Benchmarks of 2009 iMacs, Mac minis show negligible speed-ups - Page 3

The only thing these tests show is that the test itself was pointless. They are basically saying that the same processor architecture running at the same speed will yield about the same results. Well, no sh*t! The actually did say that the new Macs were in fact faster than the previous ones, but only in proportion to their clock speed increases. Again, shocker.

They tested absolutely nothing that was upgraded: graphics, hard drive, RAM. They say you are better off buying the previous generation as if FW800 and wi-fi N on the mini wasn't a consideration, or the increased RAM capacity. So basically, yes, buy the previous generation if the only thing you are ever going to run on it is a faceless application that can reside entirely in the CPUs cache. Was there even a point to the test, other than to prove that they can run a pointless test?

Well do you honestly feel it would business wise to have a major refresh now when the PC market is projected to have a terrible year? Or wait until people are ready to spend money and launch a major refresh to meet pent up demand?

The fact is that for the iMacs and MacPro lower end products are equivalent in speed with the previous versions next level up. Therefore you get the same performance for a cheaper price. To me that is significant.

Add in the improved graphics in the mini makes the product more compelling. I want one but would prefer to pay $499 rather than $599.

These tests (on the previous generation) show, or at least imply, that iMovie and iDVD do take advantage of the GPU — in some cases rather heavily (although not across the board).

http://www.theandyzone.com/computer/...ilife-and.html

http://www.barefeats.com/imp03.html

And while OSX (at least since 10.4 or so?) uses the GPU for some UI stuff, which benefits all applications, it's set to off-load even more to the GPU with Snow Leopard.

My point is, these updates might not look that great right now, but Apple is making their entire line-up Snow Leopard-ready. They'll look better soon.


Wait for Snow Leopard, and you're saving $129 right there. It's like you're buying it for $479! Okay, not really.

I don't have to wait for the general release of Snow Leopard to see how much better and faster runs everything, even if it is not written yet for it.
I beta test software among other things and have one iMac and one Mac Pro running Snow Leopard. In a month will get the new Mac Pro that should uber pwn the Mac Pro I use.

Yes, I do, If it's ready- release it. I feel a major refresh would sell well because many of us iMac users have been waiting so long and this minor update, especially in this bad economic time, will not persuade us to upgrade. We will either wait or buy something else. Sure there will be new buyers but not as many replacement buyers as there might have been.

I don't recall R&D turnaround on a computer ever being fast enough to make a difference so soon, if there was a gangbusters product developed and ready for the "go" signal, its work probably began years ago. If it happens to be ready in a down economy, well, that's the way things go, forecasts that long ago can't really say when they happen or how long or severe they are.

Also, as far as I recall, the time to recoup your R&D investment is as soon as it's ready, especially for electronics. You get what you can out of it. If you postpone the release for a year, you've just squandered any value you could have derived from the development, by then, you will need to replace it with yet another product generation anyway.

Simple, the better GPU and components bus/transfer frequency, the faster it will run.
Snow Leopard is faster, the way it handles the data, how the components communicates with each other and how manage in and outs from the different memory banks. Not to mention that it use part of the GPU as another processor pipe.

A good example will come out soon when they run benchmarks of 2nd generation Mac Pro vs the last one with Nehalem. Once all the lines has Nehalem derivates they should look like theses charts.

http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html

Primate reported the same results a year ago. And as they imply, what they don't test is probably why Macworld's benchmark test methods demonstrate otherwise.

Reviewing Primate's test reports over the past few years, the bars as they are presented are quite predictable, i.e., a 2.9 Ghz clocks higher than a 2.8. Considering how the tests are done, I would certainly hope so.

Actually there a 4 slots - 2 PCIE 16X and 2 PCIE 4X.
It is just that one of the 16X slots has to be filled with the base graphics card. After you order the system you could insert the base graphics card into the last 4X slot(it will accept a 16X card but run it at 4X speeds) and then have two 16X card slots to use for Tesla adapters
That of course would double the cost of the machine as you would have to buy the 2 C1060 Tesla cards for 3400$ to 3600$
That is of course assuming you could keep the power consumption below 300 Watts for all three cards. - Which you can not with the internal Tesla solution as each C1060 has a peak power usage of >200 Watts
Therefore you would have to use the Tesla S1070 - which is much more expensive that the Mac Pro will ever be.

I'm very curious what this "pleasant surprise" that Apple has up their sleeve will be...

Copy Pasted from the technical specifications site of the Mac Pro 3rd gen.

PCI Express expansion

Three open full-length PCI Express expansion slots5
One PCI Express 2.0 x16 slot
Two PCI Express 2.0 x4 slots
All slots provide mechanical support for 16-lane cards
300W combined maximum for all PCI Express slots

OPEN as in the first slot is CLOSED
The base NVIDIA graphics card is shipped in the first 16X slot. There are 4 slots because you customize the box to have 4 graphics cards.
got to:
http://www.apple.com/macpro/design.html#graphics
and read the following blurb VERY CAREFULLY:

Tool-less PCI.
When its time to upgrade, a quick slide of the retention bar frees up the four expansion card slots for easy access. Thanks to a thumbscrew PCI bracket, you can swap out cards without any tools. All four slots are now PCI Express 2.0 for up to twice the performance of the previous generation. And since the graphics slot in the Mac Pro is double-wide, your graphics card wont cover an adjacent slot.

They may have made the determination that they would NOT be able to recoup the R&D
investment for this generation of upgrades, due to poor projected sales. They may have
decided it was financially preferable to write off one generation of upgrades in their
pipeline, than to release the upgrades and incur the cost of significant manufacturing
changes and inventory buildup.

You are correct that there will be another generation of products coming along,
and Apple may have decided that the market will be much more receptive at that time.
They are fortunate to have the financial strength to be able to write off R&D efforts they
project to be unprofitable. (They also are counting on their often stated view that Apple
customers would rather wait for the Apple computer they want than to switch to
something else.)

Bloody hell they should have just benched something like Left4Dead, Crysis to test the GPU, and encoding, Photoshop filters, Etc. for CPU/FSB. Synthetic benchmarks = Fail.

Jumping ahead of what?

I simply pasted the specs trying to support your post in some way, then u reply to me in that form. bad bad bad

Anyways, for the whatever00 dude that is so insulted by Apple's video card options..
You can place 2 Ati 4870 for 1gb video ram, that is enough power to super run some apps.
Take in consideration that the memory is DDR 5 and this card has a lot of very nice reviews.

I agree. R&D wasted because every other Tom-Dick-and-Harry will have compelling offers in the desktop space throughout this year.

However, Apple has made the choice to operate at their usual (or increased?) gross profit margins by offering slightly bumped hardware at similar, less, or increased (for international) prices.

But clearly Apple has projected and accepted poorer sales for desktop in almost all markets for 2009. And without Steve in the picture do deliver a recession-gut-busting Boom!... All Apple can do is hold the fort and look to Tim Cook to keep things ticking.

BTW iLife'09 and iWork'09 are great. It's a pity the desktop hardware ain't delivering the bang-for-buck for most people, the real value's at MacBook Alu and MacBook White. MacBook Pro, well, that's premium stuff, and like I mentioned before I'm not a big fan of Apple focusing a lot on premium consumers at the expense of mainstream switchers that *can* afford Macs.

As for the Airport, Time Capsule upgrades, clearly they're some good R&D and technical improvements, but its a real pity consumers won't really grasp the fantastic value (I'm not even sure of it) of dual-band wireless.

It depends. There are risks both ways. Less compelling products could mean fewer sales... As in, fewer sales than you expect to have even in a soft market. Which results in lower revenues so you play it even "more" safe with a simpler update the next time, and so on.

I suggest "defeatist" thinking is not helpful, companies should think about how to deliver high-perceived-value-and-high-value products produced at lower or similar cost. Companies should think about market segments they could enter to compensate for issues. Companies should look at existing markets and think about cross-sell and up-sell opportunities.

Why are people buying less PCs? What sort of technology spending would people do? Most importantly for Apple, how do they deal with the competition? There are a lot of ways Apple can go about things instead of just this update they did. Which was due a few months ago anyways, IMO.

This is of course me talking kinda CEO-type blah blah and of course Apple should manage risks, who knows what Apple is really thinking.

I would like to point out in any case is without Steve really in the picture full-time that "extra" level of insight, perception and obsession is simply not there.

iLife and iWork only at MacWorld and iMac bumps, do not a Boom! make.

Nehalem Mac Pros are Boom! Why didn't they milk more out of the branding/PR/etc opportunities of some really killer hardware? But even then no Quadro option. Even then hampered by display options (30-inch LED-backlit display)? And I think without Steve most of Apple is somewhat confused on the greener options (no LED backlit on iMacs? For most of this year?)..

But I ramble on... will stop now.

But you can't run it in SLI (sorry, Crossfire) on the Mac Pros... AFAIK. Also no more Quadro option in Mac Pros.

Two ATI 4870s in Crossfire, or the ATI 4870X2 (single card), serious GPU horsepower there.

I suppose with 2 ATI 4870 in two slots on the Mac Pro ~ one question, how would the system know which card to use for what application? Just based on which output monitor the application is driving? Hmm...

Unfortunately I don't think it will have a "happy ending" for me...

Yes but in international markets which are significant for Apple, the prices have almost all gone up due to the strength of the US dollar.


That Mac Mini is definitely compelling with 9400M. Could even be a nice little PC/Mac gaming device with overal graphic/gaming horsepower somewhere between a Wii and XBox360 (very roughly)...

But yeah, in the global economy, $499 in the US and lower prices than before for International markets, would seal the deal easily for a lot of people.

They'll probably still stick a 9400M only in the lower-end iMac with Nehalem CPU.

How is integrated graphics supposed to drive 24" 1080p level visuals? *That* baffles me. I haven't been doing any gaming for almost 6 months now, so... hmm... I'm feeling confused about things overall.

Not to forget, the important test that needs to be done is the iMac Radeon2400XT 128 dedicated VRAM vs. iMac Nvidia 9400M and iMac Radeon 2600Pro 256mb dedicated VRAM vs. iMac Nvidia 9400M. At 1280x800, 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 etc where applicable.

[Apologies for repeating my statement, but...]
How the heck is Spore going to play at 1920x1200 on the 24" iMac with only 9400M ????? On the 24" iMac for games you're running everything at much lower resolutions and settings despite the big screen.

Apple cared about gaming several months ago. Then early this year, they forgot they cared about gaming.
You put your left foot in, then you put your left foot out, then you shake your butt, then you... er... how does that song go again?

You are mostly thinking about what you want, not what makes most business sense. The few Mac users who are waiting for a major refresh are not likely to add many sales in the current environment.

The entire Mac desktop line is far old enough to have given Apple more than enough time to design new updates. I think it's more likely than this is simply a terrible time to launch new expensive computers.

ya'll so funny. Apple had to update all machines before Snow Leopard, its just how they work. These speed bumps were made to work with SnowL and that's what Apple cared about.

I have 2 ati 3870 in the sec gen Mac Pro, it read them as 1gb but checking then again, it works cause the mini hacks i've done on it..
Maybe with Snow Leopard it gets supported, so then why bother with 2 full 16x slots?

You are 100% right about that

I dont know if it is just me, or whether others are also feeling the same way - the stronger Apple gets financially, the more arrogant it seems - almost like "We dont need you anymore - you need us for your Apple fix".

I am a big Apple enthusiast - but of late, I have been irritated by a lot of actions small and big. Their product and pricing decisions are beginning to piss me off.

Some examples -
-- Apple does not give you flexibility to use your own SD cards in their products. But if you try to buy a higher capacity product, they rip you off by charging ridiculously higher prices. The 1GB shuffle is $49 and the 2GB shuffle is $69. How on earth can they justify charging $20 more for 1GB? It is almost as if Apple is subsidizing the 1GB shuffle with higher margins on the 2GB! Similar examples exist in the iPhone, iPod Touch, etc.
-- Related to point 1, but kind of different - how expensive the upgrade options are in Apple. We are talking about a premium brand here - customers who pay $1500 for a desktop would obviously expect a high end configuration - Apple shamelessly rips people off for upgrades, and makes it painfully difficult to upgrade on your own.
-- For literally every other electronics manufacturer, prices for an unchanged product drop significantly over time - Apple on the other hand keeps the prices constant and earns much higher margins. Both Apple and Dell sell a very similar 30" monitor. How come the price of the Dell has dropped from $1699 to $1139 now, whereas Apple's price stays constant at $1799? For over 3 years the prices havent changed at all. Same for literally every product Apple makes.
-- Almost every other electronics manufacturer has had its prices drop over time, as technology gets cheaper. But Apple prefers to keep the prices constant, upgrades the components. Sometimes the upgrades are significant, so it is still tolerable, but sometimes the upgrades are just marginal.

In a lot of ways, Apple operates like a premium brand (the buying experience, the unpacking experience, the importance paid to design, the premium prices charged etc), but at the same time they also operate in some "cheap" brand ways. Why sell a Mac Mini that does FrontRow, but not include the remote? I can understand the logic of not including the remote for the MacBooks, but the MacMini is much more likely to be hooked up to a TV. These decisions make Apple look like a nickel-and-diming operator.

I think my opinion is likely to get a lot of flames - but I hope people can look at this objectively. I love Apple just as much as anyone else - I really want Apple to be a much more significant player in the market. But at the same time, I want Apple to be a little bit more mindful of the customers. A lit bit less greedy than they are now.

Apple is a different player today - it is no longer a niche player. At least in mindshare, it is possibly even bigger than MicroSoft. They need to realize that what really matters at the end of the day is not how much margins they make on their products, but how much profits they make. Apple is not an "exclusive" product - why spend millions of dollars on "PC vs Mac" ads, if you just want to be an "exclusive" product? If Apple can sell 10M computers and make $3.5 Billion or sell 20M Computers and make $5 Billion, I think from EVERY point of view, the second option is a lot better.

I bought one of the old models, got a 2.8 24" for £400 less than the new models.

I don't get it - compare the same(apart from graphics card) iMac between 19 Feb and new one on 5 March, the only big difference I see is a PRICE INCREASE - nice upgrade-not.

(note prices in pic are New Zealand dollars at education discount.

Still waiting for Blu-ray

FEB 2009 _____ compare to _____ MARCH 2009

I knew this time would come. Only a matter of time that many users k ow what fsb means, voltage, overclock, CPU cycles. Sure compared to p4 megahertz doesn't matter but we"re basically talking about the same chips here. Stunned no i7 in the pros with cheaper ram and anlower price point.

That said, I'll be shocked but if the mini can play 3d games and apple didn't cripple motion, shake, fcp and it runs on a mini, it may not be a big seller with consumers but it will sell to editors, audio bays and iPhone sdk users, so for me, at least until I see the benchmarks, this is good news for audio/video use. Depends on the GPU bench mark.

Otherwise with millions of people reaching 2 years with iPhone and phones like palm ore with flash ALS July, apple might be in some deep doo doo.

Well, no need for flames that I see.
I think you have some valid observations and opinions.

I love the Mac platform HW and SW but at the same time, I have this feeling that Apple keeps shorting us on its consumer (less-than-pro) models by removing a feature or two here, keeping the speed/capacity lower there. More so than could be attributable to just parts prices. (in my opinion, based on articles about tear-down costs, etc.).

Now over the very long haul (decade+), Mac prices have gotten cheaper.
But it is also true that in the short term, some Apple products stay at same price for years - the monitor you mention, the new Mac Mini being exact same price as last series (nr 2 yrs ago). Irksome!

On the one hand, they have captured us with their cool products, on the other, they do sometimes seem rather arrogant about it.
(my personal experience with Apple reps, tech support and reading mgmt interviews/letters shows a mixed bag... some are great, friendly, personable folks, some are a bit arrogant... ) Oh well, I am just wishing they would be a perfect company -- in my definition!

Oh Lord I remeber those days in a pro tools studio where we had pc'c running AMD ATHLON. The athlon gigastduio fpu trounced the g5, it was sad. Meanwhile apple was promoting the PowerBook as a portable studio, not. They choxed all the time. Only she they went to intel did thy improve. In fact the best buy these days are a refurb MacBook pro 2.4 early 08 for $1200 better gpu, expess slot,both FireWire abda better silver keyboard. Think about it. It's a better deal.

Yeah but the i7 are out and we could have had 16 ciresbthat used cheaper non EEC memory. It makes no sense. Firgetbthis xeoncrap.

My 2 cents.

Umm... CPU speed bumps of [0.1 to 0.5ghz] ~ made to work with Snow Leopard?
>I think not...

Umm... iMac GPU going from Discrete to integrated 9400M
>Perhaps. Then again...

The latter is possible, but it would mean Snow Leopard will use OpenCL intensely and needs Nvidia. However, there are fast ATI cards offered in the new iMac and Mac Pro.

So, I don't see how these speed bumps were crucial to Snow Leopard.

That's kind of a downgrade, actually, because I am quite sure at 1680x1050 the discrete 256MB VRAM ATI 2600 Pro beats the 9400M integrated. Even by sheer virtue of *dedicated* 256MB RAM.

I think the pricing is because you're looking at EDU prices AND also the NZD currency got slammed against the USD.

How weird. But I'm not in the US, I'm in Malaysia right now and like the rest of Asia/Pacific (and the world) we're seeing price increases across the board for all new Apple stuff announced.

However... For Retail...

In Malaysia the same comparison shows RM 5,199 before and RM 4,499 after.
Entry level 24" comparison shows RM 6,299 before and RM 5,599 after.

So, cheaper, yes, but loses the dedicated 256MB VRAM ATI 2600 Pro. Integrated graphics instead.
The cheapest iMac used to be RM 4,199 but now the cheapest iMac is RM 4,499.

Therefore, on a global scale, these iMac updates are a mixed bag. Yes 24" more affordable but possibly weaker graphics. "Less expensive" but entry-level iMac outside the US, price has gone up "due to US currency"*

*In quotes because nobody put a gun to Apple's head and said "YOU MUST ACCOUNT FOR CURRENCY and BASE YOUR CALCULATIONS ON USD so AROUND THE WORLD new Macs are MORE EXPENSIVE. WTF

The mini is the dark horse that can rise from the ashes of this "crap" update.

Core 2 Duo 2ghz.
Slam in a 7200rpm drive.
Max out 4GB
FW800
9400M graphics can drive 1080p res

Tantalising as the cheapest Mac. If you really need a Mac.

But Final Cut and Motion, on the Mac Mini... Hmmm...
But for Logic... Could do alright.
For iPhone Dev. Defintely alright.

CAN THE MINI DRIVE 2 MONITORS AT ONCE? IF SO... IT COULD MAKE IT QUITE INTERESTING AS A COOL MINI MAC DESKTOP THINGY DESPITE THE "Apple Premium" PRICE.

Man I just just feel off my bed laughing at your remarks THANKS for the comments ... I LOVE IT....its sooo sooo true.. APPLE

VISTA use to to stand for Viruses_Inevitable_Stick_To_Apple
now i think that APPLE will stand for:

Asshole_Pathectic_Pussy_Lousy_Engineers

Ha! You were so angry about the Pro offerings because Apple was focusing so much on consumers. Now you're angry about the consumer offerings.

But I agree. Some things are not making that much sense right now.

Isn't ECC memory important? If it isn't is it just a big scam?