Apple updates iMac line with Intel Core i3, i5 and i7 processors - Page 4

I suggest you do not purchase one then the price (difference) is irrelevant.

The top end 27-inch quad core iMacs are definitely going backwards in terms of graphics horsepower for games.
While the older ATI 4850 was an underclocked version of the desktop part, the 5770 is not directly related to the desktop counterpart, sporting 400 instead of 800 shaders. On top of that, the 5770 has less bandwidth (128 vs. 256) than the 4850, which may or may not be offset by the memory (GDDR5 vs. GDDR3).
However, if you don't play games, I would argue the new GPU is better for applications like Photoshop which benefit from a larger memory buffer.
Still, if you play games, it is definitely a step back even if you consider playing DirectX 11 games under windows, because they can be played by a DirectX 10.1 card.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mob...0.23245.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-ATI...0.13975.0.html

The refurbished iMac 2.8 Quad Core i7 can be picked up here:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/G0...co=MTU0MzQ1NjE

Thanks dorotea...plus she likes getting presents from her Dad, especially if it's an Apple procduct!

Upgrading from G to N will make her LAN faster, but it won't necessarily make Internet faster since maybe her DSL/cable is slower than G already.

We're getting a bit off-topic with regards to this thread, so I'll keep this brief. There are number of other forums where this debate has been exhausted ad-nauseum.

I think that you and I are in agreement vis-a-vis the inferiority of decreased bit-rate iTunes offerings when compared to DVD, regardless of on what it is watched. Where we disagree is on the equivalence of the "lean-forward" experience (iPad, notebook, desktop monitor viewed at a close distance) to the "lean-back" experience (Full size 1080p television viewed at a distance). The primary advantage to BluRay over DVD is the ability to offer higher resolution video and multi-channel sound at higher data-rates. On small screens and low-power computer speakers, these advantages are not leveraged to their full potential. I would argue that they are so minimally leveraged as to be unnoticeable. Hence my stance that the relative premium pricing on BluRay (as compared to DVD) is a waste of money if not viewed on appropriate equipment.

No it's not, it's not even close. The 5770 is almost as fast as the 4890 in DX10/DX10.1 and DX9 games, if you keep the resolution down - but the 5670 is miles behind.

5770/5750
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2856/5

and there are hundreds more to back this up - in that graph a single 5770 or 5750 are way behind the 4890, and the 5670 has less than half the performance of a 4890

5670
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2917/5

I know this is rude, but you're so far out on this one, I wonder why you posted on the subject?

Can you elaborate? Unless you have more than a 20mb connection why would n-protocol/hardware be better than g-protocol/hardware? You probably get a better reception over a greater distance, but other than that???

I can't believe there are people complaining about the new iMac. This is the best value for a computer I've ever seen. Some people here really need to crawl into a bush and die slowly.

It has:
Faster, newer processors
1333MHz memory
SDXC

And, as others have pointed out, it's a summer update

Plus, it's the first time the basic lines get dedicated GPUs with GDDR3 instead of stinkin 9400Ms or even the rather great (for a notebook) 320M.

This is special because this is a freaking ALL-IN-ONE. People seem to forget that, 'cuz otherwise there wouldn't be any reason to troll

Here, compared to some stinkin' Dell some loser said was better.

I pitted the standard i5 27" against a Dell XPS 9000 with the following:

Genuine Windows® 7 Ultimate, 64bit, English
Intel® Core™ i7-920 processor(8MB L3 Cache, 2.66GHz)
4GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz - 4 DIMMs
1TB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive
ATI Radeon HD 5450 1GB DDR3
Dell UltraSharp U2711 27-inch Monitor
16X DVD+/-RW Drive
AY410 2.1 Stereo Speakers with Subwoofer
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
Dell 1525 Wireless-N PCIe Card
Logitech Cordless Desktop MX 5500 Revolution

Mac OS X WINS. No question about that.
iLife. WIN for the iMac.
So the Dell has an i7 instead of an i5, but the clock is slightly lower, so we can pretty much say they are TIED.
The iMac WINS in RAM since it's 1333Mhz versus 1066Mhz
Both have the same HD. TIED
iMac's ATI 5750 not only is faster by itself, but its GDDR5 is also more advanced than the Dell's GDDR3 memory. iMac WINS, which is quite satisfying since it proves Apple isn't 3 years behind in GPU tech anymore. And the 5450 is Dell's recommended option. LOL
The UltraSharp is LED backlit, but doesn't have IPS. I've seen IPS and non-IPS screens side-by-side, and it is a noticeable difference. iMac WINS
The DVD is faster on the Dell (probably because of the vertical position on the iMac), but strangely no Double Layer. TIED
Both have 2.1 speakers with no fluff, and both have 7.1. However, the iMac has Optical I/O, something the Dell lacks.WIN for the iMac.
The Dell has Wireless-N but no Bluetooth. iMac WINS
I gave the Dell a wireless set with some fluff to compensate for Magic Mouse's own fluff. TIED
iMac has a precision aluminum enclosure. Dell has a painted plastic enclosure. iMac WINS
iMac has an SDXC card slot. Dell doesn't have a card reader at all. iMac WINS
No iSight or Mic for the Dell either. iMac WINS

So the iMac won 10 (9 if you are a M$ sheep), tied 4, and lost none.
Please DO NOTE that while iMac's memory come in 2x2Gb DIMMs, Dell's come in 4x1Gb DIMMs. Yay to Dell cheapo bastards.

Price:The iMac costs $1999. The Dell costs $2633.98

YOU SEE THAT TROLLS? That's 31.7% more expensive. MORE EXPENSIVE.

Did I mention the Dell IS NOT AN ALL-IN-ONE?.

Apple iMac. Faster, sleeker, and cheaper. How's that Apple tax working for ya, Microsoft trolls?

EDIT: I forgot to mention there is no eSATA or USB3 on the Dell either. Quit yer whining. Also added iLife to the list.

What is the sustainable write speed for those SSDs?

E.g. OCZ indicates always 2 speeds for writing the data. And in my testing it really lies in this range.

* Read: Up to 260 MB/s
* Write: Up to 260 MB/s
* Sustained Write: 140 MB/s
* Max IOPS: 15,000 (4K random)

So YOU are the guy who said a Dell would be better.
Next to my giant comparison post, you simply look like a troll.

Oh, I forgot, that's what you are.

http://www.amd.com/us/products/noteb...750-specs.aspx

You're only getting a slightly faster clock speed and drawing more power with the 5770 vs. 5750.

The same memory bandwidth, number of streams processors for OpenCL, etc.

They chose the 5750 to save on Heat and power consumption while retaining the same set up options for OpenGL and OpenCL.

Good choice.

Why not just go alien ware?
Intel® Core™ i7 920 2.66GHz (8MB Cache) Quad Core Processor
Dual 1GB GDDR5 ATI Radeon™ HD 5670 CrossfireX™ Enabled
6GB Triple Channel 1333Mhz DDR3
1TB - SATA-II, 3Gb/s, 7,200RPM, 32MB Cache HDD
Single Drive: 24X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability
Dell UltraSharp U2711 27-inch Monitor

$2,588.00

Of course anyone who typically takes shots at Apple doesn't buy from Dell so it's all moot point... you could newegg that system for dirt cheap. Unfair comparison? Sure.. but you need to realize what people are comparing against Apple before you go off on tangents like this IMHO.

Take it back to your local Apple Store. Today. This afternoon, if possible. And be nice about it. No, be exceedingly nice. The store manager has the power to help you out, so do everything in your power to make that as easy as possible.

If that doesn't work, call Apple instead.

Let us know how it worked out.

The 5750 has 10% fewer texture units than the 5770 (36 Vs 40) and 10% fewer stream processor (720 Vs 800) as well as lower clock speed and a much lower fill rate. On high resolution screens, this can make a difference between playable and not playable.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2856/6

Not Intel, probably Oxford, maybe TI.

But then again, I said specifically said to blame Intel for the lack of built-in USB 3.0 support.

FireWire is a separate issue.

Great lineup. Really excited about the new iMac's capabilities...

...just really wanted a Blu-ray drive...\ so I guess I'll just stick with my current iMac until the beginning of next year and hope for the best that the next iteration includes one.

Apple has really got to get off of this anti-Blu-ray kick as I believe a whole lot of Mac faithful wants the tech inside their Mac hardware. It just seems they (Apple) are blinded by their downloadable movie content paradigm and most certainly the claim of high licensing fees from the BDA (not just Sony, but Panasonic, Philips, Pioneer, etc) is just posturing as these "fees" haven't stopped any other computer manufacturer in putting it in their lineups at a very cheap cost.

At least offer it as a more expensive BTO option, my gosh. It has only been 4/5 years since Blu-ray has been out and the BDA has even simplified its licensing scheme a year ago at an estimated 40%...

http://www.slashgear.com/blu-ray-fou...ocess-2535725/

...time to embrace the Blu-ray Apple. C'mon already.

But other than that, these new iMacs are superb! Maybe in 2011 they'll begin to adopt the Light Peak technology as well!...

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/24/v...le-transferri/

...one can only hope.

Does using an embiggened font somehow make your argument more compelling?

Or less...

The 5750 is an MXM mobile part and is not comparable to the desktop part, sporting only 400 shaders:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mob...0.23245.0.html

All available evidence at this point makes me believe that Apple has not the intention to include BR drives.

New Lineup is looking very Nice.

Wish I could get one, to replace my Gaming PC.
Maybe early 2011

You are omitting lots of things that could greatly alter price should you put it. With W7 Ultimate, an i5 with 2.66, one 5770, card reader, 4Gb of memory, and no FireWire, or Optical Audio, or Wireless/Fancy Mouse and Keyboard, or being an All-in-one, still get you a (slightly better looking and faster) system that is still inferior to the $1999 iMac for $2658.

And people who take shots at Apple rarely are the "LOLZ I GOT IT CHEAPA" kind; those don't even pretend they care about eSATA and whatever, they just drool over CPUs and GPUs.

The people who take shots at Apple are people like kotatsu: they think they are getting a better deal with Dell/Alienware/Whatever and that we are Mac Sheep who pay much more for a pretty logo. They conveniently forget those little big details that make Macs so superior, and actually cheaper.

Fine, I took them out, but kept the ones about being an All-In-One; it is something people really need to remember.

That could be due to outside factors. It's not like they can just put it in without licensing etc. Same as with blu-ray.

Oh dear oh dear, what a muddle. So many fanboys out to defend Apple's refusal to adopt blu-ray and USB 3. "Why would we want these new fangled 'technologies'! Steve tells us they are no good, he is always right. Hail Steve!". Etc.

Okay, here's why blu-ray and USB 3 are good.

Blu-ray - Movies come on blu-ray discs. DVD is on it's way out, blu-ray is it's replacement. Avatar sold 40% of it's units on BD, so this is hardly a niche format with no future. No other format delivers 45mbit 1080p video with lossless 7.1 audio. iTunes downloads, loaded with toxic DRM and at a whopping 5mbit 720p are clearly not comparable. Why would I want to watch a movie on my computer? Perhaps because my wife is using the KURO downstairs, or perhaps I just want to ripp my BDs so I can watch them on my iPhone 4 or iPad.

USB 3 - USB is the standard for external hard drives. Yes there are a few here and there with firewire or eSATA, but USB basically dominates the market. USB 2 is too slow for external hard drives if you transfer a lot of data. Therefore USB 3 is the solution.

I do hope that makes sense, even to the most angry of mac heads. If I were you, I'd take this refusal to properly update the PC line as a clear sign that Apple is beginning it's exit front he PC market altogether. Funnily enough, Dell, HP etc have had BD drives in their PCs for a very, very long time now, perhaps because they actually give a damn about consumer choice and new technology.

This is an exceedingly lame update after 10 months. The CPUs are only 5-10% faster and the GPUs are a sideways step from last year's weak offerings.

"What took you so long?" is my response to finally seeing 1333 RAM paired with Core i CPUs.

Oh and I just love the fact that you can't order an iMac with just the magic trackpad. They force you to buy one of their stupid mouses.

I knew this update wouldn't be impressive, but I really didn't expect it to be this underwhelming. I'm so glad I spent my iMac money on new golf equipment.

I haven't noticed every other machine out there with all of these. It's still fresh tech and there could be licensing and other issues.

Now when you can get them on even the dumpiest of cheapo computers but not Apple, there's a problem.


Why is anyone shocked about this. Jobs has all but said there will never be built in Blu-ray in the Macs. He is going with digital downloads and SD cards. It's clear in his statements and in their actions.


Based on what? That they aren't designing their systems the way you and the supergeeks that make up perhaps 5% of the customer base want them to be designed. Get over it. You and your buddies are a serious minority. And Apple is a business that is about making scads of money, so they are going to design for the bigger group especially in terms of their imacs and laptops. And that group doesn't care about esata, usb 3.0 etc. Nor are they bothered by a lack of blu-ray in their computers cause they would rather watch them on their big 40"+ tvs. Especially since so many blu-rays come with free digital copies for their computers, ipads etc

I really have no idea what you are talking about. The iMac looks pretty, if that's what's most important to you, but that fancy metal body won't help much when you try to ripp a BD or plug a UDB 3 hard drive into it.

Specs matter, especially with stuff as absolutely fundamental as optical drives and connectivity.

But you'd still need a RAID array to really benefit from the faster connection. I didn't look up to your original post and mixed your's with all the ones asking for eSATA in addition to faster FW. At least faster FW would be backward compatible, and so would be more reaonsable request. And you could attached multiple drives to help take up all that extra bandwith that a single drive on an eSATA port wouldn't be able to make use of. But that wouldn't really help you with backups which are likely targeting a single backup target, so you would still likely need a RAID array. And in that case Apple probably considers you outside of their target demographic for the iMac and thinks you should buy a Mac Pro.

does using a word like embiggened make you somehow more like Sarah Palin

Or less ...

But are they any good. Technically having a feature so you list it on your tech specs isnt the same as having a feature that is viable for your product. Then there is the potential issue of Apple not being able to get enough product from NEC to satisfy their requirements.

For example, when SATAIII came out people expected Apple to jump on that but that tests from AnandTech showed they were often worse than SATAII performance and when better werent reliable or useful enough to recommend.

That may not be the case here, but we need to consider it from Apples perspective.

Prepare to never own a Mac. Because the company is unlikely to ever put a drive (even just a reader) in the machines or even offer native playback. Their own comments and actions have played to this.

The only 'support' is likely to remain in the pro apps as the ability to create the high def video and audio which would then be funnelled into 3rd party apps for disc construction (including menus) and burning on an external drive or 3rd party internal in a Pro tower.

Meanwhile Apple will party into those working on codecs for online video of 'blu-ray' quality without an excess file size overhead.

I do video editing, web design, photography using photoshop and apeture, and some light animation.

Torn between the 21.5" and the 27". If I go 27", I might as well go quad core I guess.

But if I go with the 3.2ghtz 21.5" apple says the i3 is turbo boosted(unlike the base 21.5")....so I was thinking there is no real reason to get the i5 version for $180 more. I mean the diff would seem minor for the above tasks right?

But if I did go with the 27" dual core....would the i5 help since the screen is bigger? Or would it not matter?

Also the 27" wether it's dual or quad core gives you the option for an ATI Radeon 5750 graphics card with 1gb of sdram over the included ATI 5670 with 512mb of sdram. What tasks of the ones I listed above would help the most in?

Lastly...if I went with the 27" without the SSD option, could I add one later to compliment the HDD 1tb drive I'd Get now?

Thanks

After doing some part to part price comparisons, I found that the base iMac is a little over 200 dollars more expensive than if you built your own computer with identical specs and chips (including OSX, iLife and iWork).

My serious question to all of you Apple fans, what about the computer is worth the extra money to you?

Serious question to Apple haters, is it worth the 200 dollars to build your own and troubleshoot a hackintosh, or linux, or windows?

(Me personally, I can see pros and cons to both sides.)

According to Apple the 3.2GHz Core i3 supports TurboBoost
According to Intel the 3.2GHz Core i3 does NOT support TurboBoost

One of them isn't telling the truth.

Actually, it makes me look like a Simpsons fan. Which I am.

Um, it's supported by Apple?

YES! It Would be WORTH $200. Even if I COULD build my own "hackintosh" I WOULDNT. Some people just don't want to slap together their own computer out of various parts a la Frankenstein. Yes, part of it is the clean "look"....but mostly it's the hassle. I don't want to go thru the hassle. I like the simplicity of the all in one iMac, and personally don't want to worry about getting the right components. When I get an iMac, I KNOW it will all work seamlessly. I don't want to create a computer out of hodge podge parts just to save $200. Plus I'd rather use all that time and energy on my creative projects.

Nuff said.

I don't know one way or the other, but this wouldn't be the first time that Apple ordered custom silicon from Intel.

It's possible that only the Apple version of that CPU supports TurboBoost; the same way it was possible that only the Apple version of the 2.0GHz C2D in the mini supported hardware virtualization (i.e. Intel VT-x).

Apple is not expecting the family to gather around the computer to watch a movie. Sony is (with their TV and Blu-Ray player). Apple expects you to download the movie and watch it on an airplane or commuter train. Sony is not.

I agree that Blu-Ray should be left to the TV. I also agree that it's ridiculous that the MacPro does not come with a Blu-Ray recorder. Give the pros the option to choose which media they want.

that's far more embarrassing.