just wondering if anyone had any cpu benchmarks on this imac.. Im stuck between getting this model or going for a quad core pc? How future proof is the core 2 duo and is this powerful enough for using the Adobe suite extensivley. along with lots of other windows open?
View 3 RepliesIm very confused for this decide Im usually using iMac for Photosop, Flash, and After Effects... Tell me which one I choose for this programs?Old iMac 24-inch 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 DuNVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS with 512MB memory
View 2 Replies View RelatedI wasn't sure whether to post this on the Windows on Mac forum or this but!I purchased the new 2.93 GHz 24-inch iMac yesterday at the Apple Store and the everything works perfectly in the Mac OS. In Boot Camp, however, the sound quality gets really bad.
View 4 Replies View Related[URL] releases the benchmark results of new imacs. [URL] There is no big difference between graphcis cards gt120 and gt130. I dont know, if I have to buy the iMac 2,93 GHz with gt130 or gt120?
View 23 Replies View RelatedIts benchmark figures for the 2009 imac versus the 2008 imac.
I found it very interesting and answered some of the questions that have been posted on this forum over the past few weeks
[URL]
The first Core i7 and Core i5 benchmarks are available. Quite amazing to see how much faster the Core i7 is even compared to the Core i5. (via digg) I'll definitely go for the Core i7 now that I've seen these results.
View 20 Replies View RelatedI'm currently runnung the unibody 17'' at 2.93ghz and 8GB Ram.However I was curious when do you think we'll have quad/ octo in the MBP and 16-32GB Ram?
View 4 Replies View RelatedTwo 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon or Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
what are the differences? how much more do i get with the 2.93? I use the machine for modeling and rendering...
I'm about to make a career change and move into 3D visualization / CGI while continuing with a certain amount of 2D artwork for print. I use Cinema 4D, Photoshop, Illustrator, some Final Cut and Motion and I can see After Effects being added to that list at some point.
My eye has been on the "Two 2.26GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon" Mac Pro, I'd bump the RAM to 8Gb to start with. But like many others I've been reluctant to pay what seems like over the odds especially when we want to believe that a new machine is round the corner.
My AppleCare just ran out a little while ago and now my iMac is starting to shut off. Usually, in iMovie and iPhoto but today if I plug a USB Memory stick in I lose connection to my Bluetooth devices. Yesterday, everytime I tried to open a .pdf file on the USB drive the computer would shut off. I am fairly certain it is the logic board? I wish this had happen a couple months ago then it would have still been covered.
Info:
iMac, Mac OS X (10.7.4)
In my quest for a Mac Pro ...I have now found a 2008 8 core 3.2ghz that is in the price range of what you can buy a 2.93ghz quad core for now ....if there is any minus other than the warranty to considering that 2008 8 core 3.2ghx 8 core over the 2.93 Ghz quad?
View 11 Replies View RelatedThey just tested the "maxed out" 11" and 13" models. [URL] The 13" 2.13GHz model tests about 10% faster than the 1.86GHz.
View 15 Replies View Relatedcan anyone link me? i'm specifically looking for performance benchmarks of the new 13" 2GB MBA vs. a 4GB MBA with the same specs
View 2 Replies View RelatedAlthough some people have the new machines I have not seen any photoshop benchmarks at all.
View 8 Replies View RelatedDiglloyd tested Snow Leopard in both 32 bit and 64 bit kernel modes and noticed that the 64 bit kernel was faster in many photo applications such as lightroom, aperture, photoshop and nikon capture. Anyone else notice any speed differences between 32 and 64 bit kernel modes?
[URL]
Many users on the forums have stated their is no difference between the two modes. If Diglloyd is correct then there is a noticeable difference.
Just added an SSD Boot drive, with the optibay. It seems like alot of people are interested in doing this lately, so I thought I would post some benchmarks. Quite impressive!
The whole process (minus cloning drives and transferring data) took about 15 minutes. I would say it was worth it!
I don't want anything terribly expensive - I just want to test my times against those uploaded to Amazon from PC's.
Info:
Mac OS X (10.7.4), 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD
It was slightly faster than than the GeForce 8800 GT running our six 3D accelerated games.
In another session, we performed a RAM Preview render on 15 Motion 3 templates. The Quadro FX 5600 (and GeForce 8800 GT) were slower than the Radeon HD 2600 XT in 14 out of 15 tests. The Radeon X1900 XT beat the nVidia cards rendering all 15 templates.
Tomorrow we will post results on our Windows Vista 64 tests (Prey, Doom 3, 3DMark06, etc.). As a preview, the Quadro was faster than the Radeon HD 2600 XT but slower than the GeForce 8800 GT running Prey and Doom 3. In the 3DMark06 benchmark the Quadro was faster than the GeForce 8800 GT.
Ok... so... tonight my most badass girlfriend actually BOUGHT me another 1 TB drive as a surprise for the Mac Pro!!! God, you gotta love that girl! This replaced the stock 320 Gig drive which I HAD previously been using for Media only (Itunes library and the like) with a 1TB Western Digital Green drive (Best buy w/ coupon for $206).
Well, I thought I'd devise a little benchmark to test just how crazy fast the Hitachi 1TB that I use as a boot drive is vs the original drive that Apple shipped (320 Western Digital) and others in my system...
So this is what I did. Might be right, might be wrong, don't really care... but I THINK this is a great representative of total, complete "speed and throughput" of a hard drive.
I created a folder called "Test Folder" on my Hitachi 1TB (Boot Drive). I added to this folder the following subfolders / files:
1 Folder Entitled "Movies" containing 12 Large Files = 8.5 Gigabytes
1 Folder Entitled "Guns n Roses" containing 67 Medium Files = 455 Megabytes
Copied / Added the OS X "Extensions" Folder containing 271 Small Files = 208 Megabytes
Copied / Added the OS X "Frameworks" Folder containing 57,263 Tiny Files = 1.49 Gigabytes
This gave me a total of 57,617 Files of VARYING Sizes totaling 10.64 Gigabytes.
I then proceeded to DUPLICATE this folder on each of my drives... which I believe shows a great overall speed indicator...
"read/write/in-cache/out-of-cache/tiny to huge file size"
And as it is doing all of the reading / writing on the SAME DRIVE... that eliminates any drive compatibility problems, slow to fast drive copy speed interpretation, bus issues, etc.
And here are my results... pretty stunning if you ask me... I think Apple really stuck some DOG SLOW drives in there as stock. I honestly think they should be ashamed of themselves.
Time to Duplicate Folder on Stock Hard Drive: (Western Digital 320 Gig WD3200AAJS) = 9 Minutes, 08 Seconds
Time to Duplicate Folder on Hitachi 1TB Replacement: (Hitachi HDS721010KLA330) = 5 Minutes, 35 Seconds
Time to Duplicate Folder on Western Digital 1TB Drive: (Western Digital WD10EACS-00ZJBO) = 6 Minutes, 20 Seconds
Time to Duplicate Folder on Older WD 500GB Drive: (Western Digital 5000AAJS-32YFA0) = 7 Minutes, 18 Seconds
Time to Duplicate Folder on Older WD 400GB Drive: (Western Digital D4000KD-00NAB0) = 8 Minutes, 52 Seconds
I am planning on buying a 15 inch MBP in the near future, but I am waiting to see some gaming benchmarks to decide if I should shell out the extra money for the i7 for the extra VRAM or just stick with the i5. Have any of you seen any sites that compare the two systems? I know barefeats has benchmarks using different apps, and says it will have something on gaming benchmarks soon, but I didn't know if anyone has already done it. Barefeats just updated with their benchmarks, but they used 17 inch MBPs, so the i5 and i7 comparison used the same video card (512 MB) instead of comparing 256 vs 512. How disappointing.
View 17 Replies View RelatedI have a 'aging' 2006 mac pro with dual 2.66 mhz cpu's. The system is snappy enough for most tasks on the mac side but when running windows 7 pro 64 bit and ripping some of my bluerays the cpu's peg at 100% and it takes a while. My question is how does my 2.66ghz dual cpu mac pro compare cpu wise against the new intel core i7 930 cpu family? I know I cannot drop one into my mac pro but I have been thinking about building a new pc with the i7 and picking up a mac mini for my wife who refuses to leave the mac camp then sell my old mac pro.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI would first like to start off with the disclaimer that I am not good at writing guides and I am also not a pro with overclocking but here is my attempt at both. Also I am not liable for damages to your computer and ask fobis has mentioned each gpu even if they are the same may overclock better or worse then the next. So take my overclocking numbers for what they are worth. Experiment and try it out on your own.
Note: This guide assumes your running Windows 7 64bit, and also it assumes that you are new to overclocking.
-------------------------------GUIDE------------------------------
1.First make sure you have a copy of windows installed through bootcamp.
2.Then go ahead and install the drivers that came with bootcamp ( we won't be using the gpu drivers but the rest are going to be useful anyway so might as well go ahead and install them )
3.After you have all that you will want to go here to get a modified driver. This will give you better performance then the bad drivers that apple supplies it will also let you overclock the gpu
4.After you have downloaded both the driver and the INF file open up the driver and it will extract the files to the directory that you choose. It will also try to launch the install but it will fail saying something like " no compatible hardware found " ignore this for now.
5.Now take the INF file and copy it to the folder that the driver was extracted too. It will ask you if you want to overwrite the file just say yes.
6.Now open up the device manager by right clicking on my computer, selecting properties, this should open a new window and on the left there should be something that says device manager.
7.Under the tab that says "display adapters" select the only device that shows up on that tab. Right click it and choose uninstall.
8.After you have done that it will likely mess up your resolution and set it too 800x600 don't worry this is normal. Now just restart your computer.
9.Once you have restarted when it starts back up it will say new hardware found. Now you have to choose to install it manually choose the option that says something along the lines of " search for drivers in specified area "
10.Now it will take you to a new page and on that page there should be an option that says "have disk" choose this and select the directory that you extracted the driver too earlier in this guide. It should find one of the files that it can use and install it just fine.
11.You will need to restart again once this is done but when you start back up your resolution should be fixed if not just right click and hit screen resolution and just change it back to the native resolution.
12. Download Nvidia system tools found here
13. Go ahead and install this it should be self explanatory.
14. Once it is installed open the program and go to the performance tab on the left. ( It might ask you to agree to some terms of use )
15. Just put in these numbers and hit apply
646 for the first one
864 for the second one
and 1314 for the third one
Now your done if your paranoid like me of overheating your computer you can also optionally download and install LubbosFanControl to max out your fans to keep it as cool as possible.
Enjoy your faster GPU!.
----------------------BENCHMARKS-----------------------------
Before OC:
Furmark
Points:912
FPS: min=13 max=22 avg=15
Crysis: 24.89
Unigine Sanctuary Demo (run with everything on defuilt excapt resolution turned down to 1280x800 )
DX10:24.9fps (score:1057)
OpenGL: 23.2 (score:982)
Unigine Tropics Demo: (run with everything on defuilt excapt resolution turned down to 1280x800 )
DX10:18fps (scores 452)
OpenGL:16.3 (scores 410)
Unigine Heaven Demo:
DX10:14.8fps (scores 372)
OpenGL:12.6fps (scores 317)
3DMark06:5975
3DMark Vantage: P2294
After OC:
Furmark
Points: 1081
FPS: min=16 max=26 avg=18
Crysis: 33fps
Unigine Sanctuary Demo (run with everything on defuilt excapt resolution turned down to 1280x800 )
DX10: 31.2fps (scores: 1322)
OpenGL: 28fps (scores: 1211)
Unigine Tropics Demo: (run with everything on defuilt excapt resolution turned down to 1280x800 )
DX10: 21.7fps (scores: 546)
OpenGL:19.8 (scores:498)
Unigine Heaven Demo:
DX10:15.7(scores:395)
OpenGL: 16.2(scores:408) WTF? OpenGL wins? lol
3DMark06:6994
3DMark Vantage: 2922
Notes: Crysis was run at 1280x800 everything on medium excapt physics on very high
Another note: The highest GPU temp underload from Crysis got up to about 78C after about 15mins of running the game. Furmark got the temp up to 80C though after about 15mins also.
I have also played TF2 at max settings @ 1920x1200 for over 2 hours to test stability and it ran fine without any hiccups
Also I feel that this card can be pushed further then this ( I have not tried ) but from what I see it cools a lot better then I expected from a laptop I come from a world of desktop overclocking.
Under Tech specs for new 2009 Mac Pro:
"Turbo Boost dynamic performance (up to 3.33GHz on 8-core 2.93GHz system)"
As this is a feature of the chip I'm assuming this is true for the new Quad core as well. Is it? How can I find out? Any online reviews/overviews/etc. that looks at the new chips?
I have been offered a 2008 3.2GHz 8 Core with 10GB RAM, ATI 4870, 320HD, no warranty/applecare left.
Or, I can buy a new 2009 2.93GHz 4 Core, 3GB RAM, 640HD, GT120
Both about the same price: $2850.00 USD
Which would you choose, and why?
I'm just going to order a new Mac Pro and noticed that it was slightly cheaper to order the base dual processor model and buy the 2.93GHz hex cores myself. A couple of questions arise:
Will my AppleCare still be valid or will I have to keep the 2.4GHz Xeons if I need to return it to Apple for any reason?
Is there market for the 2.4GHz processors?
Can I upgrade to the 3.33GHz processors or will this not work?
By far the most interesting benchmark trend coming out of the latest Macbook Air tests is that of the 320M GPU - is this thing somehow clocked differently than in the Macbook/Macbook Pro?
From:
[URL]
The latest Macbook Pro 13" 2.4 Ghz gets 33 FPS in Call of Duty 4, whereas the Macbook Air 13" (using the same 320M GPU) gets 40 FPS. Even the 1.4Ghz 11" gets 37! So obviously we're not talking about a CPU limited game - the only explanation then is that the GPU in the Macbook Air is clocked differently than in the 13" Macbook Pro, no?
From:
[URL]
Again the Macbook Air clocked at 2.13 ghz is beating the 2.4 Ghz Macbook Pro in World of Warcraft and Portal! And in WOW the 11" 1.4ghz still manages to beat the 2.4 Ghz 13" Macbook Pro.
Anyone have any additional insight into this? Anand did a terrible job of testing these for gaming performance, unfortunately, so he may not have even noticed this trend.
Are there any sites that have done benchmarks for all the different versions of Macbook Pros? I'm interested how much of a difference the 2.53, 2.66, 2.8 and 3.0 ghz processors make.
I searched to see if anything had already been posted before like this, i didnt see anything so i apologise if its already been asked.
Still waiting on my new 27" i7 imac. Trying to figure out if current desk is suitable. Can someone tell me the dimension in inches of the imac 27 from top of desk to the top of the imac
View 7 Replies View RelatedI hope you don't mind helping a guy out in his choice in what he truly needs... so I guess I'll get down to the basics.
First off, music is my main priority when it comes to computing, I write all sorts of electronic music, I'm used to working in Windows under Ableton or FL Studio, so I'm not hip to the Mac software for these functions.
In addition to the electronic music I write, I'm also very much into music instruments, I've been playing drums for around 8 years now, bass for 5 years, guitar even... so I plan on multi-track recording... up to 16, maybe even 32?I do plan on opening up my own home studio, I would be using this PC, (not sure if the MBP or the iMac)
I'm also a lightweight gamer, playing games such as Team Fortress 2, World of Warcraft, or StarCraft II (Diablo 3 will probably be my biggest gaming vice when it comes out) sparingly in my free time, which would be better for this sort of light gaming?I sometimes spend up to 8 hours on the computer, also, so if these screens are too harsh on the eyes after extended periods of time, I'd appreciate if someone could enlighten me to that.
SO, with all that said, which do you guys think would suit me better? (and I'm really thinking the iMac would)... I used to want portability, but I don't think I'd feel comfortable taking a $2,000 laptop with me around campus at the local community college.
- Needs to be able to record up to 32 tracks of audio
- Needs to be able to render high quality tracks
- Minimal latency
- Able to run some of the less graphic intensive games out now
- Easy on the eyes for extended periods of time
Oh, I'm also an amateur filmmaker, I love filming, editing, and producing, etc.Would you guys suggest the i5? i7? Oh, and what clock speed does the 2.93GHz i7 run at when in turbo-boost using all cores?Oh, and what's the resale value of the iMac compared to the MBP? I heard the MBP retain pretty well, is the same true of iMac's?
System Spec: Late 09 21" 3.06, GeForce 9400, 4gb ramCurrently I have itunes and safari running, if i enable the visualizer my imac is noticeably slower, especially when browsing the internet.I thought it might be the fact I was running a second 1080p display from the 9400 would have caused the slow down. But the same thing occurred after i disconnected it. After repairing permissions and restarting, pmram etc.Is the 9400 causing the slowdown? I know its fairly old but itunes visualizer and safari should be quite basic tasks. Its not the end of the world i know but does the 27" imac have similar issues as i plan to upgrade my machine in 2011.
