Comments on: Mac Benchmarks (Late 2009)

By: General Overview

General Overview — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:21:05 +0000

One question, which isn't a question at all, since it's a bit rhetorical – in as much as it is not at all that hard to figure out Apple's ongoing marketing schemes – is why in the heck doesn't Apple just go ahead and pop a Core i5 and Core i7 in both the 21.5" and the 27", and start moving us to where those iterations of iMacs are going to be in another year? I was at the Apple store the day after they were released, and although I like and can afford both new iMacs, I was particularly drawn to the smaller iMac, since it might fit nicely in a living room setting, say next to an EZ chair (vs. a 15" or 17" MacBook Pro). Damn them, they always make buyers wait, and they're experts at figuring out just how much they can squeeze out of a previous generation of technology. I suppose many of us could Hackintosh our way to OSX, but that too is a pain in the neck as well! BTW, thanks for posting those Core 2 Duo and Core i7 stats, they're quite helpful. ;-0

By: A Name

A Name — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:54:25 +0000

It would be nice if you tagged this post with “mac mini”. “macbook” and “imac”, like previous articles.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:20:30 +0000

The high-end mac processor is a Core i7 860 2.80Ghz. Doing a geekbench browser search "core i7 860" results in scores around 7700. Would the new iMac be expected to score in this range? Do the same processors in different OS's give similar numbers?

Just curious since I've already ordered my iMac.

- Jeff

By: A C

A C — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:14:28 +0000

Yes, the high-end i7 iMac WILL be comparable to the low-end Mac Pro. How do I know? I built a Core i7 hackintosh using the same i7-860 as in the high-end iMac. OS X sees it as 8 cores (though it is technically 4 cores with hyperthreading) and it FLIES! The benchmark results are about 90-95% of what the low-end Mac Pro is capable of.