New iMacs post modest gains over predecessors (benchmarks)

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 80
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    I notice no graphics benchmarks.



    Gee, I wonder why...
  • Reply 22 of 80
    ouraganouragan Posts: 437member
    Quote:

    New iMacs post modest gains over predecessors





    That's what you get from using laptop parts inside what should be a desktop computer. Had Apple used desktop components, the price and performance would have been noticeably better.



    Moreover, other computer manufacturers use a desktop CPU and motherboard to manufacture a desktop computer. With laptop components, Apple iMacs can't be competitive on a price vs. performance scale. It's another missed opportunity to expand the Mac market share (as much as it could be done if Apple really cared about its customers).



  • Reply 23 of 80
    mactelmactel Posts: 1,275member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ouragan View Post


    That's what you get from using laptop parts inside what should be a desktop computer. Had Apple used desktop components, the price and performance would have been noticeably better.



    Moreover, other computer manufacturers use a desktop CPU and motherboard to manufacture a desktop computer. With laptop components, Apple iMacs can't be competitive on a price vs. performance scale. It's another missed opportunity to expand the Mac market share (as much as it could be done if Apple really cared about its customers).







    The iMac has its place, but I would have liked to see, as I'm sure you and others would have, an xMac. A mini-slim-tower/desktop with enough expandability to satisfy the likes of you and me. I can see that Apple just wants to make consumer electronics more than a computers.
  • Reply 24 of 80
    Quote:

    So smartass. lets see your evidence.



    *http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...nch_imacs.html



    um I see two references to the GPU on the very first page

    Quote:

    I'm very unimpressed by the graphics options. But this is apple's delusion and I don't have much option other to buy the 20" model.



    Quote:

    What's with the Radeon graphics solution?

    Logistically speaking, wouldn't it be more efficient to use the same nVidia solutions as are employed in the MacBook Pro?



    and more follow

    Quote:

    A "pro" will have little use for a glossy screen and a shit GPU.



    Quote:

    Aluminium = great!

    Choice of 2.8 processor = great!

    2600 Pro video chip = Nooooooooooooooooo!



    This chip is a dud and Apple have jumped right on the bandwagon. It is ATIs worst work in ages.



    But because it is $30 less than NVidia that is all that matters to the suits at Apple."



    Quote:

    I don't think 3D games performance @ 1920x1200 was on their mind, when they selected the gpu



    Personally I'm more happy about full bitstream VC1 acceleration in hw, IF ATI provides the drivers for that (that's a big if).



    Quote:

    My hope in Apple to make an affordable machine as practical and usable as the operating system is just about gone. Instead we shall get products like the iMac where form is significantly more important than function.



    Quote:

    I'm really disappointed in the GPU offering....I hope we can upgrade to something better.



    ok I'm going to stop now...point made.
  • Reply 25 of 80
    With all the stuff I've been reading about how hot the new iMacs get, I wonder just how much heat the 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo Extreme machine will produce.
  • Reply 26 of 80
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


    There have been plenty of gripes about the GPU. I'm not sure how you've missed them all. Selective reading maybe. Sorry, I'm not going to look for them but they're not that hard to find.



    You are right.
  • Reply 27 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    It's not really accurate to say the new iMacs are only "modestly" faster than the old ones, if you have just outright ignored the top model.



    I totally agree. Look at the processor speeds. Sure the 2.4 is only a little faster. The 2.8 should be even faster, and the BTO options with larger drives and more RAM returns the iMac to the digital hub strategy.
  • Reply 28 of 80
    Since the previous 24" iMac with a 2.33 GHz processor could be ordered with either the stock nVidia 7300 GT or else the faster nVidia 7600 GT graphics card, I find the Primate Labs tests to be lacking in detail. The real performance question with these new machines concerns the ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO card v.s. the previous best option, the nVidia 7600 GT, especially as it pertains to 3-D graphics.
  • Reply 29 of 80
    Come on guys.....

    Where are the benchmarks for the 24" iMac 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo Extreme?



    Not to mention we are missing graphics comparison benchmarks.
  • Reply 30 of 80
    Picked up the new 24" iMac last night at my local Apple Store. Only 24" they had in stock. Already had an extra 1gig stick of ram so the only upgrade over standard is it now has 2gigs of ram.



    I love it so far. Love the new glossy screen, love the new keyboard, far better than the old apple keyboards. This thing is plenty fast even for CS3 work which I use all the time.



    My opinion its very quite, but maybe not as quite as the previous model. Im in my office right now no noise at all and you can hear just a bit of fan noise, thats it. The clock next to me is ticking louder.



    Any other question feel free to ask.
  • Reply 31 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by southerndoc View Post


    I just ordered a 24" iMac 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo Extreme. This should be a good speed bump from my old 1.8 GHz G5 iMac.



    Me too. Very excited.

    Don't play games so the graphics card debate (bitching) is meaningless to me.

    1 GHz means a lot.

    Intel (and therefore Parallels/Fusion) means a lot.
  • Reply 32 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post


    Another iMac C2E speed test vote here



    It's not a Core 2 Duo Extreme in the 2.8GHz iMac. It's just a higher frequency bin of the mobile Merom (Core 2 Duo). It definitely a mobile part to work with the mobile chipset.
  • Reply 33 of 80
    sennensennen Posts: 1,468member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ouragan View Post


    That's what you get from using laptop parts inside what should be a desktop computer. Had Apple used desktop components, the price and performance would have been noticeably better.



    your complaint here doesn't make sense to me - desktop components of course would be faster than laptop ones. however the previous imac used laptop components as well, so naturally the gains wouldn't mirror a laptop/desktop comparison...



    why should it be a "desktop computer" (ie a box and a monitor)? the imac obviously trades performance for form factor, footprint and quiet operation.



    had apple used desktop components, it would have needed a hellava lot bigger box behind that screen.
  • Reply 34 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by petrokalis View Post


    It's not a Core 2 Duo Extreme in the 2.8GHz iMac. It's just a higher frequency bin of the mobile Merom (Core 2 Duo). It definitely a mobile part to work with the mobile chipset.



    Damn, I'm a moron. That's what I get for not knowing Intel's marketing names. Ignore my retarded comment.
  • Reply 35 of 80
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Quote:

    There have been plenty of gripes about the GPU. I'm not sure how you've missed them all. Selective reading maybe. Sorry, I'm not going to look for them but they're not that hard to find.



    There has never been a new Apple computer released that the GPU nuts didn't complain about the GPU.



    No matter what GPU Apple would put in the machine, the gripes would always be the same.



    Almost all of the gripes come from people who wouldn't buy an iMac anyway.
  • Reply 36 of 80
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by petrokalis View Post


    It's not a Core 2 Duo Extreme in the 2.8GHz iMac. It's just a higher frequency bin of the mobile Merom (Core 2 Duo). It definitely a mobile part to work with the mobile chipset.



    It's the Core 2 Extreme Mobile which was announced in July.



    "SANTA CLARA, Calif., July 16, 2007 ? Addressing demand for even faster laptop computers for hardcore gamers, artists and media enthusiasts, Intel Corporation today introduced its first Intel® Core?2 Extreme mobile dual-core processor -- the world's highest-performing mobile processor1 -- adopting the brand from the company's flagship desktop offerings"



    http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archi...0716corp_a.htm
  • Reply 37 of 80
    I just ordered a base 24" iMac upgraded with the 2.8ghz C2E. (I can install my own RAM for $60 less, thank-you-very-much) I think it will run circles around anything that I have previously owned (or own now). I am typing this on a 12" iBook G3 500mhz. The computer that the iMac will be replacing was a Dual 1ghz Quicksilver tower with a 9800Pro graphics card...that earned me a hefty chunk of change on eBay...gotta love low depreciation on Macs... Anyway, back to the point, this should outpace anything I've ever known, and I find it to be the perfect computer for me. It's compact, quiet, and looks awesome (I think so anyway). I am glad it comes with a laptop-style keyboard because I am actually able to type faster on one such as my iBook's keyboard. (Although it is too bad that they hacked off the number pad on the wireless one...I would've bought a wireless one if it had a number pad) It should be able to run CS2 bounds better than my previous systems, and CS3 (when I recoup from this $2000) as well. It's very exciting, this being my first new computer ever. I laid out some paper in the proper 16:10 widescreen format, 24" diagonal and...holy crap, that's a huge monitor. Mmm...approximately 3 times the screen real estate of this 12" iBook...
  • Reply 38 of 80
    jdwjdw Posts: 944member
    I myself had planned to get a new iMac after Apple's revised models came out. But after seeing the stupid looking black border around the screen, and after seeing there was no option for a non-glossy LCD model, I couldn't care less if these machines had the power of a hundred Mac Pros. I refuse to buy something this bad. Of course, I have no budget whatsoever for an expensive Mac Pro setup, even though it would get me a matte LCD and eliminate that frightful black border.



    So I will continue to wait until Apple comes out with a reasonable line of iMacs. Hopefully, Apple will sell a very low number of these new models. That will help to drive the point home about the glossy screen and ugly black border! Jonathan Ive, you really screwed up this time!
  • Reply 39 of 80
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    I don't think the black frame is so ugly. There's glass over that whole part - it would look wierd with white under the glass.



    What would be cool is if the frame was a USB device, and the computer could flash it red when new email arrives, so even if you are in a full screen game you still know.
  • Reply 40 of 80
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Ha... I don't know if anyone noticed this yet but the picture of the Dell from Steve's keynote is up on Apple's website

    http://www.apple.com/imac/design.html
Sign In or Register to comment.