Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New iMac and Mac Mini Models to Retain Current Pricing, Add 8 GB RAM Module Options

unplugme71 said:
I'd be happy with Ivy CPUs and 16GB MacMini Server and at least two USB 3.0 ports. Even more happy if it had dual GigE ports or at least a GigE to USB 3 to get faster throughput. Although I guess I could use the current USB Ethernet for public facing Internet and on board for internal.
Click to expand...

Apple isn't pushing USB 3.
 
labars said:
I have a feeling that the only people who are asking for "Retina" displays on the iMac are people that know nothing about how a computer actually works. A "Retina" display on the new iMacs would not even be usable considering the weak GPU's they put in those computers. Asking for Retina displays on the iMac is right up there in stupidity as asking for touchscreens. *facepalm*
Click to expand...
Apple kinda asks for it though, with their habit of replacing dry, engineer-esque technology acronyms like DVD-R/W+, IEEE 1394 and 802.11n with tantalizing, superlative-laden trademarks like SUPERdrive, FIREwire and AirPort EXTREME. It appeals to the type of customers who go "I don't even know what that is, but I want it now." Once you gave them the word "Retina" they want everything to be Retina. Retina speakers, Retina sneakers, Retina salad, Starbucks Double Retina Caf-decaf Caramel Frappuccino...
 
forty2j said:
Sounds like you didn't do your research.

iMac RAM upgrades involve exactly 1 screw, on the base of the chin. You're in and out faster than a (use your imagination).
Click to expand...

How does that change anything I said before? I don't want to mess with any screws on a new machine if I don't have to - not even one.
 
flopticalcube said:
TBolt will be with us for many years to come. How useful it will be depends on the prices of peripherals.
Click to expand...

And perhaps how much and how quickly Intel can increase the bandwidth. High-end TB graphics card may not be possible with the current implementation, but of course the standard can theoretically support up to 100Gb/s.
 
thing is, anyone who buys a computer, needs to updgrade ram or HD or both in sometime, it would be nice if they are already packed with 8GB or 16GB, along with 2TB hdd. then one wouldn't ever need to take apart his mac for upgrade, unless of course if it breaksdown and needs repair.
Atleast i would want my imac to come sealed and filled to the brim. just like i can buy an iphone with 64GB. the end.
 
MacRumors said:
9to5Mac reports that prices for Apple's new iMac and Mac mini coming next week will be in line with current pricing, almost certainly confirming that the new iMac models will not carry more-expensive Retina displays.
Click to expand...


According to my sources yes there is a Retina Display desktop, but they aren't calling it an iMac. They are calling it an rMac. So that's why the iMacs are the same price.

According to other sources my first sources are full of crap and the reason why the new iMacs are the same price with a Retina Display is that all these so called experts are wrong in their assumption that this means putting in a 4k screen. The math is only about a 13% increase in pixels which is totally doable without a massive increase in cost over the current display or the GPU to run it and since harddrive and RAM costs have come down, that reduction will offset the increases so the prices can stay the same.
 
strwrsfrk said:
Hopefully the non-server minis will get quad-core options and a better, discrete GPU. 650m anyone?
Click to expand...

Two new Gpus were released some days ago in October,
the 625m and the 645m,
maybe a 625m with a quad core its the max we can have..anyway i hope to see this
MacMini L Dual core plus 625m,
MacMini H Quad core plus 645m..

MacMini server?...Just Quad and doubled storage?
no...
i fear we will see
MacMini L Dual core Hd4000
MacMini H Dual core plus 625m
MacMini Server Quad
 
I hope the new mini will finally be powerful enough to make a mac pro obsolete.

it would make things a lot easier, financially.

..we can all dream right?
 
Last edited:
akbarali.ch said:
thing is, anyone who buys a computer, needs to updgrade ram or HD or both in sometime
Click to expand...

I had to upgrade my hard drive in my 2008 once because I was running out of space, and then again when the replacement failed last month. Both times I had to take it in to the local apple authorized repair shop (because I just don't have the gift of taking things apart without breaking something). It would have definitely been nice to swap those out myself. A slot much like the ram slot would be perfect. Remove one screw, slide out the old drive, slide in the new and screw the cover back on.
 
flopticalcube said:
Z68 and Z77 motherboards already support this. All Apple has to do is enable it in the EFI.
Click to expand...

gnasher729 said:
I seriously doubt that a bit of hardware on the motherboard can be clever enough to do this without performance loss. With 64 GB of flash, the problem is to make intelligent decisions where to put what data as early as possible, and that must be done in the operating system.
Click to expand...
Apple would be late to the party there. Intel provides there own software for SSD caching and you can always just buy your own.

I was hoping for handwaving magical implementation of SSD caching in Windows 8 or 10.8 but I guess they left third parties to that. At least under Windows.
 
Wild-Bill said:
I'll believe it when I see it. And don't tell me to move along.
Click to expand...

it's better to assume there won't be a new Mac Pro at all.

get a HP Z820 if you really need the power 🙂

CinebenchChartt1.jpg
 
Anuba said:
As Louis CK said about some guy next to him on a plane, who had just learned that they have new high speed internet on board -- only to find that it wasn't working right now, and grumbled "This is bull ****!":

"How quickly the world owes him something he knew existed only ten seconds ago."
Click to expand...

perhaps NSFW but it is one of the best comments about our times I've heard in a while.

for those that have never seen it . should start at the part Anuba is talking about (sorry if you get an ad, trust me its worth it)
 
smh2012 said:
Unless you're an owl, do you really need retina in an iMac?

I mean, I'm sitting 2 feet from my 13" MacBook Air right now and really can't discern any pixelation. I can't imagine that there is any real practical advantage to having a screen of that size with that high of a resolution, other than it being a Pis*ing competition.

For me the biggest advantage is on tiny screens that you have to have fairly close to you anyway, like an iPhone or an iPad...
Click to expand...

I love the clarity of my retina iPhone. It reduced eyestrain enormously. My iMac looks blurry in comparison. Therefore I would like a retina iMac to reduce eyestrain. I spend a lot of hours working on my computer. Having an improved tool that is better for my health is not privilege or a pis*ing competition.

It is doubtful that we will be seeing a retina iMac this time around, but I hope it comes soon.
 
WestonHarvey1 said:
How does that change anything I said before? I don't want to mess with any screws on a new machine if I don't have to - not even one.
Click to expand...

It's idiot-proof, in a specially designed area that only has RAM. There's no way you can possibly screw it up short of a large beaver ingesting the memory door in the 3 minutes you have it off.

If those 3 minutes are worth an extra $200-$400 for the same RAM, more power to you.
 
shanson27 said:
Please, 4K resolution display for the new iMac 🙂
Click to expand...

As much as that would seriously be awesome I highly doubt that is going to happen this year. My guess is we will need to wait at least 2 more years before we see 4K Retina 27" iMacs and 4k Thunderbolt displays.

I may be wrong on this but if there were a 4K thunderbolt display made by Apple the current Retina Macbooks could not handle it. Apple could release a 4K iMac and use desktop GPUs and leave out the thunderbolt display until later down the road when the new Mac Pros come out.

At 220dpi you would need a resolution of 5184x3240 for a 27" panel or close to it and thats 3x as many as the Retina Macbooks video processor needs to drive.
 
9to5Mac.com are wrong or at less handle less data than me.

FACTS
1- Sharp ACTUALLY has a 21"4k2K PANEL in production since January.
2- WAS MORE EXPENSIVE TO APPLE TO DEVELOPE the rMBP15 LCD Panel than It Will Cost for the 21" iMac.
3- rMBP15 Actually is a BARGAIN just CONFIGURE a NON-RETINA MBP15 an you'll be aware It Cost MORE than similar Configuration rMBP15.
4- Last Week was Leaked a new iMac with "DropWater" unibody design (this refer to how it look on sideways, so is very thin at top border and bulky at bottom border), THIS IS THE NEW Retina iMac.

The Current Unibody design sure will continue with expected update (sandy bridge, usb3 etc) as MBP did after rMBP launch.

So I think is VERY LIKELY we WILL SEE a 21"Retina iMac very soon.
 
labars said:
I have a feeling that the only people who are asking for "Retina" displays on the iMac are people that know nothing about how a computer actually works. A "Retina" display on the new iMacs would not even be usable considering the weak GPU's they put in those computers. Asking for Retina displays on the iMac is right up there in stupidity as asking for touchscreens. *facepalm*
Click to expand...

I would say that you are equally guilty because your comment suggests that you are defining 'retina' as "double the highest current resolution" which shows that you don't understand how the term is defined. Apple released the math they use and it doesn't pan out to a major change in resolution. So the current GPUs could actually be enough to handle the display.
 
rmwebs said:
Whilst I do agree to some extent, the Mac Pro is really overkill now. Not in terms of performance, but its size. You could easily reduce its size (and weight!) without it having any baring on its existing flexibility.
Click to expand...
This! Take a Mac Mini, triple it in size, give it 3 Drobo-like hard drive bays in the front, a real processor and graphics card and a slew of ports in the back and cut the Mac Pro price in half and viola, what most pros need. Until iMacs can have multiple removable drives and a desktop graphics card, they will never be a pro machine.
 
charlituna said:
According to my sources yes there is a Retina Display desktop, but they aren't calling it an iMac. They are calling it an rMac. So that's why the iMacs are the same price.

According to other sources my first sources are full of crap and the reason why the new iMacs are the same price with a Retina Display is that all these so called experts are wrong in their assumption that this means putting in a 4k screen. The math is only about a 13% increase in pixels which is totally doable without a massive increase in cost over the current display or the GPU to run it and since harddrive and RAM costs have come down, that reduction will offset the increases so the prices can stay the same.
Click to expand...

Your math would be wrong. The IBM T220/T221 pixel density of 204ppi giving it 3840×2400 just came in under 4K for a 22 in monitor. Now the Macbook Pro 15 being at 220ppi giving it the 2880 x 1800 should make it rather clear we're talking about the near 4k of the T220 for the 21.5" iMac and beyond for the 27" iMac so no I doubt they will be pushing Retina Display tech until panel manufacturing assembles such high yields so the entire industry

This site did a fine job at determining the Retina Display minimum threshold:

http://gdgt.com/discuss/crunching-t...underbolt-monitors-with-retina-displays-1a9d/

Conclusion: iMac 21.5 at ppi 205.02 bumps the Resolution above 3840 x 2160
iMac 27 at ppi 217.68 for a resolution of 5120 x 2880.

For those to happen, AMD is the only solution and then it would require dual discrete GPGPUs to pull it off.
 
Hope the pricing does remain the same has I'm planning on getting one early on next year 😀

I won't be getting the ram from Apple though, not at their prices. I plan on getting my ram from Crucial (probably 16GB) and keep the 4GB installed that will come with the iMac to give me 20GB. This should be more than enough for my uses.
 
charlituna said:
I would say that you are equally guilty because your comment suggests that you are defining 'retina' as "double the highest current resolution" which shows that you don't understand how the term is defined. Apple released the math they use and it doesn't pan out to a major change in resolution. So the current GPUs could actually be enough to handle the display.
Click to expand...

Sorry for what might sound like a dumb question. Would the GPU be enough to use an second 27in TB display daisy chained ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back