Lab Tested: New 27-inch Core i5 iMac/3.1GHz speed results

#1 Macworld

Story Poster

Group: MW Bot
Posts: 31,664
Joined: 30-November 07

Posted 03 May 2011 - 05:53 PM

Post your comments for Lab Tested: New 27-inch Core i5 iMac/3.1GHz speed results here

#2 mattone

Newbie

Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 03 May 2011 - 06:46 PM

James,

It appears in the 2nd table of results that the best score under Zip 2GB folder is the 27" iMac 3.6GHz Core i5 (BTO, Mid 2010) with the score of 140 rather than the new 27" iMac Core i5 3.1GHz scoring 144.

Matt

#3 Wiggin

Member

Group: Members
Posts: 127
Joined: 26-August 09

Posted 03 May 2011 - 07:27 PM

I a bit surprised that the high-end iMac (non-BTO) is only 10% faster than the high-end 15-in MBP. Considering the 50% higher clock rate, the faster hard drive, and the presumably faster GPU. I'll be curious to see if the BTO i7 option for the iMac puts much more distance on the MBP.

#4 KirkBurgess

Newbie

Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 12-September 10

Posted 03 May 2011 - 07:33 PM

can you perform thunderbolt transfer tests by connecting 2 thunderbolt equipped macs side by side for data transfer?

#5 rtamesis

Member

Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 02-March 01

Posted 03 May 2011 - 08:32 PM

Can you also test the different configurations with the 256 Gb SSD installed instead of the 1 TB SATA hard drive?

#6 Biallystock

Member

Group: Members
Posts: 714
Joined: 22-August 07

Posted 03 May 2011 - 09:31 PM

Why do we always see this mixed bag of results, especially as much of this is playing catch up to modern PCs which have much better specs on paper, except for the monitor?

I really expected to see much better improvements due to better chips, GPUs, HDs, RAM and ports.

There is still the BTO i7 tests to come. However i7 should have been standard on both 27" models. Apple does not have an excuse to drag its heels on this as the chips are freely available and not that expensive.

It may not be very flattering, but what is needed is a Bang for Bucks graph which plots all models on an axis of price and Speedmark over time. That would actually show the tepid progress Apple makes due to targeting maximum profitability instead of performance/value.

This post has been edited by Biallystock: 03 May 2011 - 09:36 PM

#7 PaulDonovan

Newbie

Group: New Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 03-May 11

Posted 03 May 2011 - 09:50 PM

Could you check whether the ethernet chip supports jumbo frames? ie. can you set an MTU of > 1500 in System Preferences. Or give us the ethernet chip model number from System Profiler. Thanks.

#8 macnews

Member

Group: Members
Posts: 487
Joined: 11-January 05

Posted 03 May 2011 - 10:08 PM

I would like to know what is better an new imac with an i5 processor or i7? The article is some what confusing with the "this one has hyper threading that one doesn't but fewer faster processes is better for things like opening docs".

#9 Biallystock

Member

Group: Members
Posts: 714
Joined: 22-August 07

Posted 03 May 2011 - 10:56 PM

i7 is definitely better than an i5 by a league. Clearly shown in the tests of the many PCs that moved onto i7 chipsets months ago.

This should come out when Macworld tests the BTO models.

#10 Maxer

Member

Group: Members
Posts: 601
Joined: 16-November 09

Posted 04 May 2011 - 12:19 AM

An image (graph/plot) is worth a thousand tables.

#11 whitedog

Veteran

Group: Members
Posts: 3,697
Joined: 09-August 04

Posted 04 May 2011 - 02:11 AM

Some of these comparisons are apples and oranges. Even though the new Sandy Bridge chipset has some significant enhancements, comparing a BTO i7 iMac to a standard i5 Sandy Bridge model is hardly probative. The i7 line offers features the i5 does not, like Hyper Threading. Try comparing apples and apples, that is, the old quad-core i7 with the new quad-core i7. Then we'll know what's what. In the meantime, we can only surmise from the superior performance of the previous generation i7s in the iMac and MacBook Pro that they make a big difference in some cases.

One thing concerns me, though. I've been following the Adobe forums on Photoshop Lightroom. It turns out that Hyper Threading on Windows machines actually impedes Lightroom performance. Users have reported better results after turning off Hyper Threading. Is there any way to do that on Macs with the i7 chipset?

#12 palane

Member

Group: Members
Posts: 861
Joined: 18-November 04

Posted 04 May 2011 - 03:32 AM

All that would show is that Apple tends to hold its price points while upgrading components. We all know the price we pay to play

BB

Biallystock, on 03 May 2011 - 09:31 PM, said:

It may not be very flattering, but what is needed is a Bang for Bucks graph which plots all models on an axis of price and Speedmark over time. That would actually show the tepid progress Apple makes due to targeting maximum profitability instead of performance/value.

#13 BoxOfSnoo

Member

Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 20-May 08

Posted 04 May 2011 - 04:18 AM

I was hoping to see the *current* 27" BTO 3.4GHz i7 in the list. I understand there may be a delay with that, will an update or another article?

#14 Biallystock

Member

Group: Members
Posts: 714
Joined: 22-August 07

Posted 04 May 2011 - 04:36 AM

palane, on 04 May 2011 - 03:32 AM, said:

All that would show is that Apple tends to hold its price points while upgrading components. We all know the price we pay to play

BB

Biallystock, on 03 May 2011 - 09:31 PM, said:

If only someone would tell the PC manufacturers, who constantly upgrade hardware and reduce prices, which is why you can get some seriously good and really cheap PC laptops now.