Geekbench-iMac 2012 vs Mac Pro

[Aramis]

I cannot find the 2.4 ghz 12 core Mac Pro Geekbench results in order to be able to compare to the new iMac 27 i7 quad core .
Also, can somebody confirm that going 64 bit is bringing more virtual instruments processing power ?

My old 2008 Mac Pro is giving me around 10,400 at Geekbench

Should i wait for the next Mac Pro or get a nice iMac 27 i7 ????

[bayswater]

I have an older 27" iMac and the only problem with it is that you have to sit the computer right in front of you rather than somewhere else the way you would with a Pro. So when it runs hot, you can hear the fans. According to reviewers, the new 21" iMacs run cooler than the previous versions, so maybe the 27" will run cooler too.

[kgdrum]

I have an older 27" iMac and the only problem with it is that you have to sit the computer right in front of you rather than somewhere else the way you would with a Pro. So when it runs hot, you can hear the fans. According to reviewers, the new 21" iMacs run cooler than the previous versions, so maybe the 27" will run cooler too.

I think of the new iMacs I'd be a bit leery of the 21" from the info OWC sent out yesterday.
Quote:
"The new 2012s are definitely the most elegant iMacs ever and deserve to be called the best iMacs ever. Compared to the prior 2011 iMacs, the upgrade from USB 2.0 to USB 3.0 (USB 3.0 is about 10X faster) by itself would have been compelling even without the aesthetics, faster video, and faster processors. They are fast, the screen (even though not Retina) is incredibly sharp and clear, and the performance is on par with the current MacPro depending on the application. Unlike the MacPro, however, what you can do inside these new machines to expand performance is severely limited - much more so with the 21.5" model.

We do have the full solution now for upgrading memory in the 21.5". Our 16GB kit will soon ship with all the tools you need to safely remove the screen, remove the logic board components, upgrade the memory, and put it all back together right how it was. Because Apple elected to use glue tape to secure the display to the iMac chassis, this is a more tedious process than it had to be and something that I honestly don't expect many will seek to perform. We do have a rough video online here: showing the entire process and will shortly have one of our full-fledged installation videos posted with the step-by-step instructions. The complete installation kit, including the 16GB memory set for $119.00, can be pre-ordered here: and will begin shipping in a few days following the posting of the DIY 'how-to' video.

In my opinion, this is a lot of form over function with the 21.5" and one has to wonder how hard it would have been to just give us a hatch for this memory. This isn't an issue with the iMac 27" model; which not only Apple supported/approved for enduser memory installations, but also can have up to 32GB of RAM via four modules vs. the 21.5" maxing out at 16GB due to being limited to using two modules.

The additional memory capability and non-hassle of adding memory to the new 27" might be reason enough to hold out for the larger display model (as if the bigger display isn't reason enough). If you're ordering a 21.5" model and even though Apple charges a premium, I suggest you watch the video and decide if you're better off selecting having the 16GB option installed at the factory."

http://list.macsales.com/link.php?M=933 ... L=5159&F=H

So if I was considering an iMac I'd avoid the 21" & go for the 27".

[MIDI Life Crisis]

I'm glad this posted as I was looking for a benchmark program and Geekbench is exactly what I was looking for, so first off thanks for that.

My 2008 3,1 Mac Pro tested out at about 17,800 running the 64 bit test. The stress test ran substantially higher (after 20 minutes) at about 22k.

Also, regarding the earlier comment about fans and heat, I have yet to hear the fans kick in on my machine. You might want to be sure to blow out the dust every few months (more or less depending on your environmental conditions).

I bought this machine about 18 months ago as a stop gap between my G5 and whatever I ended up with. Used and loaded with 2 opticals and 4 HD (and many programs like DP, PT, Logic, every VI you can imagine, etc - which I wiped from the drive, thank you very much). It came out of a pro recording studio un LA from a very nice guy at right at $2k.

If I had to do it again, I'd look at used machines from reputable folks (i.e.- pro studios only). You can save a bundle (no pun intended DP users). Of course a shiny new Mac is a very nice feeling. OTOH, once you drive it off the lot, it looses that value needed to run the Mac Store - which can be thousands.

Unfortunately, I don't have unlimited income (yet... LOL) but my advice would be to at least look at what might available on Craig's list or even refurbs from Apple. i know that is not a "technical" reply, but more of a general business response.

Just saying...

[bayswater]

I think of the new iMacs I'd be a bit leery of the 21" from the info OWC sent out yesterday.

No way you'd want the 21", but you'd also want to wait and see reviews on the 27" too before assuming it will address the shortcomings.

[HCMarkus]

I'm glad this posted as I was looking for a benchmark program and Geekbench is exactly what I was looking for, so first off thanks for that.

My 2008 3,1 Mac Pro tested out at about 17,800 running the 64 bit test. The stress test ran substantially higher (after 20 minutes) at about 22k.

Are you sure yours isn't a 2009? The highest scoring 2008 (3,1) in the Geekbench charts hits 12,158 at 64 bits. There is an 8 core 2009 (4,1 - Intel Xeon X5570 2930 MHz 8 cores) which scores in the range you report, 17,532. Other things (upgraded video card, SSDs, memory) can make some difference, but maybe you got more Mac for your money than you thought!

MLC, If your machine is scoring 17,800 on Geekbench, it can certainly be more than an interim machine!

[MIDI Life Crisis]

MLC, If your machine is scoring 17,800 on Geekbench, it can certainly be more than an interim machine!

Oooops! it was 12,827 with the stress test still about 21,800. Still, not bad for what I need it for.

Sorry for the memory failure (mine, not the machines).

[Aramis]

MLC, If your machine is scoring 17,800 on Geekbench, it can certainly be more than an interim machine!

Oooops! it was 12,827 with the stress test still about 21,800. Still, not bad for what I need it for.

Sorry for the memory failure (mine, not the machines).

For my 3.1 Mac Pro, I got 10,400 for integer test and 17,400 for FPU test !!!!!!

[mikehalloran]

It has To be a pretty warm day for the fans to spin on my 2010 iMac i7. Compared to my G5, G4 and G3s, it is nearly inaudible.

I think back on my Macs that didn't have fans (Mac+, E-Mac, iMac G3) the hard drives were fairly loud.

The way to get the quietest iMac is easy. Use an SSD. They run much cooler and quieter. Per all reports, the drive temp sensors are not connected when the internals are SSDs.

Anyway, I record in my control room without problems unless doing spoken word or true stereo. For those, I record in other locations using a solid state recorder (I've more than one) importing the tracks into my Mac for editing via an SD card.

[mikehalloran]

Here are a couple of 27" iMac screen shots. My 2010 iMac i7 2.93 vs my wife's 2011 i5 2.70.

Apparently, where the i7 kicks butt is processor floating point performance.

i5


i7

[nk_e]

I cannot find the 2.4 ghz 12 core Mac Pro Geekbench results in order to be able to compare to the new iMac 27 i7 quad core .
Also, can somebody confirm that going 64 bit is bringing more virtual instruments processing power ?

My old 2008 Mac Pro is giving me around 10,400 at Geekbench

Should i wait for the next Mac Pro or get a nice iMac 27 i7 ????

I just bought a MacPro 2.66 12 core. I'm not in front of the machine right now but it scored just shy of 20,000 on the geek bench test I believe.

As to which to get, it all depends on form and power need. 24 virtual cores is a beautiful thing to look at via performance meters, but increasingly constraints are going to be around the memory buss architecture and I/O. (That's one of the things that killed my MacPro 2,1 for me...not so much lack of number crunching power as a slow 667mhz memory buss.) The current macPros are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the newer iMacs in buss architectures/speed, I/O (no thunderbolt or whatever it's called, or USB 3), and video performance. (Though on the last one, the old video cards in the current MacPros perform just fine for music production and light pro video production duties.) It used to be that you couldn't expand iMacs with PCI cards, but with ThunderBolt and external chassis (expensive), you can now.

The downside to iMacs? The ergonomics have to fit into your space, there are lower limits to ram expansion, the external expansion chassis is expensive, and the processor taps out at 8 virtual cores I believe. (Which may or may not matter depending on what you do.)

You could hold out for the new MacPro. I didn't because my old machine did not fit comfortably in a 64bit world (among other things). So. I bought a refurb as a stop gap. This machine will last me a couple of three years while the new MacPros are released and "find their feet" over the first couple of generations. When they settle, I'll be in the market for a new machine.

Incidentally, I bought it as a refurb from apple. That's how I buy all of my computers actually. Never had problem one and usually get things at a hefty discount.

MidiLifeCrisis's advice about getting something from a studio is excellent. Many years ago I sold apple computers to professional studios and in general they tended as a group to take excellent care of their machines. (They had to; downtime cost money.) In my limited experience, they often sold the machines to "insiders" i.e., folks who worked at or closely with the studio. It helped to have friends at the studios because the sales usually didn't make it to Craig's List.

[Aramis]

I cannot find the 2.4 ghz 12 core Mac Pro Geekbench results in order to be able to compare to the new iMac 27 i7 quad core .
Also, can somebody confirm that going 64 bit is bringing more virtual instruments processing power ?

My old 2008 Mac Pro is giving me around 10,400 at Geekbench

Should i wait for the next Mac Pro or get a nice iMac 27 i7 ????

I just bought a MacPro 2.66 12 core. I'm not in front of the machine right now but it scored just shy of 20,000 on the geek bench test I believe.

As to which to get, it all depends on form and power need. 24 virtual cores is a beautiful thing to look at via performance meters, but increasingly constraints are going to be around the memory buss architecture and I/O. (That's one of the things that killed my MacPro 2,1 for me...not so much lack of number crunching power as a slow 667mhz memory buss.) The current macPros are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the newer iMacs in buss architectures/speed, I/O (no thunderbolt or whatever it's called, or USB 3), and video performance. (Though on the last one, the old video cards in the current MacPros perform just fine for music production and light pro video production duties.) It used to be that you couldn't expand iMacs with PCI cards, but with ThunderBolt and external chassis (expensive), you can now.

The downside to iMacs? The ergonomics have to fit into your space, there are lower limits to ram expansion, the external expansion chassis is expensive, and the processor taps out at 8 virtual cores I believe. (Which may or may not matter depending on what you do.)

You could hold out for the new MacPro. I didn't because my old machine did not fit comfortably in a 64bit world (among other things). So. I bought a refurb as a stop gap. This machine will last me a couple of three years while the new MacPros are released and "find their feet" over the first couple of generations. When they settle, I'll be in the market for a new machine.

Incidentally, I bought it as a refurb from apple. That's how I buy all of my computers actually. Never had problem one and usually get things at a hefty discount.

MidiLifeCrisis's advice about getting something from a studio is excellent. Many years ago I sold apple computers to professional studios and in general they tended as a group to take excellent care of their machines. (They had to; downtime cost money.) In my limited experience, they often sold the machines to "insiders" i.e., folks who worked at or closely with the studio. It helped to have friends at the studios because the sales usually didn't make it to Craig's List.

Hello ! Nice for you ! Is this a 2012 Mac Pro ? If it is , can you run "Geekbench" on it and give us some numbers like the integer and fpu results ?

[FutureLegends]

Just like nk_e writes, I've Suspected for a while that its the memory performance that kills my Mac Pro 1,1 (that is now basically a 2,1 since I upgraded processor) for VI use. I'm getting processor spikes at uses I feel it should handle with 8 cores á 3ghz.
It scores 10.500-something on geek bench, with CPU somewhere in the 17.000 range but memory is only 2100 or so!

[xgman]

My 27" 3.4 2012 imac pulls about a 14,300 in geekbench whereas my 2010 Mac Pro 6 core 3.33 pulled about a 15,300. Close enough for me to go with the more modern technology in the imac for now. We'll see what 2013 brings.

[Aramis]

My 27" 3.4 2012 imac pulls about a 14,300 in geekbench whereas my 2010 Mac Pro 6 core 3.33 pulled about a 15,300. Close enough for me to go with the more modern technology in the imac for now. We'll see what 2013 brings.

Thanks , Mine is coming too !