New Low-Cost iMac Nearly 50% Slower in Multi-Core, 10% Slower in Single-Core Benchmarks

As a very happy owner of the current generation macbook air, I can certainly say this imac will be plenty fast for everyone that isn't doing heavy 3D design, videoediting, or photoshop use. Even photoshop runs perfectly smooth on my air unless i am working with 2gb+ files with 5+ layers.

Even to this day, there is hardly any real use for most people to have a quad core compared to a dual core, and i doubt average users will notice a difference.

Also, this does actually have comparable graphics to the "quad core" 21.5 imac everyone is comparing it too, it will play skyrim just fine at low settings, minecraft at high settings, and just about any popular MMO and older games at max settings.

PS: HUGE energy efficiency and heat benefits that really do matter.

WallToWallMacs said:

Why? unless you're doing something major I doubt that a copy of Microsoft Office 2011 is going to stress the machine to the point that it is unusable even for spreadsheet jockey's dealing with many sheets and cells.

Click to expand...

Excel can be a resource hog.
Try using it to retrieve large data imports from SQL to generate reports.
There are other applications as well that may seem to use little resources until they have large files/data they need to deal with.

$1099+TAX for a static web browser, email client and light document/spreadsheet work is over priced.

Should be in the $799 price point easily.

You guys are snobs

The primary complaint people give about Apple products is they are overpriced. This is a test to see what cost efficiencies will work in the market. Lower cost, lower power consumption, quieter, timed for education release where the pricing will be more attractive.

I LIVE on a macbook air mid-2012, and I manage supercomputers for a living, running networks of virtual machines on my laptop to test configurations, etc. CPU is seldom my problem. I did just invest in a 960GB SSD though.

The next products to be tested will be ARM based laptops and desktops. This begins the curve away from performance that looks good in marketing, and toward tailored performance that the user actually needs. I watch CPU usage professionally, and this machine looks fine for most users. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

can I get a refund on that apple stock I recently purchased?

Carouser said:

That's a false dilemma between "only discuss untruths" and "make irrelevant complaints over and over". If you can't think up anything else to discuss, then yes, there's probably no need to post.

Click to expand...

This is bit an irrelevant complaint. Clearly that's the case by the sheer volume of noise here. But you go ahead and defend your original empty comment.

WallToWallMacs said:

5) Doesn't run OS X - the value for consumers looking for a Mac is because it isn't a Windows computer - the OS has value in that it differentiates the brand from all the rest which can only compete on two things - price and specifications, attention to detail and support don't even enter the equation for pretty much every Windows OEM out there (and why would it when price and specifications are the only two differentiators which creates the race to the bottom and razor thin margins which mean things have to be culled - the standard features that give Apple the edge).

Click to expand...

I already said it. Although I spelt OS X wrong haha

Michaelgtrusa said:

That is way to slow. like back to the old core2duo's

Click to expand...

About twice the speed of a Core 2 Duo, but you were very close. Well done.

SoundChaos said:

Even to this day, there is hardly any real use for most people to have a quad core compared to a dual core, and i doubt average users will notice a difference.

Click to expand...

It's clear that quad core CPUs have been wildly successful from a marketing standpoint, along with clock frequency.

bawbac said:

Excel can be a resource hog.
Try using it to retrieve large data imports from SQL to generate reports.
There are other applications as well that may seem to use little resources until they have large files/data they need to deal with.

$1099+TAX for a static web browser, email client and light document/spreadsheet work is over priced.

Should be in the $799 price point easily.

Click to expand...

I think Excel on Mac being a resource hog has more to do it with it being a horribly unoptimised mess than anything to do with the computer or the operating system. If OneNote is anything to go by then hopefully we'll see the next version of Office for Mac being less of a mess given that, from the stuff I've read on the Arstechnica Mac area (there is a developer in the MacBU) that the move to iOS has given them a chance to clean up Office for Mac. Lets see what happens - I'm expecting no minimal improvements but hope for something better.

Sandstorm said:

I don't like this Apple trend of marginally "cheaper" devices with ridiculously reduced parameters. 8GB iPhone 5c version instead of just dropping the price of 16GB. Entirely new, slower version of iMac instead of just dropping the price of the existing lowest config. These just look like bean-counter moves.

Click to expand...

i expected nothing less

WallToWallMacs said:

I think Excel on Mac being a resource hog has more to do it with it being a horribly unoptimised mess than anything to do with the computer or the operating system. If OneNote is anything to go by then hopefully we'll see the next version of Office for Mac being less of a mess given that, from the stuff I've read on the Arstechnica Mac area (there is a developer in the MacBU) that the move to iOS has given them a chance to clean up Office for Mac. Lets see what happens - I'm expecting no minimal improvements but hope for something better.

Click to expand...

None of the apps in Office 2011 caused any problems on my late 2008 C2D 2.4 or late 2009 mini though both had a 7200rpm HDD and 8GB RAM. Needless to say Office 2011 flies on my newer Macs with SSDs and 16GB RAM.

bawbac said:

Excel can be a resource hog.
Try using it to retrieve large data imports from SQL to generate reports.
There are other applications as well that may seem to use little resources until they have large files/data they need to deal with.

Click to expand...

Except most people can't spell SQL let alone run a query that generates large amounts of data. If you have special needs like that this isn't the Mac for you.

However, it is a nice general purpose machine that will meet many user's needs. It's essentially a desktop MBA so someone that wants a large screen and doesn't need a laptop will find this a good option.

As other's have surmised the target audience of this machine is probably schools and corporations who don't need a lot of power and will find the price and power use attractive.

$1099+TAX for a static web browser, email client and light document/spreadsheet work is over priced.

Should be in the $799 price point easily.

Click to expand...

Most Apple products are at the high end of the market and this is no different. Sure, cheaper would be great but a $200 price difference is a significant one for most people who simply need a computer and have a budget.

jlc1978 said:

Most Apple products are at the high end of the market and this is no different. Sure, cheaper would be great but a $200 price difference is a significant one for most people who simply need a computer and have a budget.

Click to expand...

The problem here is the price/performance on offer. It's equal to the cheapest Air, but significantly more expensive, to say nothing of being hugely more expensive relative to non-Macs that offer the same performance for significantly less, or significantly better performance for the same money. As the British might say, Apple is simply taking the p**s with this model.

And someone who has already decided to buy an iMac, or a Mac generally, will not be persuaded by this machine as quickly as people think. Yesterday I saw two people leave an Apple store rather than buy one, turned off by getting half the performance for a $200 savings.

It is hilarious to see the people on this thread who complain about how non-competitive the regular iMacs are price/performance wise defending this one. 50% of the performance for 84% of the price! And that is supposed to be a good thing?

DonRivella said:

Finally a desktop computer whose performance is on par with a smartphone.

Click to expand...

This will revolutionise the way we think about designer desk ornaments.

G4DP said:

Schools and large business' do not waste money on Mac's, they buy computers in 1000's strike major deals with Dell or HP. Small science labs may have a few macs, but they want power not this half baked waste of plastic.

All major software is written or currently be re-written to take full advantage of multiple cores. Apple are just being tight.

If this is the idea of the most exciting product line in 25 years, they are smoking some very strong stuff at Apple HQ.

Click to expand...

Lots of schools use Macs including my daughters' school.

And clearly you know very little about multi threaded programming. Very few programs out there take real advantage of multi threading. Even if they try to take advantage of multiple threads, more commonly 4 cores will show something like a 10% improvement rather than the 400% improvement that Geekbench implies. generally, only numerically intense programs show significant improvements.

is this faster than the mid 2013 MBA 11"?

bawbac said:

Excel can be a resource hog.
Try using it to retrieve large data imports from SQL to generate reports.
There are other applications as well that may seem to use little resources until they have large files/data they need to deal with.

$1099+TAX for a static web browser, email client and light document/spreadsheet work is over priced.

Should be in the $799 price point easily.

Click to expand...

They have to be careful not to canibalise the higher priced iMacs. They are a business in it to make money no point coming out with a new machine that overall loses money.
The target market for this will never need the extra speed for Photoshop or massive Excel reports, or even have a clue what SQL is let alone use it. Yes it's overpriced but if you want a Mac and it's light work it will last for years unlike say a half priced PC.

RightMACatU said:

Too bad that they don't have an i3 processor downgrade to save another $100
Heck, how about a 64GB SSD for additional savings

Click to expand...

++ for that

This will sell good, its more oriented at business that wants or has to run all-mac because of ether aesthetics/companysoft, you don`t need powerhouse macs for people that work with documents/email/companysoft.

d0nK said:

So you believe that Moore's law has actually come to a complete end do you?

Top dollar for less-than-average tech is really starting to not add up.
Tiny SSD's still!
Crappy GFX card's as standard.

Price-gouging Apple extra's which should be standard..... /sigh.

...and when I say top dollar for less-than tech I'm talking about their entire iMac and MBP range, not just this £900 underpowered, cheapo imac.

Click to expand...

Umm, when one pays top dollar for a frigging luxury car, he doesn't simply get multiplied levels of performance of the price ratio. There are improved aesthetics, features, handling, design, safety & more.

Consider the same, for Apple products.