...A good example will come out soon when they run benchmarks of 2nd generation Mac Pro vs the last one with Nehalem. Once all the lines has Nehalem derivates they should look like theses charts.
They'll probably still stick a 9400M only in the lower-end iMac with Nehalem CPU.
How is integrated graphics supposed to drive 24" 1080p level visuals? *That* baffles me. I haven't been doing any gaming for almost 6 months now, so... hmm... I'm feeling confused about things overall.
Geekbench doesn't test graphics performance, which should be increased substantially for both machines over their predecessors. Both the 9400M vs the GMA 950 and the Radeon 4850 vs the pseudo-8800GS in the iMac should be no contest at all.
Not to forget, the important test that needs to be done is the iMac Radeon2400XT 128 dedicated VRAM vs. iMac Nvidia 9400M and iMac Radeon 2600Pro 256mb dedicated VRAM vs. iMac Nvidia 9400M. At 1280x800, 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 etc where applicable.
[Apologies for repeating my statement, but...]
How the heck is Spore going to play at 1920x1200 on the 24" iMac with only 9400M ????? On the 24" iMac for games you're running everything at much lower resolutions and settings despite the big screen.
Apple cared about gaming several months ago. Then early this year, they forgot they cared about gaming.
You put your left foot in, then you put your left foot out, then you shake your butt, then you... er... how does that song go again?
You are mostly thinking about what you want, not what makes most business sense. The few Mac users who are waiting for a major refresh are not likely to add many sales in the current environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Yes, I do, If it's ready- release it. I feel a major refresh would sell well because many of us iMac users have been waiting so long and this minor update, especially in this bad economic time, will not persuade us to upgrade. We will either wait or buy something else. Sure there will be new buyers but not as many replacement buyers as there might have been.
The entire Mac desktop line is far old enough to have given Apple more than enough time to design new updates. I think it's more likely than this is simply a terrible time to launch new expensive computers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I don't recall R&D turnaround on a computer ever being fast enough to make a difference so soon, if there was a gangbusters product developed and ready for the "go" signal, its work probably began years ago. If it happens to be ready in a down economy, well, that's the way things go, forecasts that long ago can't really say when they happen or how long or severe they are.
Also, as far as I recall, the time to recoup your R&D investment is as soon as it's ready, especially for electronics. You get what you can out of it. If you postpone the release for a year, you've just squandered any value you could have derived from the development, by then, you will need to replace it with yet another product generation anyway.
ya'll so funny. Apple had to update all machines before Snow Leopard, its just how they work. These speed bumps were made to work with SnowL and that's what Apple cared about.
But you can't run it in SLI (sorry, Crossfire) on the Mac Pros... AFAIK. Also no more Quadro option in Mac Pros.
Two ATI 4870s in Crossfire, or the ATI 4870X2 (single card), serious GPU horsepower there.
I suppose with 2 ATI 4870 in two slots on the Mac Pro ~ one question, how would the system know which card to use for what application? Just based on which output monitor the application is driving? Hmm...
I have 2 ati 3870 in the sec gen Mac Pro, it read them as 1gb but checking then again, it works cause the mini hacks i've done on it..
Maybe with Snow Leopard it gets supported, so then why bother with 2 full 16x slots?
ya'll so funny. Apple had to update all machines before Snow Leopard, its just how they work. These speed bumps were made to work with SnowL and that's what Apple cared about.
I dont know if it is just me, or whether others are also feeling the same way - the stronger Apple gets financially, the more arrogant it seems - almost like "We dont need you anymore - you need us for your Apple fix".
I am a big Apple enthusiast - but of late, I have been irritated by a lot of actions small and big. Their product and pricing decisions are beginning to piss me off.
Some examples -
-- Apple does not give you flexibility to use your own SD cards in their products. But if you try to buy a higher capacity product, they rip you off by charging ridiculously higher prices. The 1GB shuffle is $49 and the 2GB shuffle is $69. How on earth can they justify charging $20 more for 1GB? It is almost as if Apple is subsidizing the 1GB shuffle with higher margins on the 2GB! Similar examples exist in the iPhone, iPod Touch, etc.
-- Related to point 1, but kind of different - how expensive the upgrade options are in Apple. We are talking about a premium brand here - customers who pay $1500 for a desktop would obviously expect a high end configuration - Apple shamelessly rips people off for upgrades, and makes it painfully difficult to upgrade on your own.
-- For literally every other electronics manufacturer, prices for an unchanged product drop significantly over time - Apple on the other hand keeps the prices constant and earns much higher margins. Both Apple and Dell sell a very similar 30" monitor. How come the price of the Dell has dropped from $1699 to $1139 now, whereas Apple's price stays constant at $1799? For over 3 years the prices havent changed at all. Same for literally every product Apple makes.
-- Almost every other electronics manufacturer has had its prices drop over time, as technology gets cheaper. But Apple prefers to keep the prices constant, upgrades the components. Sometimes the upgrades are significant, so it is still tolerable, but sometimes the upgrades are just marginal.
In a lot of ways, Apple operates like a premium brand (the buying experience, the unpacking experience, the importance paid to design, the premium prices charged etc), but at the same time they also operate in some "cheap" brand ways. Why sell a Mac Mini that does FrontRow, but not include the remote? I can understand the logic of not including the remote for the MacBooks, but the MacMini is much more likely to be hooked up to a TV. These decisions make Apple look like a nickel-and-diming operator.
I think my opinion is likely to get a lot of flames - but I hope people can look at this objectively. I love Apple just as much as anyone else - I really want Apple to be a much more significant player in the market. But at the same time, I want Apple to be a little bit more mindful of the customers. A lit bit less greedy than they are now.
Apple is a different player today - it is no longer a niche player. At least in mindshare, it is possibly even bigger than MicroSoft. They need to realize that what really matters at the end of the day is not how much margins they make on their products, but how much profits they make. Apple is not an "exclusive" product - why spend millions of dollars on "PC vs Mac" ads, if you just want to be an "exclusive" product? If Apple can sell 10M computers and make $3.5 Billion or sell 20M Computers and make $5 Billion, I think from EVERY point of view, the second option is a lot better.
I don't get it - compare the same(apart from graphics card) iMac between 19 Feb and new one on 5 March, the only big difference I see is a PRICE INCREASE - nice upgrade-not.
(note prices in pic are New Zealand dollars at education discount.
Still waiting for Blu-ray
FEB 2009 _____ compare to _____ MARCH 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
When clock speeds are identical between systems, such as with the new low-end 2.66GHz iMac and a mid-range predecessor from last year, the difference in test scores becomes almost unnoticeable.
- I still cannot even BELIEVE they didn't use a low-power quad-core part, even in the highest end model. Clearly they think everyone is a sucker and didn't bother to revise the cooling system to support a low-power quad core. They hardly use any more power than the fastest Core 2 Duo.
- Integrated graphics as standard in the first two models?? Pathetic..
- Although it SHOULD BE STANDARD in a freaking $2000 machine, At least the ATI 4850 is available as an option. It's an excellent card for this type of computer. The GT120/GT130 are crap.
I knew this time would come. Only a matter of time that many users k ow what fsb means, voltage, overclock, CPU cycles. Sure compared to p4 megahertz doesn't matter but we"re basically talking about the same chips here. Stunned no i7 in the pros with cheaper ram and anlower price point.
That said, I'll be shocked but if the mini can play 3d games and apple didn't cripple motion, shake, fcp and it runs on a mini, it may not be a big seller with consumers but it will sell to editors, audio bays and iPhone sdk users, so for me, at least until I see the benchmarks, this is good news for audio/video use. Depends on the GPU bench mark.
Otherwise with millions of people reaching 2 years with iPhone and phones like palm ore with flash ALS July, apple might be in some deep doo doo.
I dont know if it is just me, or whether others are also feeling the same way - the stronger Apple gets financially, the more arrogant it seems - almost like "We dont need you anymore - you need us for your Apple fix".
... ...
Well, no need for flames that I see.
I think you have some valid observations and opinions.
I love the Mac platform HW and SW but at the same time, I have this feeling that Apple keeps shorting us on its consumer (less-than-pro) models by removing a feature or two here, keeping the speed/capacity lower there. More so than could be attributable to just parts prices. (in my opinion, based on articles about tear-down costs, etc.).
Now over the very long haul (decade+), Mac prices have gotten cheaper.
But it is also true that in the short term, some Apple products stay at same price for years - the monitor you mention, the new Mac Mini being exact same price as last series (nr 2 yrs ago). Irksome!
On the one hand, they have captured us with their cool products, on the other, they do sometimes seem rather arrogant about it.
(my personal experience with Apple reps, tech support and reading mgmt interviews/letters shows a mixed bag... some are great, friendly, personable folks, some are a bit arrogant... ) Oh well, I am just wishing they would be a perfect company -- in my definition!
Also, remember when Jobs kept stressing that PowerPCs were better, faster, blah, blah? Remember the keynotes with sections all about CPU speed? Apple got caught at its own game, once more. Only difference here, they were not limited by their partner (intel this time, not IBM/Moto), they limited themselves...
Oh Lord I remeber those days in a pro tools studio where we had pc'c running AMD ATHLON. The athlon gigastduio fpu trounced the g5, it was sad. Meanwhile apple was promoting the PowerBook as a portable studio, not. They choxed all the time. Only she they went to intel did thy improve. In fact the best buy these days are a refurb MacBook pro 2.4 early 08 for $1200 better gpu, expess slot,both FireWire abda better silver keyboard. Think about it. It's a better deal.
Okay, the top of the line machine isn't as damned fast as you'd like it to be. I still think the processor and graphics are a good buy, especially given the price on the mac.
and can yall stop freaking complaining about how bad the low-end imacs are? or how bad the mini's are? chirst, the imacs and mini's aren't supposed to be top-of-the-line machines. especially the low-end ones. and has anyone noticed the low-end imacs are CHEAP. 24" screen for cheap!!!! These machines will move very quickly, simply because they offer a lot at a low price. These aren't cheap by PC standards, but by apple standards these computers are rock bottom.
The high-end are pretty good too (not mac pro, but still good), so stop the whining! Buy a low-end mac pro if you want quad core that badly. quad-core is simply not affordable in an imac. it has nothing to do with cooling.
Yeah but the i7 are out and we could have had 16 ciresbthat used cheaper non EEC memory. It makes no sense. Firgetbthis xeoncrap.
ya'll so funny. Apple had to update all machines before Snow Leopard, its just how they work. These speed bumps were made to work with SnowL and that's what Apple cared about.
Umm... CPU speed bumps of [0.1 to 0.5ghz] ~ made to work with Snow Leopard?
>I think not...
Umm... iMac GPU going from Discrete to integrated 9400M
>Perhaps. Then again...
The latter is possible, but it would mean Snow Leopard will use OpenCL intensely and needs Nvidia. However, there are fast ATI cards offered in the new iMac and Mac Pro.
So, I don't see how these speed bumps were crucial to Snow Leopard.
I don't get it - compare the same(apart from graphics card) iMac between 19 Feb and new one on 5 March, the only big difference I see is a PRICE INCREASE - nice upgrade-not.
(note prices in pic are New Zealand dollars at education discount.
Still waiting for Blu-ray
FEB 2009 _____ compare to _____ MARCH 2009
That's kind of a downgrade, actually, because I am quite sure at 1680x1050 the discrete 256MB VRAM ATI 2600 Pro beats the 9400M integrated. Even by sheer virtue of *dedicated* 256MB RAM.
I think the pricing is because you're looking at EDU prices AND also the NZD currency got slammed against the USD.
How weird. But I'm not in the US, I'm in Malaysia right now and like the rest of Asia/Pacific (and the world) we're seeing price increases across the board for all new Apple stuff announced.
However... For Retail...
In Malaysia the same comparison shows RM 5,199 before and RM 4,499 after.
Entry level 24" comparison shows RM 6,299 before and RM 5,599 after.
So, cheaper, yes, but loses the dedicated 256MB VRAM ATI 2600 Pro. Integrated graphics instead.
The cheapest iMac used to be RM 4,199 but now the cheapest iMac is RM 4,499.
Therefore, on a global scale, these iMac updates are a mixed bag. Yes 24" more affordable but possibly weaker graphics. "Less expensive" but entry-level iMac outside the US, price has gone up "due to US currency"*
*In quotes because nobody put a gun to Apple's head and said "YOU MUST ACCOUNT FOR CURRENCY and BASE YOUR CALCULATIONS ON USD so AROUND THE WORLD new Macs are MORE EXPENSIVE. WTF
The mini is the dark horse that can rise from the ashes of this "crap" update.
Core 2 Duo 2ghz.
Slam in a 7200rpm drive.
Max out 4GB
FW800
9400M graphics can drive 1080p res
Tantalising as the cheapest Mac. If you really need a Mac.
But Final Cut and Motion, on the Mac Mini... Hmmm...
But for Logic... Could do alright.
For iPhone Dev. Defintely alright.
CAN THE MINI DRIVE 2 MONITORS AT ONCE? IF SO... IT COULD MAKE IT QUITE INTERESTING AS A COOL MINI MAC DESKTOP THINGY DESPITE THE "Apple Premium" PRICE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiimamac
I knew this time would come. Only a matter of time that many users k ow what fsb means, voltage, overclock, CPU cycles. Sure compared to p4 megahertz doesn't matter but we"re basically talking about the same chips here. Stunned no i7 in the pros with cheaper ram and anlower price point.
That said, I'll be shocked but if the mini can play 3d games and apple didn't cripple motion, shake, fcp and it runs on a mini, it may not be a big seller with consumers but it will sell to editors, audio bays and iPhone sdk users, so for me, at least until I see the benchmarks, this is good news for audio/video use. Depends on the GPU bench mark.
Otherwise with millions of people reaching 2 years with iPhone and phones like palm ore with flash ALS July, apple might be in some deep doo doo.
Oh Lord I remeber those days in a pro tools studio where we had pc'c running AMD ATHLON. The athlon gigastduio fpu trounced the g5, it was sad. Meanwhile apple was promoting the PowerBook as a portable studio, not. They choxed all the time. Only she they went to intel did thy improve. In fact the best buy these days are a refurb MacBook pro 2.4 early 08 for $1200 better gpu, expess slot,both FireWire abda better silver keyboard. Think about it. It's a better deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiimamac
Yeah but the i7 are out and we could have had 16 ciresbthat used cheaper non EEC memory. It makes no sense. Firgetbthis xeoncrap.
My 2 cents.
Ha! You were so angry about the Pro offerings because Apple was focusing so much on consumers. Now you're angry about the consumer offerings.
But I agree. Some things are not making that much sense right now.
Isn't ECC memory important? If it isn't is it just a big scam?
Comments
...A good example will come out soon when they run benchmarks of 2nd generation Mac Pro vs the last one with Nehalem. Once all the lines has Nehalem derivates they should look like theses charts.
http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html
They'll probably still stick a 9400M only in the lower-end iMac with Nehalem CPU.
How is integrated graphics supposed to drive 24" 1080p level visuals? *That* baffles me. I haven't been doing any gaming for almost 6 months now, so... hmm... I'm feeling confused about things overall.
Geekbench doesn't test graphics performance, which should be increased substantially for both machines over their predecessors. Both the 9400M vs the GMA 950 and the Radeon 4850 vs the pseudo-8800GS in the iMac should be no contest at all.
Not to forget, the important test that needs to be done is the iMac Radeon2400XT 128 dedicated VRAM vs. iMac Nvidia 9400M and iMac Radeon 2600Pro 256mb dedicated VRAM vs. iMac Nvidia 9400M. At 1280x800, 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 etc where applicable.
[Apologies for repeating my statement, but...]
How the heck is Spore going to play at 1920x1200 on the 24" iMac with only 9400M ????? On the 24" iMac for games you're running everything at much lower resolutions and settings despite the big screen.
Apple cared about gaming several months ago. Then early this year, they forgot they cared about gaming.
You put your left foot in, then you put your left foot out, then you shake your butt, then you... er... how does that song go again?
Yes, I do, If it's ready- release it. I feel a major refresh would sell well because many of us iMac users have been waiting so long and this minor update, especially in this bad economic time, will not persuade us to upgrade. We will either wait or buy something else. Sure there will be new buyers but not as many replacement buyers as there might have been.
I don't recall R&D turnaround on a computer ever being fast enough to make a difference so soon, if there was a gangbusters product developed and ready for the "go" signal, its work probably began years ago. If it happens to be ready in a down economy, well, that's the way things go, forecasts that long ago can't really say when they happen or how long or severe they are.
Also, as far as I recall, the time to recoup your R&D investment is as soon as it's ready, especially for electronics. You get what you can out of it. If you postpone the release for a year, you've just squandered any value you could have derived from the development, by then, you will need to replace it with yet another product generation anyway.
But you can't run it in SLI (sorry, Crossfire) on the Mac Pros... AFAIK. Also no more Quadro option in Mac Pros.
Two ATI 4870s in Crossfire, or the ATI 4870X2 (single card), serious GPU horsepower there.
I suppose with 2 ATI 4870 in two slots on the Mac Pro ~ one question, how would the system know which card to use for what application? Just based on which output monitor the application is driving? Hmm...
I have 2 ati 3870 in the sec gen Mac Pro, it read them as 1gb but checking then again, it works cause the mini hacks i've done on it..
Maybe with Snow Leopard it gets supported, so then why bother with 2 full 16x slots?
ya'll so funny. Apple had to update all machines before Snow Leopard, its just how they work. These speed bumps were made to work with SnowL and that's what Apple cared about.
You are 100% right about that
I am a big Apple enthusiast - but of late, I have been irritated by a lot of actions small and big. Their product and pricing decisions are beginning to piss me off.
Some examples -
-- Apple does not give you flexibility to use your own SD cards in their products. But if you try to buy a higher capacity product, they rip you off by charging ridiculously higher prices. The 1GB shuffle is $49 and the 2GB shuffle is $69. How on earth can they justify charging $20 more for 1GB? It is almost as if Apple is subsidizing the 1GB shuffle with higher margins on the 2GB! Similar examples exist in the iPhone, iPod Touch, etc.
-- Related to point 1, but kind of different - how expensive the upgrade options are in Apple. We are talking about a premium brand here - customers who pay $1500 for a desktop would obviously expect a high end configuration - Apple shamelessly rips people off for upgrades, and makes it painfully difficult to upgrade on your own.
-- For literally every other electronics manufacturer, prices for an unchanged product drop significantly over time - Apple on the other hand keeps the prices constant and earns much higher margins. Both Apple and Dell sell a very similar 30" monitor. How come the price of the Dell has dropped from $1699 to $1139 now, whereas Apple's price stays constant at $1799? For over 3 years the prices havent changed at all. Same for literally every product Apple makes.
-- Almost every other electronics manufacturer has had its prices drop over time, as technology gets cheaper. But Apple prefers to keep the prices constant, upgrades the components. Sometimes the upgrades are significant, so it is still tolerable, but sometimes the upgrades are just marginal.
In a lot of ways, Apple operates like a premium brand (the buying experience, the unpacking experience, the importance paid to design, the premium prices charged etc), but at the same time they also operate in some "cheap" brand ways. Why sell a Mac Mini that does FrontRow, but not include the remote? I can understand the logic of not including the remote for the MacBooks, but the MacMini is much more likely to be hooked up to a TV. These decisions make Apple look like a nickel-and-diming operator.
I think my opinion is likely to get a lot of flames - but I hope people can look at this objectively. I love Apple just as much as anyone else - I really want Apple to be a much more significant player in the market. But at the same time, I want Apple to be a little bit more mindful of the customers. A lit bit less greedy than they are now.
Apple is a different player today - it is no longer a niche player. At least in mindshare, it is possibly even bigger than MicroSoft. They need to realize that what really matters at the end of the day is not how much margins they make on their products, but how much profits they make. Apple is not an "exclusive" product - why spend millions of dollars on "PC vs Mac" ads, if you just want to be an "exclusive" product? If Apple can sell 10M computers and make $3.5 Billion or sell 20M Computers and make $5 Billion, I think from EVERY point of view, the second option is a lot better.
(note prices in pic are New Zealand dollars at education discount.
Still waiting for Blu-ray
FEB 2009 _____ compare to _____ MARCH 2009
When clock speeds are identical between systems, such as with the new low-end 2.66GHz iMac and a mid-range predecessor from last year, the difference in test scores becomes almost unnoticeable.
- I still cannot even BELIEVE they didn't use a low-power quad-core part, even in the highest end model. Clearly they think everyone is a sucker and didn't bother to revise the cooling system to support a low-power quad core. They hardly use any more power than the fastest Core 2 Duo.
- Integrated graphics as standard in the first two models?? Pathetic..
- Although it SHOULD BE STANDARD in a freaking $2000 machine, At least the ATI 4850 is available as an option. It's an excellent card for this type of computer. The GT120/GT130 are crap.
I knew this time would come. Only a matter of time that many users k ow what fsb means, voltage, overclock, CPU cycles. Sure compared to p4 megahertz doesn't matter but we"re basically talking about the same chips here. Stunned no i7 in the pros with cheaper ram and anlower price point.
That said, I'll be shocked but if the mini can play 3d games and apple didn't cripple motion, shake, fcp and it runs on a mini, it may not be a big seller with consumers but it will sell to editors, audio bays and iPhone sdk users, so for me, at least until I see the benchmarks, this is good news for audio/video use. Depends on the GPU bench mark.
Otherwise with millions of people reaching 2 years with iPhone and phones like palm ore with flash ALS July, apple might be in some deep doo doo.
I dont know if it is just me, or whether others are also feeling the same way - the stronger Apple gets financially, the more arrogant it seems - almost like "We dont need you anymore - you need us for your Apple fix".
... ...
Well, no need for flames that I see.
I think you have some valid observations and opinions.
I love the Mac platform HW and SW but at the same time, I have this feeling that Apple keeps shorting us on its consumer (less-than-pro) models by removing a feature or two here, keeping the speed/capacity lower there. More so than could be attributable to just parts prices. (in my opinion, based on articles about tear-down costs, etc.).
Now over the very long haul (decade+), Mac prices have gotten cheaper.
But it is also true that in the short term, some Apple products stay at same price for years - the monitor you mention, the new Mac Mini being exact same price as last series (nr 2 yrs ago). Irksome!
On the one hand, they have captured us with their cool products, on the other, they do sometimes seem rather arrogant about it.
(my personal experience with Apple reps, tech support and reading mgmt interviews/letters shows a mixed bag... some are great, friendly, personable folks, some are a bit arrogant... ) Oh well, I am just wishing they would be a perfect company -- in my definition!
Also, remember when Jobs kept stressing that PowerPCs were better, faster, blah, blah? Remember the keynotes with sections all about CPU speed? Apple got caught at its own game, once more. Only difference here, they were not limited by their partner (intel this time, not IBM/Moto), they limited themselves...
A little history:
http://lowendmac.com/musings/08mm/power-mac-g5.html
Oh Lord I remeber those days in a pro tools studio where we had pc'c running AMD ATHLON. The athlon gigastduio fpu trounced the g5, it was sad. Meanwhile apple was promoting the PowerBook as a portable studio, not. They choxed all the time. Only she they went to intel did thy improve. In fact the best buy these days are a refurb MacBook pro 2.4 early 08 for $1200 better gpu, expess slot,both FireWire abda better silver keyboard. Think about it. It's a better deal.
Okay, the top of the line machine isn't as damned fast as you'd like it to be. I still think the processor and graphics are a good buy, especially given the price on the mac.
and can yall stop freaking complaining about how bad the low-end imacs are? or how bad the mini's are? chirst, the imacs and mini's aren't supposed to be top-of-the-line machines. especially the low-end ones. and has anyone noticed the low-end imacs are CHEAP. 24" screen for cheap!!!! These machines will move very quickly, simply because they offer a lot at a low price. These aren't cheap by PC standards, but by apple standards these computers are rock bottom.
The high-end are pretty good too (not mac pro, but still good), so stop the whining! Buy a low-end mac pro if you want quad core that badly. quad-core is simply not affordable in an imac. it has nothing to do with cooling.
Yeah but the i7 are out and we could have had 16 ciresbthat used cheaper non EEC memory. It makes no sense. Firgetbthis xeoncrap.
My 2 cents.
You are 100% right about that
ya'll so funny. Apple had to update all machines before Snow Leopard, its just how they work. These speed bumps were made to work with SnowL and that's what Apple cared about.
Umm... CPU speed bumps of [0.1 to 0.5ghz] ~ made to work with Snow Leopard?
>I think not...
Umm... iMac GPU going from Discrete to integrated 9400M
>Perhaps. Then again...
The latter is possible, but it would mean Snow Leopard will use OpenCL intensely and needs Nvidia. However, there are fast ATI cards offered in the new iMac and Mac Pro.
So, I don't see how these speed bumps were crucial to Snow Leopard.
I don't get it - compare the same(apart from graphics card) iMac between 19 Feb and new one on 5 March, the only big difference I see is a PRICE INCREASE - nice upgrade-not.
(note prices in pic are New Zealand dollars at education discount.
Still waiting for Blu-ray
FEB 2009 _____ compare to _____ MARCH 2009
That's kind of a downgrade, actually, because I am quite sure at 1680x1050 the discrete 256MB VRAM ATI 2600 Pro beats the 9400M integrated. Even by sheer virtue of *dedicated* 256MB RAM.
I think the pricing is because you're looking at EDU prices AND also the NZD currency got slammed against the USD.
How weird. But I'm not in the US, I'm in Malaysia right now and like the rest of Asia/Pacific (and the world) we're seeing price increases across the board for all new Apple stuff announced.
However... For Retail...
In Malaysia the same comparison shows RM 5,199 before and RM 4,499 after.
Entry level 24" comparison shows RM 6,299 before and RM 5,599 after.
So, cheaper, yes, but loses the dedicated 256MB VRAM ATI 2600 Pro. Integrated graphics instead.
The cheapest iMac used to be RM 4,199 but now the cheapest iMac is RM 4,499.
Therefore, on a global scale, these iMac updates are a mixed bag. Yes 24" more affordable but possibly weaker graphics. "Less expensive" but entry-level iMac outside the US, price has gone up "due to US currency"*
*In quotes because nobody put a gun to Apple's head and said "YOU MUST ACCOUNT FOR CURRENCY and BASE YOUR CALCULATIONS ON USD so AROUND THE WORLD new Macs are MORE EXPENSIVE. WTF
Core 2 Duo 2ghz.
Slam in a 7200rpm drive.
Max out 4GB
FW800
9400M graphics can drive 1080p res
Tantalising as the cheapest Mac. If you really need a Mac.
But Final Cut and Motion, on the Mac Mini... Hmmm...
But for Logic... Could do alright.
For iPhone Dev. Defintely alright.
CAN THE MINI DRIVE 2 MONITORS AT ONCE? IF SO... IT COULD MAKE IT QUITE INTERESTING AS A COOL MINI MAC DESKTOP THINGY DESPITE THE "Apple Premium" PRICE.
I knew this time would come. Only a matter of time that many users k ow what fsb means, voltage, overclock, CPU cycles. Sure compared to p4 megahertz doesn't matter but we"re basically talking about the same chips here. Stunned no i7 in the pros with cheaper ram and anlower price point.
That said, I'll be shocked but if the mini can play 3d games and apple didn't cripple motion, shake, fcp and it runs on a mini, it may not be a big seller with consumers but it will sell to editors, audio bays and iPhone sdk users, so for me, at least until I see the benchmarks, this is good news for audio/video use. Depends on the GPU bench mark.
Otherwise with millions of people reaching 2 years with iPhone and phones like palm ore with flash ALS July, apple might be in some deep doo doo.
This whole iMac update sucks:
1.) Tapered stand. Woo-hoo!
2.) Same racoon face- the only Mac with this fugly look. Either make it all metal or all black.
3.) White cord and white keys left over from the White Duke.
4.) The godawful mouse.
5.) Keyboard - don't get me started , don't even get me started.
6.) And now these benchmarks???????????
I'm thinking of buying the Mini now- at least I'll save $1,000.
Man I just just feel off my bed laughing at your remarks THANKS for the comments ... I LOVE IT....its sooo sooo true.. APPLE
VISTA use to to stand for Viruses_Inevitable_Stick_To_Apple
now i think that APPLE will stand for:
Asshole_Pathectic_Pussy_Lousy_Engineers
Oh Lord I remeber those days in a pro tools studio where we had pc'c running AMD ATHLON. The athlon gigastduio fpu trounced the g5, it was sad. Meanwhile apple was promoting the PowerBook as a portable studio, not. They choxed all the time. Only she they went to intel did thy improve. In fact the best buy these days are a refurb MacBook pro 2.4 early 08 for $1200 better gpu, expess slot,both FireWire abda better silver keyboard. Think about it. It's a better deal.
Yeah but the i7 are out and we could have had 16 ciresbthat used cheaper non EEC memory. It makes no sense. Firgetbthis xeoncrap.
My 2 cents.
Ha! You were so angry about the Pro offerings because Apple was focusing so much on consumers. Now you're angry about the consumer offerings.
But I agree. Some things are not making that much sense right now.
Isn't ECC memory important? If it isn't is it just a big scam?
Will be interesting to see the New Mac Pro performance with Motion3; especially using the paintbrush tool in 3D.
Phill
[twitter: http://twitter.com/phillipgibb]
[blog: http://synapticlight.com/]