It means someone who likely has no training or experience in thermal engineering has posted an opinion on a rumor site. And now you have read that opinion.
What you choose to do about it is up to you.
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.
New iMacs Go on Sale Friday, November 30
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It means someone who likely has no training or experience in thermal engineering has posted an opinion on a rumor site. And now you have read that opinion.
What you choose to do about it is up to you.
obviously I cannot say for sure, I have not experienced the new imac
I would be concerned about heavy gaming on the machine you mention though. In my experience, overheating tends to lead to a shortened lifespan of the hardware, moreso than immediate overheating / shutdown / problems.
Only way to know is to wait for the reviews, well really long term stress testing...
Personally I'd rather have a cold big ass box for a computer.
----------
orly? I'm no thermal engineer but I know how to read system temps.
next you're going to tell me that previous iMacs don't run hot right?
and making computer enclosures thinner / more compact results in greater heat dissipation..
maybe in a perfect world
Last edited:
Design wise the new iMac IMHO looks great and the inner parts seem to be more streamlined. I think cooling will be actually better due to more efficient component placement. On the other hand I would have really appreciated a thinner iMac without the hump, but retaining a flat geometry throughout. With all the high tech welding they could have gone for a more professional iMac with accessible GPU, ram, HDD compartments at the back. It could have been the replacement of the Mac Pro even. There is a lot of useful space behind the screen for better cooling while still making the whole computer even thinner. On the other hand I can completely see that Apple must skate where the puck will go, and the future is more integrated component using less and less power as we progress in the world of technlology. So this design kind of establishes a foundation for the future, I think the introduction of the 5mm edge is not coincidence either. It is not that important now, but it enables further reduction of the hump without fundamentally changing the design.
I am kind of in a tough spot right now. I have a 2008 Mac Pro which is doing fine, and has an SSD in it. It is plenty fast, but the core I architecture is faster, no doubt. I am also a PC gamer. The rMBP would be a nice upgrade as I need a notebook, but I am not used to carrying such an expansive device with me on public transport. The new iMac with the high end GPU options would be nice for gaming in 1080p on my HT for at least two years. However the supposed new Mac Pro would be awesome given the developments on PC cards working in a Mac Pro. Although for recording and music production the iMac is quieter than a Mac Pro.
There are some people here completely pissed off by Apple because of the last update. I also feel a little cheated, and also think last update was a big letdown. I don't fully like where Apple is heading, but I don't mind the I gadgets at all. I just want even development and pro features implementation. The biggest letdown is graphics performance under OS X. However I really think that the last update was meant to happen this way. Why? It is simple: thunderbolt was not yet available. Even today there are just a few PC motherboards supporting it. It has to be done on the motherboard for I/O, graphics is just a pass through. I think that is the key, they had to face a technical limitation last time before the redesign could happen. I am willing to give some credit for Apple based on this, but I really hope that "later next year" means "not now, but next year" and not "q3 2013". That long I am not willing to wait for sure.
I am kind of in a tough spot right now. I have a 2008 Mac Pro which is doing fine, and has an SSD in it. It is plenty fast, but the core I architecture is faster, no doubt. I am also a PC gamer. The rMBP would be a nice upgrade as I need a notebook, but I am not used to carrying such an expansive device with me on public transport. The new iMac with the high end GPU options would be nice for gaming in 1080p on my HT for at least two years. However the supposed new Mac Pro would be awesome given the developments on PC cards working in a Mac Pro. Although for recording and music production the iMac is quieter than a Mac Pro.
There are some people here completely pissed off by Apple because of the last update. I also feel a little cheated, and also think last update was a big letdown. I don't fully like where Apple is heading, but I don't mind the I gadgets at all. I just want even development and pro features implementation. The biggest letdown is graphics performance under OS X. However I really think that the last update was meant to happen this way. Why? It is simple: thunderbolt was not yet available. Even today there are just a few PC motherboards supporting it. It has to be done on the motherboard for I/O, graphics is just a pass through. I think that is the key, they had to face a technical limitation last time before the redesign could happen. I am willing to give some credit for Apple based on this, but I really hope that "later next year" means "not now, but next year" and not "q3 2013". That long I am not willing to wait for sure.
The heat dissipation on the new iMac should be superior to the old iMac. In the old design the heat from the CPU and GPU is released into the interior cavity, and relies on convection to exit via the top slot, in other words, passive cooling of the interior.
In the new design there is a short heat pipe that conducts the CPU and GPU heat to a radiator from where it is ducted, and forced directly out of the cavity by a centrifugal blower fan. Also, in the new design the LCD is protected from heat damage by the aluminim chassis which is directly behind the screen. Because the screen is laminated and separated fom the interior, the behind the screen dust issue may be eliminated.
Why not? I love spinach, even though the vitamin K in it interferes with a medication I take, so I'm not supposed to eat it.
I'd like to add to the Bad Moves list:
Apple got rid of the optical drive... fine. They made the MacBook Pro thinner. Fine. They gave it a Retina display, fine (though this hinders battery life, cpu and gpu performance).
But now theres no possibility to add a secondary drive in the new MacBook Pros, thus limiting it to a maximum of 1TB on an HDD as well as 1TB SSD *if* you have about $2,000 for one. My current setup allows me to have a fast boot drive at 120gb and a secondary 1TB storage drive to hold all my documents as well as a Windows 7 partition.
With each passing year, the choices and possibilities from Apple have become more and more limited. The professional mac user has been getting screwed while the generic consumer has gotten all the benefits with their iToys.
I wish we could go back 10 years and have the Apple that used to care about computers.
Couldn't you just get the regular Macbook Pro for that?
Oh snap, I forgot that Apple didn't kill off that option. Well thank god for that. I suppose I could get one of the newer laptops but that would also mean going forward with Mountain Lion which is really poor compared to Snow Leopard.
Those "form over function" whiners complaining new iMacs don't have even more powerful hardware make me laugh.
1. "Omg, those awful 5400 drives turn iMacs into piece of ******"!
I bet you wont see ANY difference in 5400/7200 performance in your daily usage. They provide almost identical speeds and similar no-near-ssd response. From now on you're able to get Fusion Drive to improve your storage performance. Overall better than the previous gen? Without a doubt.
2. "Why oh why did they do iMacs slimmer instead of putting desktop graphics into it??"
Are you guys aware of the fact that decent discrete graphics cost MUCH more than laptop ones Apple offers? Apple will keep its margin with near no change, that's for sure. Desktop graphics would make iMacs simply more pricey, that's for sure. If graphics performance is something you need - voila, purchase 680mx bto and get amazingly fast graphics card. Standard gpus that new iMacs offer are notably better than older ones. The only disadvantage is the same amount of vRAM which is pretty sad. But for casual gaming that's more than enough so nothing to really whine about.
3. "I'm such a pro, that I won't survive the 21.5 soldered RAM which isn't enough for me"
First of all, most of you don't really NEED more than 8gb of ram. That is the fact. But if you REALLY need more than 8gb and you're uncomfortable with Apple's BTO pricing - you can simply grab the 27 model. If "I have no money for it" is your argument - you're not a pro, deal with it. But after all, if you really need to install more ram into 21 model yourself - the ram won't be soldered, so you'll be able to put two so-dimms into it. That's for sure.
I'll get base model and put more ram and 256gb mbp retina form-factor ssd into it. I need it for several VMs I have to run together. Since I'd had to disassemble previous design iMac to make such an upgrade, there's no differense for me anyway
New iMacs are overall better, they provide better hardware, better screen and new design for almost the same price. If your dreams about twice as powerful iMac with retina display for the same price haven't come true, that does't mean new iMacs are piece of ******. Calm down, realise it, deal with it and stop complaining.
Thanks for reading.
1. "Omg, those awful 5400 drives turn iMacs into piece of ******"!
I bet you wont see ANY difference in 5400/7200 performance in your daily usage. They provide almost identical speeds and similar no-near-ssd response. From now on you're able to get Fusion Drive to improve your storage performance. Overall better than the previous gen? Without a doubt.
2. "Why oh why did they do iMacs slimmer instead of putting desktop graphics into it??"
Are you guys aware of the fact that decent discrete graphics cost MUCH more than laptop ones Apple offers? Apple will keep its margin with near no change, that's for sure. Desktop graphics would make iMacs simply more pricey, that's for sure. If graphics performance is something you need - voila, purchase 680mx bto and get amazingly fast graphics card. Standard gpus that new iMacs offer are notably better than older ones. The only disadvantage is the same amount of vRAM which is pretty sad. But for casual gaming that's more than enough so nothing to really whine about.
3. "I'm such a pro, that I won't survive the 21.5 soldered RAM which isn't enough for me"
First of all, most of you don't really NEED more than 8gb of ram. That is the fact. But if you REALLY need more than 8gb and you're uncomfortable with Apple's BTO pricing - you can simply grab the 27 model. If "I have no money for it" is your argument - you're not a pro, deal with it. But after all, if you really need to install more ram into 21 model yourself - the ram won't be soldered, so you'll be able to put two so-dimms into it. That's for sure.
I'll get base model and put more ram and 256gb mbp retina form-factor ssd into it. I need it for several VMs I have to run together. Since I'd had to disassemble previous design iMac to make such an upgrade, there's no differense for me anyway
New iMacs are overall better, they provide better hardware, better screen and new design for almost the same price. If your dreams about twice as powerful iMac with retina display for the same price haven't come true, that does't mean new iMacs are piece of ******. Calm down, realise it, deal with it and stop complaining.
Thanks for reading.
Last edited:
I don't think I've ever been this excited for the release of a computer that I (a) have no interest in buying or owning myself and (b) am skeptical about in recommending to others. Though really for me it'll be the service manuals and iFixit teardowns that'll do it for me.
They made the enclosure thinner. They also changed the fan design and used a completely different set of major components. The new components have different heat tolerances than the old ones, and they generate different amounts of heat. In other words, everything changed, NOT just the size of the enclosure. How this stuff all works together is "thermal engineering". (Reading system temps is not what I call thermal engineering.)
"Run hot" is a subjective and nearly useless concept. Hot compared to what? Absolute zero? Room temperature? Body temperature? The boiling point of water? The core temperature of the sun?
What matters is HOW HOT a component is for HOW LONG, relative to data about the MTBF (mean time between failures) for the component at various temperatures. Is 40 degrees C (to pick a random number) "too hot" for a CPU package? It depends... what is the MTBF at 40 degrees? At 35 degrees, or 45 or 60 or whatever? Beyond the simple "cooler lasts longer" or "thinner is hotter", real engineers have to deal with a whole basket of tradeoffs. Component lifetime vs. noise levels vs. case size and shape vs. performance vs. cost vs. fan speed and placement vs. baffle design, etc. etc. etc. The goal is rarely ZERO component failures, or ZERO noise, or any other extreme. The whole story is about what tradeoffs are possible, and with what expected consequences. That is "thermal engineering".
I don't think anyone outside of Apple has access to the data needed to judge whether this thermal design is good or bad.
And you lose that bet. Please send me $1. Even on basic things like loading a program a 7200rpm drive is very noticeably faster. Boots faster, programs load faster, files save faster, etc.
Are you aware that everyone is aware of this simple fact? And that by stating it you show you really don't understand why people are complaining?
Now you're just being silly. How could you possible know how much RAM I need? Saying that I only need 8GB of RAM is like saying no one needs to drive faster than 25mph because you drive a scooter that will only go 24mph. Guess what buddy, I do need more memory, the more the better, because I do video editing and compositing along with graphics design work.
I love when people complain about people complaining. Cracks me up. Please don't stop.
You should send me that $1.
I have, on my desk, a 7200 rpm drive that is slower than the 5400 rpm drive in the DVR that replaced it.
The speed of the drive is only one factor. Other things to consider are areal density, number of platters, amount of cache, connection interface, drive firmware etc.
All the whining I've heard on here about "zomg! teh sukzorz 5400 rpm!" just smacks of people moaning without understanding much about the topic at hand.
The drive in the new iMac may very well be slower than an equivalent 7200, but my guess is that it will have virtually identical performance (within a few percent, and light years off the SSD performance range) except it will run cooler and quieter.
I get the feeling that Apple are secretly hoping that 2012 really will be the end of the world so they will finally be off this particular hook.
It isn't quite completely passive since there were two blowers toward the bottom of the interior that blew air indirectly up through the top slot. However, ....
This is a better to place the tranfered heat source closer to the exit and blow it primarily, if not entirely, out of the box.
there shouldn't be any substantive aluminum behind the screen. There may be a rim of aluminum but the underside of the motherboard ( with some components ) should be facing the LCD panel. Nor it is totally shielded from internal heat. However, the upside is that the hottest components are on the other side of the motherboard.
Even with the CPU/GPU heatsink being more directly blow out there are still likely 2-3 other fans inside to move out power supply and other heat sources. Part of the design using some fraction of the space the ODD took up to push more air out. It is just at the edges that they dramatically pinch down on space. However, there aren't many electronics at the edges.
----------
Not all 7200 drives are faster than 5400 drives. There are current 5400 drive with denser media that are faster than older 7200 drives. Especially, in the context of streaming large sequentail files. Whether the 5400 is a "downgrade" or not is whether these newer ones are slower than the previous generation 7200 drives Apple was shipping with iMacs.
Sure with media densities the same the 7200 is faster, but most mainstream users with mainstream workloads probably won't see much of a difference if these are newer, denser 5400 drives over the performance of previous generations.
That doesn't mean those with much higher demand for speed who can pay more won't see better 7200 times. The HDDs in the new iMacs aren't fixed in stone. For video compositing probably shouldn't be on a single spindle anyway.
That's complete rubbish! ANY modern HDD drive no matter 5200/5400/5900 or 7200 has read/write speeds of 100-120MB/s to 55-60MB/s (from the center of the disc to its edge) and almost identical response times. 5400 HDD could be notably slower only if it laid in your 2006-2007 laptop. Don't even try to doubt that.
Re-read the thread and realise you're wrong. There're lots of "why-not-the-desktop-graphics" whiners. Are they aware of the simple fact I stated? Really? =)
Nah, one more "I'm such a pro" guy.. If you're doing video editing, composing and graphics design work - just BUY THE 27 MODEL. Did you know it fits your needs much better? And yes, that IS the simplest fact ever.
Because Apple's website states "8GB (two 4GB) of 1600MHz DDR3 memory". If the RAM was soldered MBA- or rMBP-like, it stated "X GB of 1600MHz onboard DDR3 memory". As simple as that.
All fair enough, i just fundamentally disagree with theology that a thinner desktop is better.
Obviously it is not my decision, but i would take every precaution possible to ensure the system is as cool as possible. That along with the inclusion of a full desktop gpu, which is beside the point.
If they really did improve cooling drastically cheers to Apple. If not, cooling > aesthetics in my book. It goes beyond cooling though, i just dont understand the relevance of going thinner if it means compromises with anything..
Ah and 'run hot' would mean average temps on the high end of what the manufacturer suggests... Ie.. Intel. It is certainly relevant towards the life and performance of the component.
Last edited:
Apple's Black Friday sales have always been targeted and never "everything in the store on sale." For example, no discount on the iPad mini. No one in-store whines about something not on sale. Also Apple can't spare employees from customer whining. If they don't whine about a sale price they'll find something else out. Work in retail for a bit and find out yourself the hard way.
But missing Black Friday is huge because a lot of consumers blow their spending wad that weekend. Even as I type there are plenty of stories coming out out retailers are now concerned after the great weekend consumers are done for the year. When I company doesn't get product to market by Black Friday it's a huge miss.
I love how beautiful apple products are, however, I think they sacrificed power for the sake of thinness in this latest design. I would much rather see desktop-grade graphics rather than a uber-thin design.
I agree completely. I don't really care how thin a desktop machine is. I think I'll still buy the new 27 inch model though, I can load it with enough RAM to do my video processing.
No I don't have to upgrade so soon. But Apple have put themselves in an interesting position with the new 21.5" model, in that if I didn't have an iMac at all, I would on balance lean towards wanting the model that I have got rather than this new one. I don't think I'm alone in that either.
I admire what Apple are doing with the iMac and it's still a highly desirable piece of kit, but there are definitely more than a couple of questionable changes to the 21.5" model that make it a regressive update.