on clock speed?

Answer: Idiots

Originally Posted by melgross

The more machine you get, the longer it will be viable. You won't grumble if FW 3200 comes out and you want it, because you will just pick up a board. With Express 2 standard now, newer graphics cards should work as well.

If your monitor breaks down, you can get a temporary one.

Four FW 800 ports and I believe five USB 2 ports.

If you really need RAM, it's pretty cheap at OWC, and it's reliable.

Originally Posted by hiimamac

While you might have slapped him down a bit, did the front side bus increase? If it did, combined withbfaster CPU, sure some things like font redraw, screen refresh and app redraw might be tevhnicallybfaster but you know what. Ask 100 people if they notice the font redraw increase vs rendering a movie, ripping a auidiontrack, decompressing a rar or zip file. Sorry but the CPU increase affects more real world than update and we still don't now framerates for 3d games.
Combine your so called speed increase with a 5200 rpm hard drive andnthebrefreshbrate become moot.

Just saying. Turns out though. Best post isnthe 2005 post wheelrer apple is to focused on iPhone apps and iPhones. Now they don't care about the pro user at all. No pro app updates. Funny thing is, all the cash flow is about to hit millions of iPhone users that will reach their 2 yr marks and can dump iPhone for phones that record video, play flash and more. So apple IMHO has shot themself in the foot with their cash flow with contracts about to expire. Typed on iPhone.

Originally Posted by hiimamac

dude. Where have you been last 15 years. Ever hear of mad onion they make 3d mark. Millions of users. Test frame rates for vid games and rendering, CPU which sell morebthan movies and music combined. And users rely on CPU for more things than font redraw and the on board gpu lakes compared to discrete.

Originally Posted by hiimamac

Funny thing is, all the cash flow is about to hit millions of iPhone users that will reach their 2 yr marks and can dump iPhone for phones that record video, play flash and more. So apple IMHO has shot themself in the foot with their cash flow with contracts about to expire. Typed on iPhone.

Originally Posted by solipsism

I'd rather see a better CMOS over increased megapixels, but the public at large will only care about the specs they can understand. Who can blame them.

Originally Posted by hiimamac

dude. Where have you been last 15 years. Ever hear of mad onion they make 3d mark. Millions of users. Test frame rates for vid games and rendering, CPU which sell morebthan movies and music combined. And users rely on CPU for more things than font redraw and the on board gpu lakes compared to discrete.