Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:19 AM   #51
sza
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by IGregory View Post
What difference does it make. Ninety percent of you don't need all that horsepower anyway.
How do you know he is not in the rest 10% of people?
sza is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:21 AM   #52
xgman
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Deranger View Post
Nice analogy.

Meanwhile, my old, fat, 2010 Mac Pro still runs circles around these new anorexic iMacs, when and where it matters.
Not true at all, unless you are running video editing or the like. My sig MP computer should be in the same neighborhood as the top 27" BTO, only the new 27" will have better video, usb 3, faster drive throughput and better cpu performance, albeit less cores.
__________________
{2012 27imac-3.4i7-680mx-32gb ram-768SSD+External TB Samsung840pro ssd + TB velociraptors-UAD Apollo/Marantz/Amphion/Bowers&Wilkins Sound-Impulse 61}
{ipads}{iphones}
xgman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:22 AM   #53
WardC
macrumors 68020
 
WardC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Send a message via AIM to WardC
My guess is the 27" will show around 13500 on Geekbench for the 3.4GHz model. That is what I am guessing.

a 3.33GHz 6-core Mac Pro is about 16500 to give you perspective.
__________________
iMac 27" 3.4GHz i7 SSD 16GB RAM
MacBook Pro 15-inch 2.6GHz i7 256GB SSD/ 16GB RAM

Thinking about Apple...
WardC is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:22 AM   #54
ronm99
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Here this means that the mid-range Mac mini is faster than the mid-range iMac that's almost twice the price. True, you do get a display and a discrete GPU with the iMac, but these Geekbench results show how powerful the new Mac mini is despite its size.
This is one example of how Geekbench is misleading. Hyperthreading helps when you have eight threads running (which is true for most of the Geekbench tests), but does not help when running four threads or less (which is true for most people most of the time).

More interesting than Geekbench would be benchmarks that show typical operations such as boot time, starting up Safari, Mail, Photoshop, Aperture, etc. That would be more meaningful for most people, and would show very different results than Geekbench.
ronm99 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:22 AM   #55
ollyb
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
I love the design of the new iMacs, but I think it's a couple of years ahead of the hardware inside. It'll be fine when we've got micro SSDs with 1TB of storage that can be swapped in and out, and two slots for up to 2x 32GB SODIMMs, but we're not there yet.

The PC component sizes need an overhaul as futuristic designs clearly aren't working with old component sizes.
ollyb is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:23 AM   #56
xVeinx
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by needfx View Post
is that all?
Yep. Funny, because people were saying that months ago, but no one listened...
__________________
2011 Mac Mini; 2011 iMac 21"
xVeinx is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:24 AM   #57
namethisfile
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by IGregory View Post
What difference does it make. Ninety percent of you don't need all that horsepower anyway.
i think anyone using apple pro apps, photoshop, serious imaging, even as a hobby or aspiration and especially if it is one's work will benefit from extra cores and extra VRAM memory.

looking at apple's computer lines, there is a clear line btwn these products that apple doesn't like to talk about. it is the use of antiquate hdd technology called 5400 rpm hdd's and miniscule vram amounts on some of their computer lines. i don't think it is between a budget buyer vs. a buyer with deeper pockets. it is simply power-user vs. cute-i like shiny apple stuff-users.

i belong in the cute-i like shiny apple stuff-user but want to be a power-user.
namethisfile is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:24 AM   #58
WardC
macrumors 68020
 
WardC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Send a message via AIM to WardC
Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman View Post
Not true at all, unless you are running video editing or the like. My sig MP computer should be in the same neighborhood as the top 27" BTO, only the new 27" will have better video, usb 3, faster drive throughput and better cpu performance, albeit less cores.
The iMac will also have less expandability, no drive bays to add drives, it must be bought with the monitor, and you cannot upgrade the processor or change the video card.

The iMac is a locked box...the Mac Pro is an expandable power machine.
__________________
iMac 27" 3.4GHz i7 SSD 16GB RAM
MacBook Pro 15-inch 2.6GHz i7 256GB SSD/ 16GB RAM

Thinking about Apple...
WardC is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:24 AM   #59
SOLLERBOY
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Manchester,UK
Considering my late 09 27 benches at 5890, I'm happy with the double speed I'll get.
__________________
27" iMac i7 3.4 3TBF 680MX Very Late 2012
17" MacBook Pro 2.2 i7 8GB 64GB Early 2011
16GB iPhone 5s Gold 32GB iPad Air
SOLLERBOY is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:25 AM   #60
xgman
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Even though the bench is weighted heavily on multi cores, this is an interesting compare:

Mac Pro (Early 2009)
Intel Xeon E5520 2270 MHz (8 cores)
11903

MacBook Pro (Retina)
Intel Core i7-3820QM 2700 MHz (4 cores)
12051
__________________
{2012 27imac-3.4i7-680mx-32gb ram-768SSD+External TB Samsung840pro ssd + TB velociraptors-UAD Apollo/Marantz/Amphion/Bowers&Wilkins Sound-Impulse 61}
{ipads}{iphones}
xgman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:25 AM   #61
Lesser Evets
macrumors 68030
 
Lesser Evets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
The geek bench number is nice, but not a qualifier when comparing dual to single core Macs. That said, these speed bumps are dismal. Buy a mini--save a dollar or two.
__________________
2x1.86 BSEL Pro 1,1; 5770; 16GB RAM
Lesser Evets is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:27 AM   #62
namethisfile
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lesser Evets View Post
The geek bench number is nice, but not a qualifier when comparing dual to single core Macs. That said, these speed bumps are dismal. Buy a mini--save a dollar or two.
except the mini uses integrated grafx
namethisfile is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:27 AM   #63
xgman
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post
The iMac will also have less expandability, no drive bays to add drives, it must be bought with the monitor, and you cannot upgrade the processor or change the video card.

The iMac is a locked box...the Mac Pro is an expandable power machine.

Tell me about it. I just ordered $1700 worth of TB drive enclosures and drives to compensate. Ouch!

However, the Mac Pro is still MIA and I am not convinced if, and and when etc..
__________________
{2012 27imac-3.4i7-680mx-32gb ram-768SSD+External TB Samsung840pro ssd + TB velociraptors-UAD Apollo/Marantz/Amphion/Bowers&Wilkins Sound-Impulse 61}
{ipads}{iphones}
xgman is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:27 AM   #64
theraymiles
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Late 2009 iMac

Quote:
Originally Posted by krye View Post
Almost all of the time, the benchmarks only compare the new to the old. What about switchers? I have a 2008 Mac Pro that's growing a little long in the tooth. I'd love to wait for the "new" Mac Pro, but who knows what it's going to be or how much it is. I don't know if I can spend another $3000 on a Mac.

I'm seriously considering switching to a 27" iMac. But I'd like to know on what order of magnitude it'll smoke my 4 year old Mac Pro. I played around with the last gen iMac at the Apple Store for 15 minutes months ago and I wasn't at all impressed with its shoddy multitasking and window/app switching with multiple pro apps open. I had Aperture, Logic and some other stuff open and it really started to bog down. And that was without actually "doing anything". I guess there's something to be said for that $300 ATI card in my Mac Pro.

But if I can get a new iMac for $1000 less that's faster, I might just consider it. I mean, I'd never buy the high end 12-core Mac Pro option anyway. It's just way too expensive.

The benchmarks on the site pretty much show the new iMac as being on-par with the entry-level 2010 Mac Pro. So you guys think it's safe to assume that the new iMac will be the same as my slightly upgraded 2008 Mac Pro with the upgraded ATI card and 8G of RAM?
Not sure if this helps, but I have a late 2009 iMac and my geekbech score with a 16gb ram upgrade was about 4200. The new 27" is going to be about 13000. Pretty solid upgrade.
theraymiles is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:27 AM   #65
bigj6360
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naimfan View Post
...

In short, the new iMac joins the Macbook Air and the retina Macbook Pro as a disposable computer.

Apple, in my view, needs to get over its obsession with thinness.
I agree, but for me it depends on what Apple does with the Mac Pro.

If they somehow decide to split the model into two lines Core i / Xeon Then I am fine with an AIO that is not user expandable. It would cover those that do not need it and still have the option of getting an iMac class machine that does have expansion...

my guess? Apple is not going to do that.
bigj6360 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:29 AM   #66
Macboy Pro
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naimfan View Post
So in exchange for more money, we get slightly faster performance which will be invisible to almost EVERY user of an iMac, no optical drive, a non-user upgradable machine, and a new design that values form over function.

In short, the new iMac joins the Macbook Air and the retina Macbook Pro as a disposable computer.

Apple, in my view, needs to get over its obsession with thinness.

And why, given the weight reduction and the elimination of the optical drive, does it cost MORE?
AMEN!! Thinness alone is NOT innovation. I am waiting to find out the temperature of the back of this thing. My 2011 iMac is scalding hot on just normal usage.
Macboy Pro is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:29 AM   #67
sza
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by namethisfile View Post
except the mini uses integrated grafx
I would like to see Apple could just make mini a bit larger in size and clear out the heating issue with the dedicated graphics card.
sza is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:29 AM   #68
Phx08
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Holy crap...all the people complaining need to really put a cork in it.

If you don't like the product, don't buy it. Simple.
__________________
11' iMac | 27"|16 GB RAM | Ipad 2| Iphone 4 x 2
Phx08 is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:32 AM   #69
taxiapple
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Question

I have a 2010 27" i7 with 16GB ram.
I use it for email, internet, music and a LOT of photos.

Also have a mid 2007 20" 2.0 dual core 2 with 3GB ram that we use for email, internet, our household music library and some photos. (Mountain Lion installed)

Day to day use I see little difference in these two machines other than screen size. (love my 27")

Question: I know I am not a power user, but when people say such and such model is 15% faster....faster at doing what?

You can't read emails faster, surf faster or play music faster. I'll grant you, that the person who works in the studio who makes videos or perhaps some engineer with a souped up Cad Cam program might notice a difference, I just think the normal person would see little to no difference and the difference comes at a high cost.

(I have an iPad 3 and they say the iPad 4 is twice as fast and I have the same question)

Last edited by taxiapple; Nov 30, 2012 at 11:37 AM.
taxiapple is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:32 AM   #70
Lone Deranger
macrumors 65816
 
Lone Deranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman View Post
Not true at all, unless you are running video editing or the like. My sig MP computer should be in the same neighborhood as the top 27" BTO, only the new 27" will have better video, usb 3, faster drive throughput and better cpu performance, albeit less cores.
I do heavy lifting 3D CGI work for film and television (Visual Effects) where apps like Maya, Mental Ray, ZBrush, NukeX, etc. actually use all the cores Intel provides these machines with. So I repeat, The 2010 Mac Pro runs circles around these new iMacs, when and where it matters.
__________________
Lone Deranger is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:33 AM   #71
The Wedge
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashiel View Post
Iím always curious what people who say this do with their computers. I look at people like Louis C.K. who edited the first two seasons his show on a 13" MacBook Pro and then come here and see people moaning about benchmarks Ö so Iím curious what do you actually do that you need such power?
One thing I do is produce/edit music videos. A 4 minute video probably has more cuts/edits/effects than an entire season of Louis CK.
__________________
"I'm conducting classical music!"
The Wedge is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:34 AM   #72
jasonefmonk
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2011
I'm going to guess that half of the complaints come from people not paying attention what is actually being compared. This is the new 21.5-inch iMac vs. previous iMacs, the 27-inch included.

There will be more significant gains when the 2012 27-inch iMac is tested.
jasonefmonk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:34 AM   #73
Phx08
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxiapple View Post
I have a 2010 27" i7 with 16GB ram.
I use it for email, interenet, music and a LOT of photos.

Also have a mid 2007 20" 2.0 dual core 2 with 3GB ram that we use for email, internet, our household music library and some photos. (Mountain Lion installed)

Day to day use I see little difference in these two machines other than screen size. (love my 27")

I know I am not a power user, but when people say such and such model is 15% faster....faster at doing what? You can't read emails faster, surf faster or play music faster. I'll grant you, that the person who works in the studio who makes videos or perhaps some engineer with a souped up Cad Cam program might notice a difference, I just think the normal person would see little to no difference and the difference comes at a high cost.

(I have an iPad 3 and they say the iPad 4 is twice as fast and I have the same questions)
Please see my previous post above yours and also....why not just keep your computer if it is still meeting your needs?
__________________
11' iMac | 27"|16 GB RAM | Ipad 2| Iphone 4 x 2
Phx08 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:35 AM   #74
Rogifan
macrumors G3
 
Rogifan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macboy Pro View Post
AMEN!! Thinness alone is NOT innovation. I am waiting to find out the temperature of the back of this thing. My 2011 iMac is scalding hot on just normal usage.
Did you see all the empty space in the tear down? I would assume that would help with cooling.
__________________
"I have a very optimistic view of individuals. As individuals, people are inherently good. I have a somewhat more pessimistic view of people in groups." -- Steve Jobs , Wired interview
Rogifan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2012, 11:37 AM   #75
namethisfile
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post
The iMac will also have less expandability, no drive bays to add drives, it must be bought with the monitor, and you cannot upgrade the processor or change the video card.

The iMac is a locked box...the Mac Pro is an expandable power machine.
my 2nd mac was an imac (mid-2007 model) which i have handed down to my sibling. i bought it at the time because my 12" powerbook was too slow and the new 15" mbp's started at 2 grand. the 2007 middle imac was $1500 and had the same specs as the mbp which was $500 more. i sacrifice portability but got a bigger screen.

i wonder how many people buy imacs for the same reason. meaning power-users that buy imacs because it's one of the more powerful apple computers but cheaper than either mac pro or mbp line.

looking at this year's imac's the middle imac at $1500 is less powerful than the $1800 15" MBP since it comes with i7 and same gpu.

so over the yrs, the value-performance ratio of the imac compared to the mbp has gone down in my view.
namethisfile is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
move AEBS config from previous generation to current generation? fhall1 Mac Peripherals 4 Apr 25, 2014 10:54 AM
Maps on iCloud.com show isles of Home Improvement store FreeState iCloud and Apple Services 7 Apr 15, 2014 02:45 PM
Haswell: out! "The single largest generation-to-generation battery life improvement" Jobsian MacBook Air 36 Apr 16, 2013 11:37 AM
Previous generation iPhone models 5/5s rex3 iPhone 6 Mar 24, 2013 01:59 PM
4th Generation iPad Benchmarks Show 1.4GHz Dual Core Processor, 1GB of RAM MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 276 Nov 14, 2012 07:00 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC