iMac Performance (May 2008)

Posted May 1st, 2008 in Geekbench, Mac OS X, iMac | Comments

iMac (Early 2008)

Earlier this week Apple released updated iMacs that, among other things, feature new faster Penryn processors, faster memory, and a faster Santa Rosa chipset.

What do these improvements mean for iMac performance? Let’s take a look.

Setup

We used Geekbench 2, our cross-platform benchmark, to measure the processor and memory performance of the new iMacs. Here is the configuration of the four test machines. Note that each machine hasn’t been upgraded at all (i.e., it was tested with Apple’s default configuration for each model).

  • iMac (Early 2008)

    • Intel Core 2 Duo @ 3.06GHz
    • 2.00 GB 800 MHz DDR2 SDRAM

  • iMac (Early 2008)

    • Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.80GHz
    • 2.00 GB 800 MHz DDR2 SDRAM

  • iMac (Early 2008)

    • Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.66GHz
    • 2.00 GB 800 MHz DDR2 SDRAM

  • iMac (Early 2008)

    • Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.40GHz
    • 1.00 GB 800 MHz DDR2 SDRAM

If you’re not familiar with Geekbench 2, scores are calibrated against a baseline score of 1000 (which is the score a Power Mac G5 @ 1.6GHz would receive). Higher scores are better.

Results

Overall Performance

iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 3.06GHz		 3995
 
iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.80GHz		 3728
 
iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.66GHz		 3513
 
iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.40GHz		 3220
 

Integer Performance

iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 3.06GHz		 3518
 
iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.80GHz		 3253
 
iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.66GHz		 3106
 
iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.40GHz		 2805
 

Floating Point Performance

iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 3.06GHz		 5574
 
iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.80GHz		 5186
 
iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.66GHz		 4711
 
iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.40GHz		 4445
 

Memory Performance

iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 3.06GHz		 3037
 
iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.80GHz		 2877
 
iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.66GHz		 2882
 
iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.40GHz		 2582
 

Stream Performance

iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 3.06GHz		 2064
 
iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.80GHz		 1993
 
iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.66GHz		 2009
 
iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.40GHz		 1665
 

Conclusions

One question I’m always asked after publishing benchmarks like this is whether it’s worth getting the high-end model or not. Usually the answer comes down to personal preference and budget; in other words, the answer is “it depends”. To help answer that answer this time around I thought I’d try something new; I divided the cost of each iMac by its Geekbench score, coming up with a “Cost Per Point” metric. Below is a chart that lists the Cost Per Point (in cents) for each model, including the base model with a 2GB RAM upgrade. Lower, in this case, is better:

iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 3.06GHz		 55
 
iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.80GHz		 48
 
iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.66GHz		 43
 
iMac (Early 2008) (with 2GB)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.40GHz		 40
 
iMac (Early 2008) (with 1GB)
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.40GHz		 37
 

If you’re looking for the best value in terms of raw processing power, the best iMac to get is the base model. Even after upgrading the RAM in the base model it’s still more cost-effective than the mid-range 20-inch iMac.

That said, this analysis only takes processor and memory performance into account. It doesn’t take into account the extra features you get with each model, like larger hard drives and better video cards. Personally, I’d recommend the 2.66 GHz 20-inch iMac; the extra hard drive space and video memory offset the slight disadvantage it has against the 2.4 GHz 20-inch iMac in terms of value.

Update: A number of folks have pointed out that this comparison doesn’t take into account the differences in screens between the 20-inch and 24-inch iMacs; not only is the 24-inch iMac larger, but it also comes with a better display capable of showing more colors. This was something I thought about when I was writing this post, and I came to the conclusion that if you want larger or better screen, you’re going to get it. You’re not going to even consider the 20-inch iMac. You’ll probably want to know whether it’s worth getting the high-end 24-inch iMac, a decision that’s hopefully made easier with the above charts!

  • Fil

    Hi everyboby,


    Does any one got the 24' with ATI card ? Is the graphic card not to "small" for this 24 HD screen ?
    I am looking for the 24' with Nvidia card, it seems to be the better choice.

  • René

    Hi, tomorrow I will get my brandnew 3.06, 4 Gb, 1 Tb IMac, and I guess that, as I am still working now with my Indigo G3 iMac, I will notice the difference, or not...? I agree with you that spending a bit more gives you many years of good performance. My old IMac will still do some jobs for me in the future. As you see I am not too competitive. For me a computer is not part of my ego, it is just a tool. Of course I will have a much better tool from now on.

  • Ingersoll

    I'm especially curious how the 2008 2.8GHz model compare the 2007 "extreme" 2.8GHz version. With those 2007's heading for the clearance and refurb bin is the difference noticeable or does it perhaps even outgun the 2008 model in some cases?

  • Dick Longshaft

    It is tempting to boil down anything power/penny, especially in this stat driven age, but there has always been a premium for power that is just barely better then average. Look no further then triple A baseball to the Majors, Volkswagen GTI to the Rabbit, and living in Manhattan to Queens.


    With that said - I do believe that for once, the top of the line iMac has finally asserted itself at the top of the iMac food chain. I was on the fence with the last generation, but with the increased possessor speed working in conjunction with the 512 graphic card they will get my 2 grand.


    I have been buying Apples since the late 80s and have always spent $2000, seems to be the price that get you at least 5 years of decent performance.

  • James

    When you benchmarked the memory for the 2.4 model, was that with 1 GB of ram? I suspect adding a matched 1 GB stick would help those numbers.

  • Kaleb

    Have you ever done this with the MacBook Pro? More precisely, have you done the Cost Per Point with the MBP so that we can see what is the most cost efficient laptop...

  • This completely ignores the fact that the 24" iMac has a 24-bit display, while the 20" iMac display is 18-bit. For critical Photoshop work, that can make a difference.

  • Norlando

    My recommendation would be to purchase the 2.66 GHz 20 inch iMac with 4 GB of RAM and a 500 GB hard drive. I’m also glad to see apple drop memory prices. Thanks for the article guys…

  • Shan

    Good results. 20" Base models looks great for the value. Up 4 Gb from third party vendor, its gonna rock. Do not forgot it can extend to another monitor as well.

  • Russell Denney

    Thanks for the performance data. As you know, when a new/updated model comes out, the old goes on sale. It would be nice if we could see the old model data side by side with the new. It would be a great help in deciding which to purchase.


    Thanks again,
    Russ

  • Michael

    It doesn´t take into account the size of the display either, so really, this last benchmark is pretty useless. Going from 20 to 24 inch screen is a lot better, believe me.

blog comments powered by Disqus