New iMacs post modest gains over predecessors (benchmarks)

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
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:



«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    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:







    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.
  • Reply 2 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cygnusrk727 View Post


    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."
  • Reply 3 of 80
    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???
  • Reply 4 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Thataboy View Post


    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!
  • Reply 5 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    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.
  • Reply 6 of 80
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,605member
    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.
  • Reply 7 of 80
    Another iMac C2E speed test vote here
  • Reply 8 of 80
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cygnusrk727 View Post


    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
  • Reply 9 of 80
    palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,324member
    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...
  • Reply 10 of 80
    lafelafe Posts: 252member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aplnub View Post


    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 . . .
  • Reply 11 of 80
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    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.
  • Reply 12 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    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.



  • Reply 13 of 80
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    "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.
  • Reply 14 of 80
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by britwithgoodteeth View Post


    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
  • Reply 15 of 80
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    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?
  • Reply 16 of 80
    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.
  • Reply 17 of 80
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Thataboy View Post


    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.
  • Reply 18 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    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.
  • Reply 19 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by southerndoc View Post


    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.
  • Reply 20 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    So smartass. lets see your evidence.



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



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

Sign In or Register to comment.