Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Are you disappointed with the new iMac, this might be an option.
- Thread starter garpen
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A better option, in my opinion, would have been this
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883155411
Currently, the price is $2000, but last week it was on sale for $1750.
Core i7 3770 processor
2TB HDD
nVidia Card (not the fastest, but 2GB)
Only 8GB of RAM though
BluRay player built-in
Built-in TV tuner (for what that is worth)
and a 27" PLS screen with a 1440 resolution
It's a pretty good match for an iMac, if someone decided that they weren't going to buy from Apple.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883155411
Currently, the price is $2000, but last week it was on sale for $1750.
Core i7 3770 processor
2TB HDD
nVidia Card (not the fastest, but 2GB)
Only 8GB of RAM though
BluRay player built-in
Built-in TV tuner (for what that is worth)
and a 27" PLS screen with a 1440 resolution
It's a pretty good match for an iMac, if someone decided that they weren't going to buy from Apple.
Agree this one looks better but like stated earlier, these AIO's all seem to be lacking in the GPU area.
No, I don't follow the AIO market, because it is a stupid product that shouldn't have even half the following that it does now. They are impractical machines, costing way more than they ought to just so we can remove the need for a separate computer unit, saving space on desks that were built to accommodate such separate computer units. Stupid. The fact that this is the ONLY desktop Mac product that Apple makes that is superior to a Mac mini, but using consumer parts compared to the Xeons Apple uses in the Mac Pro and as a mid-range machine with a discrete graphics card is obscene. Though this is probably why, I have a MacBook Pro and a gaming tower and not an iMac.
To say that the iMac is the best all-in-one doesn't really mean much while the all-in-one is the worst desktop form factor out there.
What a self-righteous, dense thing to say... and yet you are here in an AIO forum. You seem to be a contradictory person indeed.
For your information: a custom-built desktop tower with the same components as the high-end 27" iMac ends up costing more or less the same $2000 (I looked up the component prices at newegg). Try it as well, you will be surprised. I was looking into building an Hackintosh, but whats the point if I can't get it cheaper then the real thing?
So the choice boils down to whether you want to have more flexibility/expandability (tower) at the expense of required space or save lots of space while forgoing expandability (AIO). I have built several dozens custom PC in my life and I can safely say that all the expandability business is greatly overrated. AIOs are simply more practical for the vast majority of the users. I for once, can't be bothered with a massive tower and a cable salad anymore, when I can have a powerful tower hardware in a sleek monitor-sized package.
This looks like a nice deal actually, if you don't need a good GPU. Any kind of gaming is pretty much impossible with that thing. The $1999 iMac has a GPU approximately 2.5x faster... it also doesn't seem to have a 3x3 WiFi card like the iMac which is a BIG deal to me (having a 450MBs wireless really improves things).
Its really interesting to compare these things though... I have no idea how Apple manages to build the same machine approximately 5 kg lighter. Thats 33%! Thats really insane from the engineering point of view.
wat. I can't bear looking at that ASUS on my screen for more than 30 seconds, don't think it's possible to have it in my study for 5 minutes without me feeling the need to destroy it.
I'm in a thread whose premise is disappointment with the new iMac. Thanks, but I think I'm in the right place after all.
Man, I price out machines like that on NewEgg as part of my side business. For one, for $2000, you are likely pricing out a machine with the full GeForce GTX 680 (as in not the GeForce GTX 680MX, the crippled mobile version meant for crap like gamer PC laptops and the 27" iMac). That makes a fairly huge difference. Otherwise, yes, a high-end 27" iMac's CPU (and we're talking the 3.4GHz CTO option) is $300, a motherboard offering well more expansion than the 27" iMac could ever hope to offer (and yes, Thunderbolt included) is another $300, a video card blowing away the GTX 680MX is another $300, RAM is $170, hard drive is $150, SSD is $120, case and power supply, let's say is $150, so if you're keeping score, we're just shy of $1500. I don't know what components you were finding on NewEgg, but that's still shy of a base version of the higher-end iMac (mind you, without the equivalent of a 3TB Fusion drive, and without a video card that kicks the crap out of the iMac's maximum CTO option), let alone one that is fully maxed out. If your argument extends to also including a 27" monitor carrying the same resolution, no, you're right, I won't be able to beat the base high-end model; but I can certainly beat a maxed out CTO. Then again, who the hell knows how much Apple is going to charge for those upgrades. Still though, I can guarantee you they won't be inexpensive.
So, for your information, your information is a load of crap.
I don't know about you, but the money needed to buy a computer isn't exactly something that I can conjure up out of thin air; it takes me a great deal of time to save up for something like that. And if I'm at that point, I want my investment to last a long long long long time before I throw in the towel and say "Gee, I guess it's time to scrap that one and start over". I once owned an Early 2006 20" iMac (Core Duo, first of the Intel iMacs) and I maxed it out with the largest hard drive you could fit in that thing at the time as well as the most amount of VRAM you could fit in that thing at the time. I finally replaced it in January of 2011 because I was running low on space. The machine was otherwise perfect for my needs and would've easily lasted me until I finally pulled the trigger on the MacBook Pro in my signature, but alas, I was running out of internal space, couldn't afford a NAS, wanted more storage, but also wanted that "more storage" to be as regularly and effortlessly backed up as my internal drive was with Time Machine. On a Hackintosh, or a regular PC tower, that's not impossible; it's actually quite effortless. On an Early 2006 iMac, it isn't impossible either, but it is nowhere near effortless.
The use of the word "sleek" to describe a desktop computer shouldn't be a necessity. My tower is pretty sleek externally, but that's not why I value it. I value it for its utility, not for its looks. The "cable salad" is hidden inside the chassis; I see my "cable salad" no more than an iMac owner sees his. If you want to talk about chaotic cable organization, try opening up an iMac, then try putting all of the cables you needed to disconnect in order to open it up in the first place, back together. At least motherboards have an order to where things go. On the iMac, it's all seemingly arbitrary; nowhere near sleek or elegant on the inside.
If you don't want an upgradable machine, or at least an easily serviceable machine, you're making a poor investment. Still though, even if that's the choice you wish to make, making one as poorly designed internally as the iMac is just plain stupid. Is that something unique to the iMac? I couldn't say. Again, All-in-ones pretty much provide everything that's annoying about a laptop combined with everything that's annoying about a desktop, save for footprint. Though given that most desks accommodate a tower in one fashion or another, to REALLY crave the lack of one is, I'm sorry, silly.
Last edited:
It looks very average to me and as an all-in-one desktop it can't compete with the iMac. I don't think much of the base it's standing on either it looks cheap.
Basically it's not for me and the idea that desktop computers need built in disc drives is out of date (we are in 2012).
The worst thing about it is the fact that it runs Windows (which is ****). I know because I have to use it at work.
I was only talking about a base high-end iMac, no CTO. And yes, I am including a display. A comparison should be fair, shouldn't it? Here is my original post:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/16168513/
And btw, what would the graphics card be that blows 680mx away for $300? We are basically talking about a desktop GTX 670 here. The cheapest one I could find was
If I pay $2000 for a computer and keep it for 3 years, I have effectively payed $56 per month. This is the price of 5 beers where I live (my monthly internet subscription actually costs more than that and I am using one of the cheapest providers in my country!). And as I made clear, the difference in price between a custom PC tower and the iMac is not that great price-wise. Whether you pay $2000 or $2200 for a machine does not make that much difference.
Now, if you don't want to spend that much money, a custom built tower would allow you much more room for a compromise, but I don't see anyone here arguing about this point. I surely am not.
Thats what USB3 and thunderbolt are for. And allow me to let you in on a secret. The iMac is a premium machine. This means it is more expensive, but also has some additional features (like great display or slick design). If you need more storage but can't afford a NAS why are you buying an expensive machine in the first place? Surely your money is better invested somewhere else.
And thats exactly the attitude that makes you very unlikeable. Stop trying to force your 'view's' on other people. As some smart guy once said: you are not QUALIFIED to do that. I don't see myself around criticising people with towers, I simply say that I - for the reasons of personal taste - prefer an AIO to a tower. Yet you, for reasons absolutely unclear to me, try to invalidate my opinion by throwing some random statement at me. Nobody cares about your experience or preferences, what matters are facts. And facts are - AIOs are being sold and people are buying them, and there are people willing to buy them. If you consider this 'silly', thats entirely your problem. But that's not a basis for a constructive discussion. The topic of this thread is still 'AIO alternatives to the iMac'.
Alright, if we're talking about a fair comparison, then for $2000, the cost of a base high-end 27" iMac, I can build a maxed out high-end iMac. And yes, with the GTX 670, which, unless I'm mistaken does blow the GTX 680MX away as desktop components perform better than mobile components. I still don't know where you get the idea that the bang for buck on an iMac is better than a tower or even comparable because that math isn't adding up the way you say it is.
This is a poor deal. I pay $1000 for a desktop that will last me 4 years, and that's assuming I don't put money into these magical things called UPGRADES. I'm effectively paying less than two fifths what you're paying and I'm keeping it longer. But hey man, if you can afford to pay two and a half times what I pay for running a desktop by running an iMac, more power to you. I paid $3000 and I expect my MacBook Pro to last me five years, more if I throw in money for a larger drive when the time comes. That's much less decent of an investment until you factor in the fact that I'm paying extra for the ability to take my sole Mac anywhere I want to.
Even if you are having all five beers in bars, you have some overpriced bars in your neck of the woods. For the cost of one of those beers, you could buy a six-pack and a half, but I digress. Similarly, it sounds like your ISP is raping you, either that or, you have money to blow.
You made that clear? No, I don't believe you did. I priced out a computer that is comparable to a maxed out CTO 27" iMac for the cost of the base model. And I'd be willing to wager a lot that the difference is well more than $200. Where are you making the opposite clear?
More room for "a compromise"? I'm sorry, pal, the whole point of a desktop is to NOT COMPROMISE. That's the problem with the iMac; that machine is nothing but compromise. Gotta compromise the space for a second hard drive for sleekness. Gotta compromise the space for an actual desktop GPU for thinness. THAT'S WHAT LAPTOPS ARE FOR! Desktops are where the heavy lifting is done, not where I "oooo" and "awe" over how thin the machine was made for no practical reason.
At the time, I didn't own a NAS. Now, I use a NAS and a current generation (non-retina) MacBook Pro. Much unlike the iMac, but quite like a tower, I can upgrade my hard drives at will on the MacBook Pro without batting an eye. A desktop should have that inherent functionality. You have nothing to say that justifies the lack of such a feature except meaningless buzzwords like "sleek" and "slick". I shouldn't NEED a NAS to augment the storage on a desktop computer, nor should I need an external hard drive; that's what internal hard drives are for. Yes, I should have the option to augment the storage on my desktop with an external drive. But by no means, should it ever be my only option!
As for the iMac being a "premium machine", don't overdo the coolaid, man. For what it is, it's nothing special. Standard fare Ivy Bridge, laptop RAM, standard desktop hard drive (in the 27"; standard notebook hard drive in the 21.5"), premium laptop graphics (which is disappointing as it is a desktop and not a laptop), nice panel on the 27" (meh on the 21.5"), but that's about it. As priced, it offers you nothing other than a little more desk space and a lot less bang for buck.
And for the record, I never had a problem with that being your preference, but rather for you not being honest about how poor of a deal it is from any standpoint other than "it's the only Mac better than the mini, but not as good as the Mac Pro".
I'm forcing my views on other people? I'm sorry, but where do you see me telling people what they should or shouldn't buy? Oh right, I'm not! I think they're stupid, I provide a fairly logical argument as to why I feel that way. How many ****s do you think I give about whether you or anyone else agrees with that?
There are some people who will need a Mac desktop, will find the Mac Pro to be overkill, but will want a discrete GPU; for right now, I have no choice but to point them in the direction of the iMac because Apple isn't making any other desktop that meets that criteria!
Do you not like me raining on your AIO parade? Build a bridge and get over it! Life's too short to be making stupid arguments about computers that aren't any less stupid.
I'm not criticizing iMac owners. You forget, I was once one, myself. What I am criticizing is the notion that form is more important than function. Yes, I think such a notion is stupid and is part of the reason why I regrettably am no longer an iMac customer. Sorry if you disagree.
Huh?
Where are your numbers on this? Also, while you're at it, conjure me that NewEgg quote where $2000 comes shy of matching the iMac feature for feature.
Nope, the thread is about alternatives to the iMac; nowhere in the title of the original post is there any "AIO" or "all-in-one" written. The example shown is an Asus all-in-one. My stance on towers versus all-in-ones is no less valid or appropriate.
It takes up less space on your desk?
You must have a pretty ****** desk if size and weight are a factor
GTX 670 - 1344 cores at 920Mhz
GTX 680MX - 1536 cores at 720Mhz
So we have 15% increase in cores versus 25% decrease of clocks. At best, the 670 is marginally faster.
But it won't have the specs or the iMac... the display alone costs close to $1000
I see you haven't been to Switzerland... and I surely don't have any money to blow, being a PhD student living of meager grant money in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Still, back when I used to build my PC myself, I would actually spend more money on them, in my never-ending pursuit for quieter, aesthetically pleasing computer. With the iMac, its just fire and forget. I buy one for CHF 2200, and sell it a year later for CHF 1800; and then I buy a new one. Rinse and repeat. Effectively, I pay around CHF 400 per year for owning a great computer. This is less what my 125cc scooter maintenance costs per year. Not that I will be buying a desktop any time soon, I sold my 2011 imac some time ago and I am very happy with my retina MBP
You priced out a machine for $1500 without OS/peripherals/display. I can't believe we even have this discussion. Add those things to it and you end up with over $2300. The BTO iMac will cost what, $2500 at most?
Compromise = getting cheaper parts. Don't twist my words. The great thing about towers is that you have lots of opportunities to save money. Don't need TB? Get a cheaper mainboard. Don't need 3x3 Wifi? Don't buy that adaptor. Don't need a fancy aluminium case for $200? Get the cheap plastic one. With the iMac, all these things are included. This is why I call it a 'premium' machine. You also pay more for designer cloth, even though it doesn't make you any warmer. Aesthetics plays an important role.
I don't have any numbers, but every major PC vendor is building AIOs now. Two years ago, there was literally no AIOs besides the iMac. This means that there is a market for AIOs (assuming that Asus, Lenovo, Dell, HP and everyone else are not just making random products).
I did post a link to my previous post where I list the components. Look it up.
If he's talking tower, I can build a much faster tower+ display thats just as good for less money, AIO's carry a higher price point.
Why do looks matter? I bought my iMac to do a job, not be a conversation piece.
Right..... my 2011....hard drive failures...overheating...dust behind display.....screen randomly cracked.....another hard drive.....another machine.......power supply failure...runs hot.....runs loud.....great machine, and not a waste of 3000 dollars at all.
Don't twist his words, with any AIO, and this includes the iMac, they compromise.
The new iMac compromises performance, user repair, user upgrade, upgrades in general, and hardware health in the name of meaningless thinness.
Aesthetics are meaningless in a desktop computer. Or any computer. If you have to show off your computer, you got issues. Why not buy a nice car or house? Then show that off, if thats what matters to you.
Wrong, wrong wrong, Your wrong!
Fine, add $170 to the previous number and boom, a full desktop GTX 680; well faster than the fastest 27" iMac while still cheaper.
But it won't have the specs or the iMac... the display alone costs close to $1000
I'm talking about my style of owning a desktop; I don't need a 2560x1440 27" display; I'm perfectly content with my 2048x1152 24" display.
First off, I own Mountain Lion, Lion, and Snow Leopard. I also own Windows 7. If I really wanted to, I could spend the $40 that the standard version of Windows 8 costs and buy it, but really, why? If we're adding OSes to this stupid pissing contest, we're talking $20 (if Mountain Lion) to $40 (if Windows 8); a negligible amount.
Secondly, peripherals are another non-issue, costing $70 at most.
Display, I can easily get a display comparable to the iMac's for $500. We're still hundreds of dollars shy of the cost of the 27" iMac given comparable specs. I agree, if the disparity were within $150, it wouldn't be worth the discussion; but it's easily double if not triple that. And I don't know about you, but $450 is a lot of money to me.
The only one of us twisting the word "Compromise" here is you. Because, last I checked, "compromise" means trade-offs, and that's exactly what an iMac is; trade-offs that would never fly in a traditional desktop.
Also, you're living on another planet if you think that the internal parts inside of an iMac are especially high-grade. I highly doubt you've ever seen the inside of an iMac. Trust me, I've seen enough of 'em naked. It's really not that special. The power supply especially is of a weak quality, which probably accounts for the high failure amounts.
Fancy Aluminum cases are barely $40 more than the plastic ones. The case to my gaming tower cost me $60; and barring a fairly annoying PCIe card slot mechanism, it's pretty decent all around. Similarly WiFi costs $20; also Thunderbolt is fairly affordable if what you already want going into building your tower is an Ivy Bridge beast. You may call the iMac a designer computer; I'd appreciate that given that Jony Ive is one of the most influential designers of our time; but to call it a "premium" computer is a joke, I'm sorry.
Dell, Asus, Lenovo, and HP were all making AIOs two years ago. Hell, they were making them earlier too. No one buys them, because no one buys desktops anymore; and even if they do, they're not going to spend $1000 on an AIO that does the same thing that a $600 mini-tower+monitor combo does. That's just poor economics to save ~6 Cubic feet of volume.
You list the components, but you don't tell me how much they cost. What kind of hard drive did you find in there? Unless you went seriously overboard on something, your build should be way cheaper. Though you are throwing in a Corsair power supply, is substantially better than the piece of crap in the iMacs and thusly is not a fair comparison as far as price or quality is concerned. Similarly, screw the GTX 560 Ti if we're going for a like comparison; GTX 670 is much closer to something actually used in these new iMacs. I could see your numbers checking out if you priced in Apple's Thunderbolt display, but really, it's not the only option for such a display and it's nowhere near the cheapest.
Last edited:
So, your desk is ****** because you want to save some room on it for other thing? Sure thing, genius. And i never said anything about weight when it came to desks. As far as weight, you are probably going to occasionally move your iMac/desk, so yeah, it's nice to have the iMac be smaller and lighter for that reason. If you're so annoyed that it's thinner, tie a damn brick to yours and quit complaining.
Wait, wait, because I am going to occasionally move my desk, it's best to have the iMac be light because people when moving desks tend to keep computers on them while they move it? That can't be what you mean, but that is how you word it.
Also, towers don't have to be on the desk, in a lot of cases, they're on the floor, thusly saving that desk space. Hell, a lot of desks come with a dedicated compartment for the desktop. Saving room on a desk by integrating all the parts of your computer into the screen is doing it wrong.
So, how does the new iMac save any actual desk space compared to the old one? Because It doesn't, at all. The machine could be 4 inches thicker, and no deskspace would be saved.
