As for repairability and an easier to upgrade Mac, give it up guys. Those days are gone!
If you want something more easily upgrade able there's the Pro. A computer like the iMac couldn't be built more easily accessible. Heck, even the best CPUs from Intel only come in soldered versions these days...
You may have misunderstood and I wasn't questioning the reason for the bulge, and don't disagree with the feats of technical engineering....I just don't like it and always wondered why the guts where placed there if options existed. I saw the base of a stand as an option to place all or some of the guts to slim down the screen. No CPU in the screen, no reason for the bulky heat sinks and ventilation ductwork, right? Hence, a thinner design with less components to deal with and the ability to easily repair/ and upgrade by popping out a tray. I also liked the idea that all the wires would run flat along your desktop at the base of the computer and not run up the stand to the middle of the screen...I hate wires!
The option I presented is only from a layman's perspective, not an engineering one, so no need to get all snippety on me.
I didn't realize my response was taken as "snippety". My apologies. Re-reading your original post, I can understand the critique you were making. I just interpreted it the wrong way, but in no way did I think I was talking-down.
I don't see Apple ever moving the guts to the base (like the old lampshade iMac G4 from the early 2000's.) I do see the electronics getting ever smaller to the point where thermal issues are reduced, mechanical hard drives go away and SSD's are the norm, and the heat issues from the CPU's make the heat sinks far smaller to perhaps unnecessary.
impossible, since my iMac doesn't have a base/stand -- it's removable in order to use a VESA arm mount.
I would agree that it's impractical for an all-in-one device such as the iMac in its current form. To say it's impossible...well, I'll leave that to the engineers.
I didn't realize my response was taken as "snippety". My apologies. Re-reading your original post, I can understand the critique you were making. I just interpreted it the wrong way, but in no way did I think I was talking-down.
I don't see Apple ever moving the guts to the base (like the old lampshade iMac G4 from the early 2000's.) I do see the electronics getting ever smaller to the point where thermal issues are reduced, mechanical hard drives go away and SSD's are the norm, and the heat issues from the CPU's make the heat sinks far smaller to perhaps unnecessary.
Peace
Apologies on my part as well...may have misinterpreted your comment. Will be interesting to see that evolution and I agree everything will get smaller. Should lead to some pretty interesting designs in the future.
Apple should bring to all devices Thunderbolt 3, USB 3.1 type C (reversible) generation 2, Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad with built-in USB 3.1 hub and SDXC reader UHS-II maximum speed (300 MB/s read/write).
Our only fundamental complaint is that Apple didn't attempt any significant leaps this year. There's still a place for desktops in the Mac lineup, but Apple has to prove that they can be just as cutting-edge as any PC or MacBook if they want to attract shoppers. That doesn't necessarily mean "thinner," either.
I think of it as quite a big update. Those Skylake processors are cutting edge, they haven't been out for very long at all. And adding wide gamut colour required what were probably quite deep OS changes. And the kind of display LEDs they used in the display were very new technology weren't they?
I will simply never understand Apple's insistence on a THIN desktop computer, at the detriment of having access to any of the ports. Who wants an SD card slot (or worse, the headphone jack) on the BACK, where the entire computer must be moved in order to plug anything in? I love my 2011 iMac, and I am looking at the 5K as an upgrade soon because nothing else comes close in most ways, and I'm certainly not going to ever own a PC again. But I wish they weren't applying the same Thinner-Is-Better approach to the desktops that they do to the notebooks. It's great that it's pretty to look at...but that shouldn't be the main intention, right?
Kind of annoying that they recognize the improvements of a 7200 RPM drive in this iMac but other models, even the 4K iMac, get the painfully outdated budget 5400 RPM relic. It's an arguable trade-off in a battery-operated device but def not in a desktop.
actually in my opinion an iMac shouldn't have a spinner at all...
1 Tb Fusion as base model would be barely acceptable, but Id like to have only SSD option
But Apple won't get it right until they finally go with wireless charging.
Apple doesn't do worthless gimmicks.
I have the 3 new Lightning peripherals sitting on my desk right now. Genius Apple made sure they recharge with the cable that is already plugged in to one of my USB ports.
I'm quietly hoping for a new form factor refresh next year. I'd like to see the bottom of the mac change, so its all monitor screen. I don't mind the bulge at the back - reminds me of the old fashioned TV's and thin at the edges is good.
Did you get the base M395 or the M395X (GPU test shows 395 but not sure how the X version would appear).
I ordered the M395X but the Apple Dealer I bought from made a mistake and gave me the M395 instead. So I am shipping this machine back and they will send me the correct one. I intend to do another batch of benchmarks when that machine arrives, and I will post those here for everyone to see. But the only difference I see in Apple's specifications between the two is MEMORY. The M395 has 2GB while the M395X has 4GB. The fact that the base model number remains "M395" implies that only the memory is different. If someone knows otherwise, please chime in.
Supplementing the Benchmarks in my earlier post, I just ran GFXbench GL 3.1.10 on OS X El Capitan on the Late 2015 SkyLake 5K iMac. Here are the results of that test (M395 GPU):
(Although my results are posted online, I have to login to see them. Not sure how best to share them, hence the screenshots above.)
And here is a BlackMagic Disk Speed Test of my old March 2009 iMac (3.06GHz), testing it's 1TB internal spinning platter drive (which came with the Mac):
NOTE: I ran GeekBench 3 times to ensure I was getting consistent results. No other apps were open during testing.
Compare with the benchmarks I posted previously in this thread. Those earlier benchmarks were also from a late 2015 5K iMac, but that Mac had only 8GB RAM and the M395 (2GB) GPU.
NOTE: I ran GeekBench 3 times to ensure I was getting consistent results. No other apps were open during testing.
Compare with the benchmarks I posted previously in this thread. Those earlier benchmarks were also from a late 2015 5K iMac, but that Mac had only 8GB RAM and the M395 (2GB) GPU.
I've got a Haswell i7-4790K and a relatively cheap NVidia GPU in my PC tower... and I scored roughly the same in Cinebench and GeekBench. It's about $900 worth of motherboard, CPU, RAM and GPU. (I upgraded those parts over the summer... kept the same case, power supply and hard drives)
I'm guessing the majority of the cost of the 5K iMac is tied up in that big gorgeous screen?
I've got a Haswell i7-4790K and a relatively cheap NVidia GPU in my PC tower... and I scored roughly the same in Cinebench and GeekBench. It's about $900 worth of motherboard, CPU, RAM and GPU. (I upgraded those parts over the summer... kept the same case, power supply and hard drives)
I'm guessing the majority of the cost of the 5K iMac is tied up in that big gorgeous screen?
The screen is a good chunk of the cost. In late 2014, a separate 5K screen was $2,500. Looks like HP has a 5K now closer to $1,200, but you will still need a decent GPU with dual DP 1.2 to drive it. Now you are approaching iMac price, albeit without the "fun" of building your own PC...
Also, on a PC, I don't think Windows 8.1 handles the high DPI of a 27" 5K all that well, but supposedly Windows 10 does a better job of it (haven't tried it out though).
Comments
If you want something more easily upgrade able there's the Pro. A computer like the iMac couldn't be built more easily accessible. Heck, even the best CPUs from Intel only come in soldered versions these days...
You may have misunderstood and I wasn't questioning the reason for the bulge, and don't disagree with the feats of technical engineering....I just don't like it and always wondered why the guts where placed there if options existed. I saw the base of a stand as an option to place all or some of the guts to slim down the screen. No CPU in the screen, no reason for the bulky heat sinks and ventilation ductwork, right? Hence, a thinner design with less components to deal with and the ability to easily repair/ and upgrade by popping out a tray. I also liked the idea that all the wires would run flat along your desktop at the base of the computer and not run up the stand to the middle of the screen...I hate wires!
The option I presented is only from a layman's perspective, not an engineering one, so no need to get all snippety on me.
I didn't realize my response was taken as "snippety". My apologies. Re-reading your original post, I can understand the critique you were making. I just interpreted it the wrong way, but in no way did I think I was talking-down.
I don't see Apple ever moving the guts to the base (like the old lampshade iMac G4 from the early 2000's.) I do see the electronics getting ever smaller to the point where thermal issues are reduced, mechanical hard drives go away and SSD's are the norm, and the heat issues from the CPU's make the heat sinks far smaller to perhaps unnecessary.
Peace
impossible, since my iMac doesn't have a base/stand -- it's removable in order to use a VESA arm mount.
I would agree that it's impractical for an all-in-one device such as the iMac in its current form. To say it's impossible...well, I'll leave that to the engineers.
I didn't realize my response was taken as "snippety". My apologies. Re-reading your original post, I can understand the critique you were making. I just interpreted it the wrong way, but in no way did I think I was talking-down.
I don't see Apple ever moving the guts to the base (like the old lampshade iMac G4 from the early 2000's.) I do see the electronics getting ever smaller to the point where thermal issues are reduced, mechanical hard drives go away and SSD's are the norm, and the heat issues from the CPU's make the heat sinks far smaller to perhaps unnecessary.
Peace
Apologies on my part as well...may have misinterpreted your comment. Will be interesting to see that evolution and I agree everything will get smaller. Should lead to some pretty interesting designs in the future.
Someone here can loan me $4k, right?
To be honest, my late 2012 27" iMac is still rocking. But man, would I love to get one of these. Maybe I should sell a few shares of ? stock? Heh.
Someone here can loan me $4k, right?
To be honest, my late 2012 27" iMac is still rocking. But man, would I love to get one of these. Maybe I should sell a few shares of ? stock? Heh.
Get a second job and than buy it.
Our only fundamental complaint is that Apple didn't attempt any significant leaps this year. There's still a place for desktops in the Mac lineup, but Apple has to prove that they can be just as cutting-edge as any PC or MacBook if they want to attract shoppers. That doesn't necessarily mean "thinner," either.
I think of it as quite a big update. Those Skylake processors are cutting edge, they haven't been out for very long at all. And adding wide gamut colour required what were probably quite deep OS changes. And the kind of display LEDs they used in the display were very new technology weren't they?
come on AI hows about the odd deal for those of us NOT in the USA.
Ok, I'll come clean. On my last trip to the US I bought some Apple bits in Delaware so 0% sales tax and brought them home.
But a 27in iMac would look good on my desk but carrying one of those home in baggage is just inviting to get stopped at Customs.
How about it AI? A deal for those of us in Europe once in a while?
How is this expensive compared to similarly specced all-in-one ?
Kind of annoying that they recognize the improvements of a 7200 RPM drive in this iMac but other models, even the 4K iMac, get the painfully outdated budget 5400 RPM relic. It's an arguable trade-off in a battery-operated device but def not in a desktop.
actually in my opinion an iMac shouldn't have a spinner at all...
1 Tb Fusion as base model would be barely acceptable, but Id like to have only SSD option
But Apple won't get it right until they finally go with wireless charging.
Apple doesn't do worthless gimmicks.
I have the 3 new Lightning peripherals sitting on my desk right now. Genius Apple made sure they recharge with the cable that is already plugged in to one of my USB ports.
Did you get the base M395 or the M395X (GPU test shows 395 but not sure how the X version would appear).
I ordered the M395X but the Apple Dealer I bought from made a mistake and gave me the M395 instead. So I am shipping this machine back and they will send me the correct one. I intend to do another batch of benchmarks when that machine arrives, and I will post those here for everyone to see. But the only difference I see in Apple's specifications between the two is MEMORY. The M395 has 2GB while the M395X has 4GB. The fact that the base model number remains "M395" implies that only the memory is different. If someone knows otherwise, please chime in.
Supplementing the Benchmarks in my earlier post, I just ran GFXbench GL 3.1.10 on OS X El Capitan on the Late 2015 SkyLake 5K iMac. Here are the results of that test (M395 GPU):
http://f.cl.ly/items/0P2R3B1d0w3n393N0h2S/GFBenchGL_TestResults.png
http://f.cl.ly/items/1T3M3T241t2r0b1X0e3x/GFBenchGL_MacInfo.png
(Although my results are posted online, I have to login to see them. Not sure how best to share them, hence the screenshots above.)
And here is a BlackMagic Disk Speed Test of my old March 2009 iMac (3.06GHz), testing it's 1TB internal spinning platter drive (which came with the Mac):
http://f.cl.ly/items/2r1l1m2z2Q0H0D0b1c1N/DiskSpeedTest_15hrTest_iMacEarly2009-1TBint.png
Get a second job and than buy it.
Well, as it presently stands it would be a "first job."
But I get where you're going with the comment. Heh.
Okay, I got the M395X (4GB) 5K iMac (2015) in today. Here are the benchmarks:
GFXBench GL
http://cl.ly/image/0v1e373X3Q43/GFXBenchGL_Results_M395XiMac.png
http://cl.ly/image/3Z2a462W130A/GFXBenchGL_Info_M395XiMac.png
CineBench GPU
http://cl.ly/image/1a3l3d2x1I3q/CineBench_GPU_M395X.png
CineBench CPU
http://cl.ly/image/2b2R332h2t3W/CineBench_CPU_5KiMac4GHz.png
GeekBench 64-bit
https://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/4237728
GeekBench 32-bit
https://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/4237752
NOTE: I ran GeekBench 3 times to ensure I was getting consistent results. No other apps were open during testing.
Compare with the benchmarks I posted previously in this thread. Those earlier benchmarks were also from a late 2015 5K iMac, but that Mac had only 8GB RAM and the M395 (2GB) GPU.
I've got a Haswell i7-4790K and a relatively cheap NVidia GPU in my PC tower... and I scored roughly the same in Cinebench and GeekBench. It's about $900 worth of motherboard, CPU, RAM and GPU. (I upgraded those parts over the summer... kept the same case, power supply and hard drives)
I'm guessing the majority of the cost of the 5K iMac is tied up in that big gorgeous screen?
.
I've got a Haswell i7-4790K and a relatively cheap NVidia GPU in my PC tower... and I scored roughly the same in Cinebench and GeekBench. It's about $900 worth of motherboard, CPU, RAM and GPU. (I upgraded those parts over the summer... kept the same case, power supply and hard drives)
I'm guessing the majority of the cost of the 5K iMac is tied up in that big gorgeous screen?
The screen is a good chunk of the cost. In late 2014, a separate 5K screen was $2,500. Looks like HP has a 5K now closer to $1,200, but you will still need a decent GPU with dual DP 1.2 to drive it. Now you are approaching iMac price, albeit without the "fun" of building your own PC...
Also, on a PC, I don't think Windows 8.1 handles the high DPI of a 27" 5K all that well, but supposedly Windows 10 does a better job of it (haven't tried it out though).