Apple's new iMac Core 2 Extreme, Mac mini benchmarked
Hot on the heels of last week's benchmarking of the 2.4 GHz iMac, the folks over at Primate Labs have updated their iMac performance comparison charts to include scores from Apple's top-of-the line 2.8GHz iMac Core 2 Extreme, as well as the new Mac mini.
iMac 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme
The Waterloo, Ontario-based software developer ran all tests through Geekbench, its flagship cross-platform benchmarking software for Linux, Mac and Windows. Again, each of the iMac systems was running Mac OS X 10.4.10 with 2GB of 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM.
As would be expected, the high-end iMac posted noticeable gains over previous-generation 2.16GHz and 2.33GHz models, as well as the new 2.4GHz iMac. Performance increases were most significant under Geekbench's Floating Point, Integer and Memory tests.
The 2.8GHz iMac, which sports an overclocked 2.6GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme X7800, registered a floating point score of 5356 compared to the 2.4GHz model's score of 4485. In terms of overall performance, the Extreme posted a score of 3791 compared to a score of 3243 for the 2.4GHz model.
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 1.83GHz and 2.0GHz
Primate also recently benchmarked Apple's modest Mac mini refresh, which capped off a complete product line shift towards 64-bit computing on the part of the Cupertino-based Mac maker -- an industry first.
The new Mac minis were pit against almost every one of their predecessors in a set of Geekbench tests. The resulting scores were modest at best, with the 2.0Ghz Mac mini Core 2 Duo scoring 2668 overall, compared to the previous-generation 1.83GHz Core Duo model's score of 2334.
iMac 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme
The Waterloo, Ontario-based software developer ran all tests through Geekbench, its flagship cross-platform benchmarking software for Linux, Mac and Windows. Again, each of the iMac systems was running Mac OS X 10.4.10 with 2GB of 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM.
As would be expected, the high-end iMac posted noticeable gains over previous-generation 2.16GHz and 2.33GHz models, as well as the new 2.4GHz iMac. Performance increases were most significant under Geekbench's Floating Point, Integer and Memory tests.
The 2.8GHz iMac, which sports an overclocked 2.6GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme X7800, registered a floating point score of 5356 compared to the 2.4GHz model's score of 4485. In terms of overall performance, the Extreme posted a score of 3791 compared to a score of 3243 for the 2.4GHz model.
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 1.83GHz and 2.0GHz
Primate also recently benchmarked Apple's modest Mac mini refresh, which capped off a complete product line shift towards 64-bit computing on the part of the Cupertino-based Mac maker -- an industry first.
The new Mac minis were pit against almost every one of their predecessors in a set of Geekbench tests. The resulting scores were modest at best, with the 2.0Ghz Mac mini Core 2 Duo scoring 2668 overall, compared to the previous-generation 1.83GHz Core Duo model's score of 2334.
Comments
The 2.8GHz iMac, which sports an overclocked 2.6GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme X7800
They are overclocking the CPU and underpowering the GPU? strange indeed.
To What Extent?
http://www.barefeats.com/imacal.html
They are overclocking the CPU and underpowering the GPU? strange indeed.
Calling the processor over clocked is a mistake from what I can see. It is a listed Intel part.
In any event the big thing in my mind is that the Mini could have been significantly better if Apple would have simply updated to Santa Rosa. Frankly it leaves one with the impression that the Mini is the poor step child in Apples line up.
Dave
Benchmarks like this are so stupid. Do we really need to thank AI for telling us computers with higher numbers go faster? In my opinion the only benchmarks that are really worth a damn are ones that show real-world performance of hardware-stressing games and applications and measure overall usability. I'm not really all that concerned with Integer and Memory tests, I did those back in grade school. And I'm pretty sure there's nothing in my daily activites that include "floating" very many "points".
I dont think its telling us that higher numbers go faster so much as it is telling us how much faster it is going
I dont think its telling us that higher numbers go faster so much as it is telling us how much faster it is going
No it is. People were all pissed when they posted the performance differences between the 2.4 compared to the last gen 2.16 and 2.33. It's simple the 2.8 performance bump isn't that much because your only talking processor speeds. Frontside bus, memory and cache are all the same no matter if you get the 2.4 or 2.8.
This is simple math, people are going to pay 225.00 for something there never going to see just because something has the world "extreme" in it.
This is why very few upgraded from the 2.16 to the 2.33 the price vs performance point was not worth the cost.
Talking about a different beast when Conroe was first released the 6300 and 6400 chips only had 2meg of cache compared to the 6600 and 6700 which had 4meg. That will make a real life differnce, now intel puts 4meg on all thier chips so all your ever talking about now is processor speed which has been proven in small jumps means very little.
Taking that money and upgrading ram is going to do far more for real life performance then a 2.8 chip.
Calling the processor over clocked is a mistake from what I can see. It is a listed Intel part.
Yep. It should be another perk for Apple getting the X7900 early.
/Adrian
Calling the processor over clocked is a mistake from what I can see. It is a listed Intel part.
It's listed at 2.6 GHz but since it's an Extreme part the OEM can overclock it legitimately.
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archi...0716corp_a.htm
It's listed at 2.6 GHz but since it's an Extreme part the OEM can overclock it legitimately.
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archi...0716corp_a.htm
for the lazy:
"the Intel Core 2 Extreme mobile processor bus ratio locks (overspeed protection) have been removed3. This offers added technical flexibility in customizing the system so OEMs can unleash even more performance."
At least, as I see now, it's over three times as fast, but oh the graphics!
PLEASE POST GRAPHICS PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS.
A few years ago I bought the mini G4 (1.42 GHz) as a 'stand-over' until Apple brought out a flexible, mid-range destop, and as IT'S STILL NOT THERE YET
Apple took many a financial bath trying to please the public with a multitude of "flexible, mid-range desktops" and Steve determined there were basically three highly profitable customer groups for Macs: high-end performance users who will gladly pay for all the power they can get; mid-to modest level users who want the look and feel of a attractive, usable computer and integrated software suite; and laptop users, both consumer and pro-level.
The Mac Mini was designed to get people hooked on the Mac OS, then move them into one of the other three profitable designs. It costs a lot of money to manufacture and support a "flexible mid-range desktop." Much of the market for such a computer is made up of end-users that want to buy a low-cost system and then build their own Mac, adding the parts Apple would get at higher margin at a discounted price.
I think Steve determined a long while ago that Apple doesn't want to spend a lot of cash and resources to compete against itself, and has very wisely avoided providing such a system. Such systems are typically bashed in the press as underpowered and feature-poor, which in turn tends to prematurely lose customers who would have probably been satisfied with one of the other three systems.
Metaphorically speaking, I would love to find a restaurant that offers a good $5.00 steak, but the inevitable poor reviews of such a low-profit business would probably prevent me from ever buying a meal there.
This is why very few upgraded from the 2.16 to the 2.33 the price vs performance point was not worth the cost.
And you know this how? What figures do you have to back this up? I'm guessing you have no idea how many 2.33s were sold, and you're just talking out your ***.
Apple took many a financial bath trying to please the public with a multitude of "flexible, mid-range desktops" and Steve determined there were basically three highly profitable customer groups for Macs: high-end performance users who will gladly pay for all the power they can get; mid-to modest level users who want the look and feel of a attractive, usable computer and integrated software suite; and laptop users, both consumer and pro-level.
The Mac Mini was designed to get people hooked on the Mac OS, then move them into one of the other three profitable designs. It costs a lot of money to manufacture and support a "flexible mid-range desktop." Much of the market for such a computer is made up of end-users that want to buy a low-cost system and then build their own Mac, adding the parts Apple would get at higher margin at a discounted price.
I think Steve determined a long while ago that Apple doesn't want to spend a lot of cash and resources to compete against itself, and has very wisely avoided providing such a system. Such systems are typically bashed in the press as underpowered and feature-poor, which in turn tends to prematurely lose customers who would have probably been satisfied with one of the other three systems.
Metaphorically speaking, I would love to find a restaurant that offers a good $5.00 steak, but the inevitable poor reviews of such a low-profit business would probably prevent me from ever buying a meal there.
I have a mini on the way. I wasn't looking for low cost. Maxd out it cost over a thousand dollar, but I would of been happy paid more for more. I wanted small and to use a display (non-gloss and no chin) with an "exceptionally narrow bezel" and didn't want the monster Pro. There may be a stong market for a few more features, even at Apple prices.
*sigh*
PLEASE POST GRAPHICS PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS.
And you know this how? What figures do you have to back this up? I'm guessing you have no idea how many 2.33s were sold, and you're just talking out your ***.
Actually i'm speaking from experience and even worse logic. Cpu speed bumps in many cases mean very little in the way of performace. Lets look at history. Intel and AMD both decided that pure cpu power wasn't cutting it so they cut back trying to push the cpu and started to do the right thing which was increasing bus speeds and actually matching ram to take advantage of bus speeds.
As far as experience ive been working on this stuff for over 20+ years at IBM. Things like cache, raid, multi core processing were things I was doing 18 years ago before you ever even heard of them. As hard as this may be for you to believe this stuff isn't new technology.
Logic, the numbers speak for themselves regarding benchmarks each jump in processor speed only gives a few hundred points in overall system performance. If thats worth 225.00 to you then by all means have at it.
Anyone with any real system knowledge will tell you that money will be better spent increasing system memory. The extreme version has the same bus speed and same L2 cache at the 2.4 system. If it offered more than that it would be a hell of alot more than a 225.00 upgrade.
They are overclocking the CPU and underpowering the GPU? strange indeed.
To What Extent?
http://www.barefeats.com/imacal.html
We don't know if they are overclocking, or whether they are special bin selected parts, as were the 3GHz Xeon 4 core chips that Apple got from Intel over 3 months before Intel came out with an official 3 GHz part.