[QUOTE=Tallest Skil; What reason does Apple have to benchmark beta software? That's nonsense.[/QUOTE]
I am not making anything out of my imagination. Remember that Portal 2 got released a few weeks ago. You could took some of your time and read the graphic section of the new iMac on Apple web site and find the very same info I pasted. Apple has beta tested hundreds of software titles in their own labs specially when they do not want to send the developer an unreleased machine. Remember how Apple is regarding undesired product leaks.
Interesting that the front page at apple.com is showing.... The white iPhone 4.
We are definitely in a different era.
So true. Used to be Apple would have an event for their premier product, with Jobs talking about how these new machines are "screamers."
Now the Mac doesn't even rate the front page of the website. Very sad for those who need a real computer. I guess we are the minority, like the people who want matte screens.
Yes, the world is dominated by teenagers who want to tweet and text while strolling down the street, riding bikes and driving cars. And the only multitasking required is trying to see your content behind the reflection of your face.
So true. Used to be Apple would have an event for their premier product, with Jobs talking about how these new machines are "screamers."
Now the Mac doesn't even rate the front page of the website. Very sad for those who need a real computer. I guess we are the minority, like the people who want matte screens.
Yes, the world is dominated by teenagers who want to tweet and text while strolling down the street, riding bikes and driving cars. And the only multitasking required is trying to see your content behind the reflection of your face.
A different era indeed.
As I pointed out earlier, it does have a spot on the front page, it just isn't the main image. When you look at how many iPhones or iPads they sell vs how many iMacs, it is clear where Apple's bread is buttered. There has also been a demand for the white iPhone since it was knocked off the release last summer. Why wouldn't they advertise it strongly?
So the 'M' in 'AMD Radeon HD 6750M' means it's the mobile version of the chip, correct? How does that compare these days?
It used to be that the iMac was mostly if not entirely made up of mobile components, but it seems like they've been sneaking in desktop parts of a while.
The mobile version of the GPU, however, even at 2GB, is the only thing making me nervous at this point. Is it gimped compared to a desktop? Or has mobile tech caught up with desktop, offering reasonably comparable performance while making accommodations to lessen heat generation?
Any guidance here would be extremely helpful.
Mobile GPUs are about one rung down from their desktop counterparts (name-wise). The 6970M, for example, is the same GPU as the desktop 6850, with 960 stream processors but a slightly lower clock speed. AMD and Nvidia both do this.
It's a truck. With a glaring screen. And no peripherals.
No wonder it didn't make the front page on Apple even on it's first day of release.
On a side note - I just noticed the somewhat textured gradient (paper like) bg on the Apple website, is that new? (I know, I don't really hang out at the Apple web-store much)
Mobile GPUs are about one rung down from their desktop counterparts (name-wise). The 6970M, for example, is the same GPU as the desktop 6850, with 960 stream processors but a slightly lower clock speed. AMD and Nvidia both do this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475
Performance seems to be around 50% to 75% of the desktop part.
It should be able to handle most modern games at lower resolutions and medium quality.
Wow, I had no idea the numbers were THAT low. It's not that I need a cutting edge machine, but being a generation behind for the money spent gives me pause. (Yes, yes, I know, welcome to Apple. Been a Mac user since 1994, I get how this works).
Can anyone give me any tips on comparing the i5 vs i7 processors?
I use Logic Pro a lot and need to decide if the i7 is worth the upgrade. Also, is it strange that the 15" and 17" MBPs come with i7 default and the iMacs are an additional updgrade? is there any particular reason for that?
Anything a bit more in depth than "they're faster" would be tremendously appreciated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo
If you're on a budget IMO you're better off picking up an SSD over a CPU upgrade.
...
EDIT: MBPs use the mobile version of the core i7. It's a different CPU.
I'll be curious to see the benchmarks. MacWorld will likely compare these new iMacs with the recent MBPs. I'll especially be interested to see how the mobile versions of the CPUs compare with the desktop version.
As for SSDs, I'd pick the faster CPU over the SSD because you can always add SSD later. Your stuck with the CPU for the life of the machine. Plus, you can get faster SSDs from third parties. Get the hard drive, and if/when you get an SSD, put the drive in an external enclosure for more storage or use as Time Machine backup disk.
Of course, it all depends on your usage and comfort level with upgrades. SSDs don't offer the capacity I'd need at affordable prices, so it's not really a viable option for me.
Was it me, or did I not see any bitching about the lack of blu-ray?
Interesting how the iMac is advertised as great for watching movies. Is that what Apple thinks we do with computers now? That no one uses an iMac for content creation? It would explain their stubborn adherence to glossy screens.
I have a Samsung glossy LCD in the living room and it's great for watching movies. But does that automatically mean I want a glossy computer to do a spread sheet on? Or adjust color on a photo? Or make a movie on Final Cut? Or jam on GarageBand?
With all due respect to Apple, these are quad core machines with large RAM capacity. Isn't it a waste to spend this kind of money just to watch standard def DVD's or 720P video on a 27 inch screen at my desk? Is that what this computer is really for?
I never said it made me happy, I just said that amounting to less than .1% of Apple's desktop installed base from last quarter and claiming to be a significant number is laughable. That's kind of indusputable. You can buy iMacs. You can buy an antiglare filter or a monitor hood if needed. You could setup your workspace properly to remove glare. There are any number of things you can do that makes the glossy display a non-issue. You can also let the Mini get upgraded to Sandy Bridge and buy a non-Apple display and call it a day.
I disagree but "nobody cares."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
The Mini upgrade will happen sometime in the near future, they're putting SAndy Bridge into the systems that sell best first. Maybe the ULV chips weren't available in large enough numbers for Apple to want to re-do the Mini earlier. Who knows. The xMac has been talked about since the Cube and is not happening. If you want numeric keypads on a wireless keyboard, there are any number of aftermarket options available. Apple doesn't include them b/c most people don't use them. I can agree w/you about the IGPU on the 13" MBP and the lack of backlighting on the MBA, but the MBA had poor battery life w/the last refresh as it is, the extra lighting would have probably impacted it even more. Apple isn't willing to reduce the battery life on the 13" MBP (and add extra heat to the mix as well) to have a discrete GPU. Every model from Apple will not suit everyone.
Thanks for your well-thought-out post.
Actually, none of these issues affect or annoy me as much as not being able to use/buy an iMac which could be Apple's best desktop computer. But beating a dead horse is no use.
Since the iMac was refreshed today it's only natural that the glossy display issue comes up. I'm finished whining about it. Apologies to any of you who are unable to just skip over such comments, which is what I do for subjects I don't care about.
The specs at the top end are awesome. The iMac is not a toy.
god knows what you people want - someday there will be a change in form factor and no change in internal specs, and the whole place will go bat shit crazy with delight.
Interesting how the iMac is advertised as great for watching movies. Is that what Apple thinks we do with computers now? That no one uses an iMac for content creation? It would explain their stubborn adherence to glossy screens.
I have a Samsung glossy LCD in the living room and it's great for watching movies. But does that automatically mean I want a glossy computer to do a spread sheet on? Or adjust color on a photo? Or make a movie on Final Cut? Or jam on GarageBand?
With all due respect to Apple, these are quad core machines with large RAM capacity. Isn't it a waste to spend this kind of money just to watch standard def DVD's or 720P video on a 27 inch screen at my desk? Is that what this computer is really for?
Why you think a glossy screen makes so much difference? I edit HD video with it, use a lot of garage band, amplitube, guitar rig 4, final cut studio. It can be a bit distracting at the start but after 3 years using it across several machines means nothing. Maybe for pixel retouch or other stuff on photoshop must be great but is not my thing. One of my customers use it with Auto Cad and they have 10 iMacs and never heard him or his designers complain about it.
Comments
I am not making anything out of my imagination. Remember that Portal 2 got released a few weeks ago. You could took some of your time and read the graphic section of the new iMac on Apple web site and find the very same info I pasted. Apple has beta tested hundreds of software titles in their own labs specially when they do not want to send the developer an unreleased machine. Remember how Apple is regarding undesired product leaks.
Then I place the link and read #2 at the button.
http://www.apple.com/imac/performance.html
Interesting that the front page at apple.com is showing.... The white iPhone 4.
We are definitely in a different era.
So true. Used to be Apple would have an event for their premier product, with Jobs talking about how these new machines are "screamers."
Now the Mac doesn't even rate the front page of the website. Very sad for those who need a real computer. I guess we are the minority, like the people who want matte screens.
Yes, the world is dominated by teenagers who want to tweet and text while strolling down the street, riding bikes and driving cars. And the only multitasking required is trying to see your content behind the reflection of your face.
A different era indeed.
No wonder it didn't make the front page on Apple even on it's first day of release.
So true. Used to be Apple would have an event for their premier product, with Jobs talking about how these new machines are "screamers."
Now the Mac doesn't even rate the front page of the website. Very sad for those who need a real computer. I guess we are the minority, like the people who want matte screens.
Yes, the world is dominated by teenagers who want to tweet and text while strolling down the street, riding bikes and driving cars. And the only multitasking required is trying to see your content behind the reflection of your face.
A different era indeed.
As I pointed out earlier, it does have a spot on the front page, it just isn't the main image. When you look at how many iPhones or iPads they sell vs how many iMacs, it is clear where Apple's bread is buttered. There has also been a demand for the white iPhone since it was knocked off the release last summer. Why wouldn't they advertise it strongly?
So the 'M' in 'AMD Radeon HD 6750M' means it's the mobile version of the chip, correct? How does that compare these days?
It used to be that the iMac was mostly if not entirely made up of mobile components, but it seems like they've been sneaking in desktop parts of a while.
The mobile version of the GPU, however, even at 2GB, is the only thing making me nervous at this point. Is it gimped compared to a desktop? Or has mobile tech caught up with desktop, offering reasonably comparable performance while making accommodations to lessen heat generation?
Any guidance here would be extremely helpful.
Mobile GPUs are about one rung down from their desktop counterparts (name-wise). The 6970M, for example, is the same GPU as the desktop 6850, with 960 stream processors but a slightly lower clock speed. AMD and Nvidia both do this.
It's a truck. With a glaring screen. And no peripherals.
No wonder it didn't make the front page on Apple even on it's first day of release.
On a side note - I just noticed the somewhat textured gradient (paper like) bg on the Apple website, is that new? (I know, I don't really hang out at the Apple web-store much)
So the 'M' in 'AMD Radeon HD 6750M' means it's the mobile version of the chip, correct? How does that compare these days?
Performance seems to be around 50% to 75% of the desktop part.
It should be able to handle most modern games at lower resolutions and medium quality.
I was really hoping for a super-high-res screen ala 5120x2880 but one can always wish.
MacMatte (matte petition)
http://macmatte.wordpress.com
Was it me, or did I not see any bitching about the lack of blu-ray?
I was really hoping for a super-high-res screen ala 5120x2880 but one can always wish.
Shhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! hahahaha
Mobile GPUs are about one rung down from their desktop counterparts (name-wise). The 6970M, for example, is the same GPU as the desktop 6850, with 960 stream processors but a slightly lower clock speed. AMD and Nvidia both do this.
Performance seems to be around 50% to 75% of the desktop part.
It should be able to handle most modern games at lower resolutions and medium quality.
Wow, I had no idea the numbers were THAT low. It's not that I need a cutting edge machine, but being a generation behind for the money spent gives me pause. (Yes, yes, I know, welcome to Apple. Been a Mac user since 1994, I get how this works).
Thanks for the answers, in any event.
There has also been a demand for the white iPhone since it was knocked off the release last summer. Why wouldn't they advertise it strongly?
Because according to this forum, no one really wanted a white iPhone, let alone months before the iPhone 5 comes out.
No matte displays. No purchase. Sign the petition for Apple matte displays at:
MacMatte (matte petition)
http://macmatte.wordpress.com
LoL, iMac matte display went away back in 2007, are you related to Thor? Did you got expelled from Asgard? New to earth?
JK
Can anyone give me any tips on comparing the i5 vs i7 processors?
I use Logic Pro a lot and need to decide if the i7 is worth the upgrade. Also, is it strange that the 15" and 17" MBPs come with i7 default and the iMacs are an additional updgrade? is there any particular reason for that?
Anything a bit more in depth than "they're faster" would be tremendously appreciated.
If you're on a budget IMO you're better off picking up an SSD over a CPU upgrade.
...
EDIT: MBPs use the mobile version of the core i7. It's a different CPU.
I'll be curious to see the benchmarks. MacWorld will likely compare these new iMacs with the recent MBPs. I'll especially be interested to see how the mobile versions of the CPUs compare with the desktop version.
As for SSDs, I'd pick the faster CPU over the SSD because you can always add SSD later. Your stuck with the CPU for the life of the machine. Plus, you can get faster SSDs from third parties. Get the hard drive, and if/when you get an SSD, put the drive in an external enclosure for more storage or use as Time Machine backup disk.
Of course, it all depends on your usage and comfort level with upgrades. SSDs don't offer the capacity I'd need at affordable prices, so it's not really a viable option for me.
Was it me, or did I not see any bitching about the lack of blu-ray?
Interesting how the iMac is advertised as great for watching movies. Is that what Apple thinks we do with computers now? That no one uses an iMac for content creation? It would explain their stubborn adherence to glossy screens.
I have a Samsung glossy LCD in the living room and it's great for watching movies. But does that automatically mean I want a glossy computer to do a spread sheet on? Or adjust color on a photo? Or make a movie on Final Cut? Or jam on GarageBand?
With all due respect to Apple, these are quad core machines with large RAM capacity. Isn't it a waste to spend this kind of money just to watch standard def DVD's or 720P video on a 27 inch screen at my desk? Is that what this computer is really for?
No matte displays. No purchase. Sign the petition for Apple matte displays at:
MacMatte (matte petition)
http://macmatte.wordpress.com
Done, thanks for the link.
I never said it made me happy, I just said that amounting to less than .1% of Apple's desktop installed base from last quarter and claiming to be a significant number is laughable. That's kind of indusputable. You can buy iMacs. You can buy an antiglare filter or a monitor hood if needed. You could setup your workspace properly to remove glare. There are any number of things you can do that makes the glossy display a non-issue. You can also let the Mini get upgraded to Sandy Bridge and buy a non-Apple display and call it a day.
I disagree but "nobody cares."
The Mini upgrade will happen sometime in the near future, they're putting SAndy Bridge into the systems that sell best first. Maybe the ULV chips weren't available in large enough numbers for Apple to want to re-do the Mini earlier. Who knows. The xMac has been talked about since the Cube and is not happening. If you want numeric keypads on a wireless keyboard, there are any number of aftermarket options available. Apple doesn't include them b/c most people don't use them. I can agree w/you about the IGPU on the 13" MBP and the lack of backlighting on the MBA, but the MBA had poor battery life w/the last refresh as it is, the extra lighting would have probably impacted it even more. Apple isn't willing to reduce the battery life on the 13" MBP (and add extra heat to the mix as well) to have a discrete GPU. Every model from Apple will not suit everyone.
Thanks for your well-thought-out post.
Actually, none of these issues affect or annoy me as much as not being able to use/buy an iMac which could be Apple's best desktop computer. But beating a dead horse is no use.
Since the iMac was refreshed today it's only natural that the glossy display issue comes up. I'm finished whining about it. Apologies to any of you who are unable to just skip over such comments, which is what I do for subjects I don't care about.
god knows what you people want - someday there will be a change in form factor and no change in internal specs, and the whole place will go bat shit crazy with delight.
Interesting how the iMac is advertised as great for watching movies. Is that what Apple thinks we do with computers now? That no one uses an iMac for content creation? It would explain their stubborn adherence to glossy screens.
I have a Samsung glossy LCD in the living room and it's great for watching movies. But does that automatically mean I want a glossy computer to do a spread sheet on? Or adjust color on a photo? Or make a movie on Final Cut? Or jam on GarageBand?
With all due respect to Apple, these are quad core machines with large RAM capacity. Isn't it a waste to spend this kind of money just to watch standard def DVD's or 720P video on a 27 inch screen at my desk? Is that what this computer is really for?
Why you think a glossy screen makes so much difference? I edit HD video with it, use a lot of garage band, amplitube, guitar rig 4, final cut studio. It can be a bit distracting at the start but after 3 years using it across several machines means nothing. Maybe for pixel retouch or other stuff on photoshop must be great but is not my thing. One of my customers use it with Auto Cad and they have 10 iMacs and never heard him or his designers complain about it.
I want to:
- set up a Mini, without having a separate monitor - via my Macbook
- plug a Blu-Ray / Games console into the back of an iMac
- plug my old DVD/DVR into the back of an iMac