Ahhh. Yes, I was looking at the previous gen dimms. Thanks!!
You can mismatch pairs of RAM at different speeds, but then they'll all be stuck at the lowest speed. If you want to buy the 8GB of RAM in the base-level iMac, you can purchase something like this to top it up to 16GB retaining the speed, or this if you're wanting to just put it up to 32GB off the bat. It's not a bad idea actually, you can sell the memory it comes with on ebay for anywhere up to around $30-40.
Would it not be just as true to say people using their Macs as DAWs are specifically unserved by any machine with moving parts, whether they spin at 5400 or 7200 RPM?
My point being, those running specialized applications (like yourself) know what works and what doesn't and makes sure they get the right equipment.
For the rest who don't care, there are 5400 rpm drives.
Personally, my favorite spinning storage runs at 45 rpm ????
I think many are missing the mark that those of us with specialized or simply high performance needs would like that option in a 21" form factor (or 24") as 27" is just too big.
So you think 5400 rpm drive is just fine for "real world" non-techies? That's like says most people aren't camera enthusiasts and just post shit on FB and Instagram so what do they need a good camera in their phone for.
Yes, it may be. It will still open and save their simple Word file in the blink of an eye.
Well, apart from the fact they're charging the same price for far, far less, and the abhorrent pricing on SSDs...
If you have 32GB of RAM or more, you're not going to get any benefit from fast waking as it won't fit in the flash storage available. I believe the 2TB and higher Fusion drives have more space available, so it's forcing users who want 32GB of RAM to fork out an extra $200 if they want this benefit. With only 24GB of storage, we're limited to the core OS plus no more than a few applications being caches on the SSD portion at a time, whereas 128GB as was in previously would be quite a lot of heavy multitasking. With only 24GB, running something like Photoshop or Premier will easily consume the entirety of that portion of the drive and keep the mechanical portion spun up. When you've only got a 5400RPM drive on top of that, it's going to be a substantial performance drop compared to having 128GB of SSD caching available to you.
True, if you're not a power user - you might not notice it. Chances are the 16GB of RAM is more than enough for most people and if all you are doing is using the computer as a facebook or word processing machine or whatnot, you won't notice a problem with only 24GB of cached flash storage. Doing video work? Have a few VMs? Doing any kind of digital art? Playing more recent high-budget games? You'll notice it. We'll have to wait for actual performance reviews to come out to say for sure, but one fifth of the previous caching space is a substantial drop. Apple could be spinning some black magic into their stuff and giving the ability to save 32GB of ram caches into that 24GB portion, I don't know. Again, we'll have to wait - but I do see it as being detrimental to the consumer for nothing but profit.
With Apple cheaping out and not even providing 7200RPM drives and charging through the teeth for alternative storage options I see it as nothing more than a cash grab. That admitadly quite cheap $1100-something starting machine you can stick 32GB of RAM into suddenly has an extra $200 added to the cost to take full advantage of the Fusion drive, on top of the extra for RAM, or the previously mentioned colossal amounts of money for actual SSD storage.
I'm not wanting to preclude the chance Apple is working something something software side that'll make that 24GB work massively more efficiently and if they have good on them, but charging the consumer for far less whilst keeping the price the same is doing nothing but alienate your consumers, or exploiting those that don't know better. I love the iMac, but come on, this is Microsoft levels of milking the consumer. It wouldn't be difficult to give the user replaceable RAM and storage or charge just a touch less for the Memory and storage options.
My understanding is that the primary benefit of a Fusion or SSD drive is to keep the OS on the SSD so it boots more quickly. Storage is done on the tradional HDD. Therefore, for most people to appreciate a Fusion drive, it needs to be large enough to store the OS and maybe some temp files.
In contrast, I consider the laptops good value. (Better value than the desktops...) And the iPad Pro the bargain of the century. And the iPad 2 is a great value 'Mac' at £399.
Every Mac product bar the iMac has SSD included. (Don't talk to me about the Mac Mini red haired step child...)
I need nvidia gpu for octane. At work we use a workstation with two gtx 980 ti on. And we need more. then I use c4d, a little bit of houdini, substance, AE, zbrush, etc...(lot of plug ins and those programs need good gpu as well) I was waiting for the hope of a good imac upgrade. And i "was" in good hope for opencl as well, but nvidia destroyed the competition. why this curiousity?
a pc configuration will cost less... it's very frustrating buy a macpro that mounts two amd gpu's that i'm going to throw in the toilet.... at the same time I'm not sure I can use the sli port of two nvidia cause of the case...
And where are the graphical charts boasting about what a great upgrade the 395MX is compared to the 295MX? :P
I'm not sure they exist because the M395X is essentially an underclocked M295X, with lowers performance across the board in every department except power efficiency - a statistic which is almost meaningless for desktops unless they plan on providing iMac batteries soon. I think the only real feature the M395X has over the 295 is that it's got DX12 API compliance.
a pc configuration will cost less... it's very frustrating buy a macpro that mounts two amd gpu's that i'm going to throw in the toilet.... at the same time I'm not sure I can use the sli port of two nvidia cause of the case...
Apple need to offer a choice here. It's not like the days when there were 5-10 gpu makers and have to support every make. It's AMD and Nvidia. Give 'Pro' users the choice.
Similarly with the iMac. Apple. A 200 Billion in the bank corp' can't offer a choice of two 'leading edge' GPUs for the iMac enclosure?
Does anybody remember when Apple ACTUALLY gave people a choice of ATI and Nvidia? :P I do.
There should be discrete options in any machine over £1000. There USED to be.
I'm not sure they exist because the M395X is essentially an underclocked M295X, with lowers performance across the board in every department except power efficiency - a statistic which is almost meaningless for desktops unless they plan on providing iMac batteries soon. I think the only real feature the M395X has over the 295 is that it's got DX12 API compliance.
Comments
Ahhh. Yes, I was looking at the previous gen dimms. Thanks!!
Ahhh. Yes, I was looking at the previous gen dimms. Thanks!!
You can mismatch pairs of RAM at different speeds, but then they'll all be stuck at the lowest speed. If you want to buy the 8GB of RAM in the base-level iMac, you can purchase something like this to top it up to 16GB retaining the speed, or this if you're wanting to just put it up to 32GB off the bat. It's not a bad idea actually, you can sell the memory it comes with on ebay for anywhere up to around $30-40.
I think many are missing the mark that those of us with specialized or simply high performance needs would like that option in a 21" form factor (or 24") as 27" is just too big.
So you think 5400 rpm drive is just fine for "real world" non-techies? That's like says most people aren't camera enthusiasts and just post shit on FB and Instagram so what do they need a good camera in their phone for.
Yes, it may be. It will still open and save their simple Word file in the blink of an eye.
Well, apart from the fact they're charging the same price for far, far less, and the abhorrent pricing on SSDs...
If you have 32GB of RAM or more, you're not going to get any benefit from fast waking as it won't fit in the flash storage available. I believe the 2TB and higher Fusion drives have more space available, so it's forcing users who want 32GB of RAM to fork out an extra $200 if they want this benefit. With only 24GB of storage, we're limited to the core OS plus no more than a few applications being caches on the SSD portion at a time, whereas 128GB as was in previously would be quite a lot of heavy multitasking. With only 24GB, running something like Photoshop or Premier will easily consume the entirety of that portion of the drive and keep the mechanical portion spun up. When you've only got a 5400RPM drive on top of that, it's going to be a substantial performance drop compared to having 128GB of SSD caching available to you.
True, if you're not a power user - you might not notice it. Chances are the 16GB of RAM is more than enough for most people and if all you are doing is using the computer as a facebook or word processing machine or whatnot, you won't notice a problem with only 24GB of cached flash storage. Doing video work? Have a few VMs? Doing any kind of digital art? Playing more recent high-budget games? You'll notice it. We'll have to wait for actual performance reviews to come out to say for sure, but one fifth of the previous caching space is a substantial drop. Apple could be spinning some black magic into their stuff and giving the ability to save 32GB of ram caches into that 24GB portion, I don't know. Again, we'll have to wait - but I do see it as being detrimental to the consumer for nothing but profit.
With Apple cheaping out and not even providing 7200RPM drives and charging through the teeth for alternative storage options I see it as nothing more than a cash grab. That admitadly quite cheap $1100-something starting machine you can stick 32GB of RAM into suddenly has an extra $200 added to the cost to take full advantage of the Fusion drive, on top of the extra for RAM, or the previously mentioned colossal amounts of money for actual SSD storage.
I'm not wanting to preclude the chance Apple is working something something software side that'll make that 24GB work massively more efficiently and if they have good on them, but charging the consumer for far less whilst keeping the price the same is doing nothing but alienate your consumers, or exploiting those that don't know better. I love the iMac, but come on, this is Microsoft levels of milking the consumer. It wouldn't be difficult to give the user replaceable RAM and storage or charge just a touch less for the Memory and storage options.
My understanding is that the primary benefit of a Fusion or SSD drive is to keep the OS on the SSD so it boots more quickly. Storage is done on the tradional HDD. Therefore, for most people to appreciate a Fusion drive, it needs to be large enough to store the OS and maybe some temp files.
Sinking to new lows. We all know about the 'ram reaming' thing Apple has going on.
But still including 5400rpm for a company that boasts forward thinking design on the Macbook?
Meh. 24 gig Fusion drive. Should be 256 gig by now. Scratch that. For the price iMacs are, should be SSD by now. The far cheaper Macbook Air line is.
Lemon Bon Bon.
...with hyperbole if he can laud ancient technology for that price. Don't sell a sales guy, Phil.
(I quite like Phil...but...c'mon...)
It is embarrassing.
Lemon Bon Bon.
It can't be the volume of the range. The desktop Pro has SSD as standard. The iMac sells way more than that. SSDs have fallen like a stone in price.
200 billion in the bank and nickel and diming on the up sell. It's never enough, eh?
Lemon Bon Bon.
200 billion in the bank and nickel and diming on the up sell. It's never enough, eh?
I don’t know. I think more companies would be successful if they perpetually behaved as though they were a startup.
I don’t know. I think more companies would be successful if they perpetually behaved as though they were a startup.
I have no problem with Apple being hungry...nor with their perpetual 'near death' response in 1997. God bless his guv'nor Steve Jobs.
However, irony of ironies...the company that 'dropped' the floppy with teh sexy Bondi...can't drop the 'platter' with the Alumni.
Let's call these iMac updates what they really are. 'Interim.'
:P
Lemon Bon Bon.
ie. Cheapskates for Premium prices.
In contrast, I consider the laptops good value. (Better value than the desktops...) And the iPad Pro the bargain of the century. And the iPad 2 is a great value 'Mac' at £399.
Every Mac product bar the iMac has SSD included. (Don't talk to me about the Mac Mini red haired step child...)
Lemon Bon Bon.
And where are the graphical charts boasting about what a great upgrade the 395MX is compared to the 295MX? :P
Really? How about we compare that to the last gen. Why so coy, Apple?
*sniff, sniff. Smells like AMD re-badge BS to me...
Lemon Bon Bon.
I need nvidia gpu for octane. At work we use a workstation with two gtx 980 ti on. And we need more. then I use c4d, a little bit of houdini, substance, AE, zbrush, etc...(lot of plug ins and those programs need good gpu as well) I was waiting for the hope of a good imac upgrade. And i "was" in good hope for opencl as well, but nvidia destroyed the competition. why this curiousity?
a pc configuration will cost less... it's very frustrating buy a macpro that mounts two amd gpu's that i'm going to throw in the toilet.... at the same time I'm not sure I can use the sli port of two nvidia cause of the case...
And where are the graphical charts boasting about what a great upgrade the 395MX is compared to the 295MX? :P
I'm not sure they exist because the M395X is essentially an underclocked M295X, with lowers performance across the board in every department except power efficiency - a statistic which is almost meaningless for desktops unless they plan on providing iMac batteries soon. I think the only real feature the M395X has over the 295 is that it's got DX12 API compliance.
a pc configuration will cost less... it's very frustrating buy a macpro that mounts two amd gpu's that i'm going to throw in the toilet.... at the same time I'm not sure I can use the sli port of two nvidia cause of the case...
Apple need to offer a choice here. It's not like the days when there were 5-10 gpu makers and have to support every make. It's AMD and Nvidia. Give 'Pro' users the choice.
Similarly with the iMac. Apple. A 200 Billion in the bank corp' can't offer a choice of two 'leading edge' GPUs for the iMac enclosure?
Does anybody remember when Apple ACTUALLY gave people a choice of ATI and Nvidia? :P I do.
There should be discrete options in any machine over £1000. There USED to be.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I'm not sure they exist because the M395X is essentially an underclocked M295X, with lowers performance across the board in every department except power efficiency - a statistic which is almost meaningless for desktops unless they plan on providing iMac batteries soon. I think the only real feature the M395X has over the 295 is that it's got DX12 API compliance.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Anybody got any benchmarks of the M295X vs the M395X?
Lemon Bon Bon.
this is the point. I totally agree.... it seem's that in these days a $1000 it's like a bunch of candy's.
If i'm going to spend around $3000 I pretend to mount the video card I want on it. both iMac's and mac pro's are not for power/pro users.
For me now, hardware limitation means no professional use. but just going in a direction that someone (apple) wants you to choose.
so with lot of pain, I'm going to make the switch. incredible.
Quote:
this is the point. I totally agree.... it seem's that in these days a $1000 it's like a bunch of candy's.
If i'm going to spend around $3000 I pretend to mount the video card I want on it. both iMac's and mac pro's are not for power/pro users.
For me now, hardware limitation means no professional use. but just going in a direction that someone (apple) wants you to choose.
so with lot of pain, I'm going to make the switch. incredible.
If I'm going to be spending $3000, it'll probably have dual GTX980s and a Skylake k-series, and then about 240lb of poptarts to make it up to 3 grand.