Apple iMac 3.06GHz unboxing, hands-on, and benchmarking
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted April 29th 2008 11:43AM
posted April 29th 2008 11:43AM
- All machines tested with Xbench 1.3.
- All machines tested were using Leopard.
- You can check the bold Xbench scores to compare the cumulative results for each test.
| MBP (2.5GHz Penryn) | Air (1.6GHz Core 2 Duo) | MacBook (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo) | iMac (2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, previous gen.) | iMac (3.06GHz Core 2 Duo) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CPU | 169.23 | 79.98 | 126.66 | 138.58 | 188.54 |
| GCD Loop | 15.33 Mops/s | 9.67 Mops/s | 13.43 Mops/s | 14.91 Mops/s | 18.90 Mops/s |
| Floating Point Basic | 3.37 Gflop/s | 2.03 Gflop/s | 2.95 Gflop/s | 3.23 Gflop/s | 4.12 Gflop/s |
| vecLib FFT | 3.93 Gflop/s | 1.71 Gflop/s | 3.36 Gflop/s | 3.66 Gflop/s | 4.65 Gflop/s |
| Floating Point Library | 36.64 Mops/s | 12.82 Mops/s | 17.80 Mops/s | 19.43 Mops/s | 44.76 Mops/s |
| Thread Test | 275.13 | 148.81 | 186.4 | 208.77 | 314.45 |
| Computation | 6.93 Mops/s | 2.77 Mops/s | 3.58 Mops/s | 3.56 Mops/s | 8.50 Mops/s |
| Lock Contention | 9.90 Mlocks/s | 7.04 Mlocks/s | 8.48 Mlocks/s | 11.06 Mlocks/s | 10.81 Mlocks/s |
| MBP (2.5GHz Penryn) | Air (1.6GHz Core 2 Duo) | MacBook (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo) | iMac (2.4GHz) | iMac (3.06GHz Core 2 Duo) | |
| Memory Test | 168.11 | 140.42 | 150.23 | 150.82 | 211.78 |
| System | 183.01 | 143.51 | 158.95 | 151.56 | 247.04 |
| Allocate | 922.99 Kalloc/s | 718.86 Kalloc/s | 856.78 Kalloc/s | 657.80 Kalloc/s | 374.06 Malloc/s |
| Fill | 7424.09 MB/se | 5770.30 MB/s | 6480.99 MB/s | 6606.88 MB/s | 9667.21 MB/s |
| Copy | 3522.10 MB/s | 2802.78 MB/s | 2914.92 MB/s | 3014.12 MB/s | 4651.03 MB/s |
| Stream | 155.45 | 137.46 | 142.41 | 150.08 | 185.33 |
| Copy | 3059.86 MB/s | 2621.64 MB/s | 2799.64 MB/s | 2926.68 MB/s | 3653.38 MB/s |
| Scale | 3008.89 MB/s | 2602.03 MB/s | 2797.66 MB/s | 3022.24 MB/s | 3652.08 MB/s |
| Add | 3525.00 MB/s | 3230.58 MB/s | 3196.17 MB/s | 3364.41 MB/s | 4165.23 MB/s |
| Triad | 3523.21 MB/s | 3199.37 MB/s | 3211.97 MB/s | 3328.48 MB/s | 4147.22 MB/s |
| MBP (2.5GHz Penryn) | Air (1.6GHz Core 2 Duo) | MacBook (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo) | iMac (2.4GHz) | iMac (3.06GHz Core 2 Duo) | |
| Quartz Graphics Test | 198.29 | 96.89 | 154.32 | 193.4 | 228.36 |
| Line | 12.43 Klines/s | 6.94 Klines/s | 9.69 Klines/s | 11.64 Klines/s | 15.27 Klines/s |
| Rectangle | 70.01 Krects/s | 32.23 Krects/s | 51.66 Krects/s | 70.02 Krects/s | 252.7 Krects/s |
| Circle | 15.29 Kcircles/s | 7.22 Kcircles/s | 11.54 Kcircles/s | 15.29 Kcircles/s | 16.46 Kcircles/s |
| Bezier | 4.92 Kbeziers/s | 2.49 Kbeziers/s | 3.79 Kbeziers/s | 4.51 Kbeziers/s | 5.64 Kbeziers/s |
| Text | 12.17 Kchars/s | 5.53 Kchars/s | 10.39 Kchars/s | 12.66 Kchars/s | 15.06 Kchars/s |
| OpenGL Graphics Test | 165.99 | 17.26 | 23.36 | 152.66 | 201.68 |
| Spinning Squares | 210.57 frames/s | 21.89 frames/s | 29.64 frames/s | 193.65 frames/s | 255.84 frames/s |
| User Interface Test | 326.63 | 105.81 | 244.28 | 335.18 | 443.26 |
| Elements | 1.50 Krefresh/s | 485.60 refresh/s | 1.12 Krefresh/s | 1.54 Krefresh/s | 2.03 Krefresh/s |
| MBP (2.5GHz Penryn) | Air (1.6GHz Core 2 Duo) | MacBook (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo) | iMac (2.4GHz) | iMac (3.06GHz Core 2 Duo) | |
| Disk Test | 33.08 | 24.05 | 39.64 | 80.72 | 78.47 |
| Sequential | 60.60 | 42.21 | 66.07 | 115.15 | 106.39 |
| Uncached Write | 52.17 MB/s [4K blocks] | 30.96 MB/s [4K blocks] | 53.34 MB/s [4K blocks] | 72.17 MB/s [4K blocks] | 84.32 MB/sec [4K blocks] |
| Uncached Write | 47.88 MB/s [256K blocks] | 31.19 MB/s [256K blocks] | 47.63 MB/s [256K blocks] | 66.51 MB/s [256K blocks] | 77.36 MB/sec [256K blocks] |
| Uncached Read | 9.89 MB/s [4K blocks] | 7.27 MB/s [4K blocks] | 10.83 MB/s [4K blocks] | 27.81 MB/s [4K blocks] | 17.43 MB/sec [4K blocks] |
| Uncached Read | 39.17 MB/s [256K blocks] | 30.42 MB/s [256K blocks] | 49.62 MB/s [256K blocks] | 69.83 MB/s [256K blocks] | 80.85 MB/sec [256K blocks] |
| Random | 22.75 | 16.81 | 28.31 | 62.13 | 62.16 |
| Uncached Write | 0.81 MB/s [4K blocks] | 0.57 MB/s [4K blocks] | 1.03 MB/s [4K blocks] | 2.67 MB/s [4K blocks] | 2.51 MB/sec [4K blocks] |
| Uncached Write | 18.56 MB/s [256K blocks] | 18.35 MB/s [256K blocks] | 22.73 MB/s [256K blocks] | 48.45 MB/s [256K blocks] | 62.96 MB/sec [256K blocks] |
| Uncached Read | 0.41 MB/s [4K blocks] | 0.35 MB/s [4K blocks] | 0.48 MB/s [4K blocks] | 0.63 MB/s [4K blocks] | 0.66 MB/sec [4K blocks] |
| Uncached Read | 18.44 MB/s [256K blocks] | 13.28 MB/s [256K blocks] | 19.31 MB/s [256K blocks] | 27.08 MB/s [256K blocks] | 28.77 MB/sec [256K blocks] |
@z,
god, you're such an anti-mouseless-keyboardless-cord zealot.
Apple wants you to upgrade and pay more for the wireless equipment.
Kinda like how the laptops dont even come with the remotes anymore. Now you have to add on an additional $19 for that lil piece of crap remote. What good is having FrontRow pre-installed on the machine if you have to buy a $19 add-on. Its like they stole a page out of MS book with the original Xbox. It came with DVD playback capability but you had to go out and purchase the DVD remote/IR module to actually do it. I like Apple, but come on guys... you cant include the remote that has a manufacturing cost of maybe $4.
I see your argument, but there's little point of carrying something that can be lose easily, and takes up room.
Also, most people aren't really going to watch a DVD from far away on their laptop, they're most likely to be watching it on a plane or something, where you are close to the screen and don't need the remote.
Agreed, Kizor. I like the idea of the remote, but it just doesn't work well for portables. It can't be easily shoved into a bag without fear of cracking (it happened to me) or running out of juice because the buttons are always being pushed. I do use it at home, when I connect my MacBook to my audio setup, and I do find it useful, but if it's going to be used for portables it needs a power switch and more durability.
Ummm... Any of you heard of rechargeable keyboard/mouse - haven't had to recharge the mouse yet, but my backlit keyboard has lasted a week so far - plus you can use it while charging.
So apart from perhaps gaming, how are wired k/m's better?
Wow, my 800$ hack still kills these xbench scores. :)
your $800 hack also has an actual range of video cards to chose from and run. funny how a legit mac has only a few (rather poor) choices, the 8800GT being the best.
my next computer may be just a custom built with hacked OS X.
And that's important because raw speed is the only reason anybody could possibly have for buying an iMac, is that it? Are you really that clueless?
And it still looks like crap, and is not even close to being in the same category as the iMac. Shutup
Zak, I actually own an iMac so no I am not that clueless. I was just saying that my 1 Year old system still runs faster than the newest OC'd iMac.
Justin, Looks like crap??? I have it in a Mac Pro case.
zak, considering that its running OS X already, what else would be so important other than raw speed? style? does a tool that sits next to your designated masturbation area really need to be anything more than a tool? its a computer, not a fashion statement or anything.
You know people are idiots when they start mentioning masturbation.
hellouser - What could be more important than raw speed? Did you seriously ask that question? How about ergonomics, design, sound level (as in, it doesn't sound like a jet taking off), footprint, convenience, aesthetics... any of this ringing a bell?
There are people who actually factor those things in when they buy a computer. They're called "average people". You know, not the .01% of people who like to build their own computers for day to day use? And these are the people who Apple builds computers for. Why you have yet to comprehend this simple concept is beyond me.
See: My Hackintosh has a 8800whateverGSTS XL.
Well, it has a crappy case, crappy design, unsupported OS, no Apple Service and probably you don't even pay for your software because your 800 $ Hackintosh plus Leopard plus iLife will be more like a 1000$ Hackintosh, right?
DOn't you think the 999$ iMac would be a great computer for my mom, sister, girlfriend and the display would be ok, too?
How much speed do they need? The iMac is already overpowered, as is every Mac out there, for consumers.
And: the price is so totally justified.
And it proves again: the whining is all about stupid gamers.
The iMacs are fast enough for everything ... except Crisis.
It's all about stupid games ... I knew it ... gamers ... haha.
I don't know... I don't think Mac's design are as interesting as they used to be. This is elegant, but it doesn't make me go "wow" as earlier models did. Imac G4 especially.
I wish Apple had the guts to start taking som chances again.
Yeah, I agree with you there. I've owned each generation of iMac, just about to get this one, but it's just not wow... Especially compared to the crazy G4 lamp iMac. That was a fantastic design.
This design... playing it safe perhaps? Not that they need to.
In person these AL iMacs are beautiful. A lot better looking than the G4 iMac and its lamp monitor. When comparing the two the G4 looks like a toy versus the AL that resembles minimalist design at its best.
it's more like they're running out of possible case improvements. How many ways can you design an all-in-one?
I like the dark minimalist looks of the Aluminum iMacs, but I love the G4's unconventional looks much more.
I have to agree with the personal taste argument. But, I have hard time just sitting in front of this generation of iMacs. I know the goal is to reduce the overall footprint but to me the chin of the bezel is just distracting dead space. I've wanted to buy one since the switch to intel but every time I sit in front of one at the apple store it drives me nuts. I'd pull the trigger tomorrow if they made them thicker and lost the chin.
does the unboxing of a speed-bumped but otherwise unchanged mac need to be a feature; akin to the mention of the bump yesterday being breaking news? or does the "feature" just denote the benchmark tests?
p.s. not fanboy criticism; im typing this on a mac, i was just curius
qte: p.s. not fanboy criticism; im typing this on a mac, i was just curius /qte
pussy :)
Yeah, I too have a Mac (an Aluminum 20" iMac in fact) but I also feel the same way.
Maybe it's just the bitter taste of knowing that I don't have one of the newest computers on the Macintosh Block, but I do feel it's unnecessary.
Ah well, each to their own. I'm sure some will find this useful.
I don't know but it did remind me how pissed I was when I bought my iMac after Leopard only to get a Tiger box, Tiger installed, and a Leopard upgrade disk thrown in.
I just know if I'm ever selling this I'll find it very difficult to persuade the potential buyer it's actually a "Leopard" iMac, grrr!
I'm not a boy fan... I'm just curious too.
I wish they'd offer a matte screen option.
I know Apple banks on the vanity of many mac users, but I don't really want to see a mirror when I'm typing.
Yeah, picture 18 in the gallery is a perfect example. You can see everything the screen is facing (the windows, the photographer) just fine, but the screen itself is almost illegible.
It'd have been nice if you would have included a Powermac G5 and Mac Pro for perspective. Some of us haven't made that jump yet (read: me).
A very nice update indeed. The Xbench scores are quite impressive as you stated.
I know there are some other upgrades at work here (faster RAM, better Graphics Card. But I would love to know how the 3.06GHz compares to the 2.8GHz model I bought last November.
Are these numbers posted anywhere?
You can see data from other people who have submitted their results to Xbench:
http://db.xbench.com/
Unleash the "I can build my own crapbox PC for half the cost!" whiners.
LOL
Anybody who says that is being ridiculous. This is a really nice machine despite the above mentioned video card limitations. Much better than the comparable Sony all-in-one PC's.
Unleash the "PC's R THA SUXORS" comments while you're at it too.
Dear Apple,
Would more than 3 frickin USB ports be too much to ask? There's plenty of room back there for crying out loud. MORE PORTS PLEASE! What would adding another 3 ports cost, a measly couple of bucks?
The whole sleek iMac thing kind of loses its magic when you have to run a bunch of cables through a USB hub.
Its called a USB Hub. Might want to invest in one.
Sleek? The side of that screen is about 2 1/2 inches thick. It's a brick, not sleek. Design over functionality is Apples moto and the design of this thing is fugly.
@PG
It's sleek as far as computers go.
Remember that the ENTIRE computer is stuffed in there behind the screen. How fat is your Windows Tower? 50cm?
Get over it.
Thanks for the brilliant insight, Lawrence. I *do* have a USB hub. You might want to try reading:
"The whole sleek iMac thing kind of loses its magic when you have to run a bunch of cables through a USB hub."
buy a different computer. you don't get everything you want.
The way Apple designed the keyboard, you only need one USB for both the keyboard and the mouse. Switch to bluetooth and you need none. That would leave three for other devices such as an external drive and an iPod and one free for whatever. I think they factor that in when they decided how many USB ports are needed. I'm currently using two out of the six available for my mouse and keyboard on my PC. I only need two more for an external drive and iPod.
Actually, you would think a hub would clean things up - you could hide the hub behind/underneath the desk and only have one cable plugging into the Imac.
Looks a bit ugly honestly, time to come up with a new design. FUGLY
It's actually pretty good. Could be better though.
Um, this is a new design. It's less than a year old. And you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think many would call it "ugly."
The only thing I wish they would change is make it all aluminum (no plastic back), for environmental reasons. I'm sure Apple will change that when it becomes cost-effective to do so.
You don't like glass and aluminum and black? What are you? Elton John?
I don't like the shape of this thing and the massive empty space on the bottom. Not to mention how thick the thing is. It's F.U.G.L.Y., the materials used have nothing to do with how this thing looks like a microwave.
@PG:
Thick? Thick???
You *do* realize this is an *entire computer* and not just an LCD display, right?