1066MHz Front Side iMacs Benchmarked

[thereubster]

So Apple ties itself into a bind by refusing to explore the numerous alternatives, therefore, there is no alternative, because Apple refuses to explore them, therefore, there is no alternative...

This is the sort of thinking that you associate with "being informed"?

I find this rant a bit astonishing. You buy into flawed, restrictive premises, then accuse anyone that doesn't do likewise of being uninformed, ignorant, then you proceed to use love-it-or-leave-it type epithets...

Alas, you don't own reality, anymore than Apple marketing does. Condescending and insulting attitudes don't get you there, either.

Then towards the end of your rant, your delusion drives you to imagine that you are in a position to issue orders: "If you dont like the iMac or Mac mini please give up and go and build your own frankenmac." What ever gave you the idea that we will do what you tell us to do? Just because you're obnoxious, rude and a victim of circular thought?

The iMac is a mediocre overpriced product, riding on the coattails of an excellent GUI. Those of us that see that may continue to criticize it on that basis, no matter how boorishly you shout.

I'm sorry that the critique of a machine makes you feel that you are being personally attacked--else, how can one explain the obvious pain that this critique causes you--but really, it's a machine, outside of your body, your mind, your bloodline... and not worth that emotional bond. Trust me, when we say the iMac is a mediocre machine, we are not commenting on you in the least.

Now go find somebody you can boss around if you must, but your application for that position here is hereby declined.

<rant> The funny thing is I dont own an iMac either. Nor do I want to own one. They are too expensive for me. What I was saying is that no amount of wishful thinking will make the impossible happen. I assure you it causes me no pain whatsoever to see Apple or the iMac criticized. They are just a company, it is just a computer, I have no personal stake in them at all. I am just tired of the whiners, when they complain Apple doesnt produce what they personally want. It doesnt matter to Apple if you dont like the iMac. Really it doesnt. Sales are up 50% on last year. So obviously lots of people dont agree with you.
I have no intention of buying the new iMac either, because it doesnt meet my needs. However I dont come to forums like this and complain endlessly about it. <end rant>

 

[Bubba Satori]

so, other than watch blu-ray discs, what do you want to do with your imac that you can't with this model, but you could with your quad core and ati 4000 card?

Don't want to watch movies. Want Blu-ray for authoring High def video. Also be using PS, Cinema 4D, Vue and some audio. I don't mind paying a premium for Apple's quality hardware and software, but to get some old components, limited upgrade options and some completely unavailable options is disappointing, to say the least. So, I'll get the Mac Pro instead when the Nehalem units are available.

If I could have at least got a decent matte screen and a video card that every other pc on the planet will have access to next month I would have gone for it. Oh well, gotta take the bad with the good.

 

[OllyW]

Meaning i think what the OP was saying is you cant have a matte screen behind the glass design of the iMac it wouldn't work well with Apple's eco-friendly design direction.

Having no glass at all would be even more eco-friendly.

 

[milo]

So hardly any difference between the new 2.8 and prev gen 2.8. Those who just purchased last week or so shouldn't get upset (especially if you're not that big of a gamer).

But wasn't the old 2.8 the same price as the new 3.0? And isn't the video card better?

Of course there's not going to be much of a boost just from bus speed with the same clocked CPU, there never is a huge difference.

I think people had unrealistic expectations - the real upgrade is that the available CPU speeds have all been boosted at each price point.

Right now, speed improvements are limited by chip technology, and the imacs are plenty fast already. We won't see a major boost until they ship a quad core iMac (if that ever happens).

Personally, I think this is a perfect time to buy a refurb, since the difference in generations isn't that much. I'm not a fan of the iMac form factor, but at 25% off the normal price I'll at least consider it.

I’m surprised that there is no Blu_ray, especially since Toast just added their Blu-Ray plugin.

Shame since Blu-ray looks way better

I don't think the copy protection issues have been fully sorted out yet. Even on the PC side, it has taken a while for movie playback to work right.

You could choose to simply inform him about what has to happen, the sequence, an expected arrival date... or why it's a harder problem than it seems... or why he's better off sticking to the current DVDs (which is what I do, since I don't like the high price of blu-ray disks one bit)... and you could that in a manner that doesn't make some of us a little nauseous to read.

That's exactly what he detailed in his post...do you really need to whine about the TONE of it? The fact is, the DRM of bluray causes lots of problems, including on the PC side. I've read plenty of reports of people with PCs with bluray drives who can't watch movies. I'd rather see apple wait and get it right.

Don't want to watch movies. Want Blu-ray for authoring High def video. Also be using PS, Cinema 4D, Vue and some audio. I don't mind paying a premium for Apple's quality hardware and software, but to get some old components, limited upgrade options and some completely unavailable options is disappointing, to say the least. So, I'll get the Mac Pro instead when the Nehalem units are available.

If I could have at least got a decent matte screen and a video card that every other pc on the planet will have access to next month I would have gone for it. Oh well, gotta take the bad with the good.

You can get third party bluray for that. Apple's not going to include a bluray drive that is data only and doesn't allow watching movies, that's worse than not including the drive at all.

 

[Eidorian]

A built-in monitor doesn't need to be HDCP capable. HDCP encrypts the video stream between the graphics card and the monitor, so that you can't for example record a movie directly from the DVI output of the computer. When the DVI output is not accessible, HDCP is not needed. However, it would only be possible to watch a movie on the internal monitor, not on any external monitor.

Which is how onboard displays connected via LVDS get around this.

 

[Thomas2006]

What is the time frame for the 4 core iMac to be out? Xmas 2008?

According to Wikipedia, the quad-core Penryn is scheduled for September, 2008, but it will only be 2.53 GHz. Which one will people want, a dual-core at 3.06 GHz or a quad-core at 2.53 GHz that costs more?

 

[Eidorian]

According to Wikipedia, the quad-core Penryn is scheduled for September, 2008, but it will only be 2.53 GHz. Which one will people want, a dual-core at 3.06 GHz or a quad-core at 2.53 GHz that costs more?

If Apple can have a 55W TDP dual core and the quad core is 45W at stock speeds with unlocked multipiers...

Not to mention the scaling from the cores alone.

 

[barefeats]

2007 iMac is faster

Here's my Geekbench results for the 2007 iMac 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/36604

As you can see, it beats the new 3.06GHz Penryn iMac.

What's up with that?

 

[barefeats]

Benchmarking GPUs

I hope to do a shootout between the iMac with the GeForce 8800 GS and the iMacs with the Radeon 2600 Pro using various Mac (and PC) games.

Any of you with iMacs want to add to the mix with 3D Game results from your system? If so, contact me for instructions and test files.

 

[Antares]

That's cool. These things scream.

If I was in the market for a computer right now, I would be all over that 3.06 speed demon.

 

[AidenShaw]

I'll take the quad...

According to Wikipedia, the quad-core Penryn is scheduled for September, 2008, but it will only be 2.53 GHz. Which one will people want, a dual-core at 3.06 GHz or a quad-core at 2.53 GHz that costs more?

If you do several things at once, or if you're using applications that are multi-threaded, the quad will get more work done.

The faster dual might feel "snappier™" during light use, but the quad will get more done when things get busy.

 

[HLdan]

Lame. No matte screen, no quad core... And with ATI 4000 series video cards due in a month or so, a two generation old video card. No surprise there.

But you're not complaining that Dell's XPS One, Sony's LT series, HP's Touch Smart or Gateway's One is glossy only with no matte finish huh?
But you're not complaining that neither of the above have a quad core processor huh?
But you're not complaining that the iMac runs both Windows and Mac OS X and is faster than all of the above and cost lower than all of the above huh?

But you're not complaining that the iMac offers a better GPU than what's available on all of the above huh?

You're just complaining for the sake of complaining when there's not much to complain about.

 

[gkarris]

We have an older Aluminum one at church for FCE (the one with 256 Megs VRAM). I tried the newer "middle one" at the Apple Store yesterday and it was a whole lot snappier in FCE.

Nice machine.

Remember, Apple, so far, has been THE ONLY ONE able to pull of selling a great All-In-One...

 

[Anaxarxes]

Well, now you're talking like a whiny three-year-old, but please, don't take that as an insult.

You don't even make sense

Here's my Geekbench results for the 2007 iMac 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/36604
As you can see, it beats the new 3.06GHz Penryn iMac.
What's up with that?

You have 4GB of RAM
You're running OSX 10.5.1 not 10.5.2 that could effect the score
Geekbench is not a good tool for overall performance anyways

 

[ukmacmonster]

Too many to name, but wow what a bunch of sore anti-iMac freaks!
It's an all-in-one, non-upgradable, non-customisable package aimed at wealthy consumers looking for a stylish compact desktop. It also happens to have a superb OS and some great integrated software. I've been using iMacs for casual home use since the first G4 and they're just getting better all the time. I always take a look at the alternative PCs before I upgrade and as usual nothing else looks better. This minor upgrade makes it a good time to upgrade from an earlier gen iMac, in my case a G5. But only a tech victim would upgrade their 2007 alu iMac to this new updated version.

Quick question to the iMac haters. What system would you recommend buying instead at the same price point? Primary uses are amateur photo & video editing/cataloging and web surfing. And I don't really want an ugly huge box tower spoiling the ambience of my study.

 

[Eidorian]

Quick question to the iMac haters. What system would you recommend buying instead at the same price point? Primary uses are amateur photo & video editing/cataloging and web surfing. And I don't really want an ugly huge box tower spoiling the ambience of my study.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/464206/

The Intel Q9300 variant is available right now.

 

[atl27426]

Too many to name, but wow what a bunch of sore anti-iMac freaks!
It's an all-in-one, non-upgradable, non-customisable package aimed at wealthy consumers looking for a stylish compact desktop. It also happens to have a superb OS and some great integrated software. I've been using iMacs for casual home use since the first G4 and they're just getting better all the time. I always take a look at the alternative PCs before I upgrade and as usual nothing else looks better. This minor upgrade makes it a good time to upgrade from an earlier gen iMac, in my case a G5. But only a tech victim would upgrade their 2007 alu iMac to this new updated version.

Quick question to the iMac haters. What system would you recommend buying instead at the same price point? Primary uses are amateur photo & video editing/cataloging and web surfing. And I don't really want an ugly huge box tower spoiling the ambience of my study.

It's not about being a hater it's about giving an honest opinion. There are tons of things I love about my iMac there are also things I dislike, sames goes for any system I use even my Vista systems.

If I put my tech geek hat on I will say that 1066FSB is old news that has been around on the PC side for years we are already working on 1333 and 1666fsb. We are already using quad cores running at 3.0ghz and have been for a while now, not dual cores. The ram has been running at pc6400 for a while now and in regards to gpu power the 8800gs is midlevel notebook gpu that has been in my Hp dv8700 for about a year now. Anything with "gs" is not a gaming gpu.


My iMac works well, its quiet and yets it takes up less space. I love using iWork compared to using Office. I like the was the OS works compared to Vista, however Vista by no means is a pig. It works fine at least as well as Leopard, which by the way has more annoying issues then Leopard at least in my opinion.

I like both and I have issues with both. However I can say without a doubt Leopard has a long way to go before I consider it a good OS, same goes for Vista.

In regards to hardware Apple has always been behind the curve when it comes to systems that offer power and options that PC users have been using years before Apple offers them.

 

[ukmacmonster]

I use top end PCs for work, but prefer the iMac for home use. It's such a neat integrated package and I really like the simple iLife apps (yeah that's right iLife, no s******ing please). Also prefer OSX to Windows on the whole. It's hard to say exactly what it is about macs, but they just seem to allow you to get more stuff done with no stress.

 

[D4F]

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/464206/

The Intel Q9300 variant is available right now.

Can I ask you a question?
Honest one.
What drives you to use Mac based forums to write and post about windows systems?

No flame here. I really wonder.

 

[Analog Kid]

Does anyone else hate these glossy screens? The matte options are down to Mac Pro or Mac Book Pro which is $500 to $1000 more than the iMac. Looks like Apple is forcing Designers and Photographers to buy Pro machines. I used to get by with the white iMac.

Yes, Apple designed the pro machines for professionals... I fully expect the Cinema Displays to go glossy as well-- perhaps following the MBP model of providing a choice.

Hey, are you waiting for Apple to finally dump its Cinema lineup so you can FINALLY buy a decent monitor from them? And do you think that Apple put out a real loser with the Cinema displays?

I am. I've currently got a high-gloss filter on my ACD, and I'm waiting for a glossy factory option before I move to a 30". You're drawing a false comparison though in assuming that wanting a glossy display now means thinking the display Apple put out a couple years ago is a loser...

Glossy vs. Matte: I recently bought a matt screen protector for my iPhone. As soon as I'd applied it, I realised why Apple had gone with a glossy screen (ie. glass) in the first place; in certain lighting conditions, the matte screen is LESS readable. It smears out the ambient light and makes what's underneath harder to read. A glossy screen makes it easy to slightly adjust the angle and totally banish any reflections.

My problem with the glossy laptop screens is that they appear to suffer more from colour shifting, although that could be more to do with Apple sneakily using 6-bit displays than anything to do with the gloss finish

Bing, bing, bing! I think you're absolutely right-- people are confusing the effect of the glossy surface with the panel behind it. You're also right about the impact of a matte surface.

There's no accounting for taste, but the science is pretty straight forward.

 

[morespce54]

Hence you must believe that the Apple Cinema Display looks retarded.

Oh dear. You have just--with great vehemence--referred to one of Apple's most beloved products as retarded. How will you be able to live with yourself now?

..And how will you be able to look at you in the mirror?... Or for that matter, in your glossy screen

 

[nemaslov]

I have three White G5 iMacs and JUST got a new 20 iMac via Amazon. After reading this thread I ended up getting the 320GB Fall 2007 version and with the Amazon discount, free shipping, no tax PLUS $75. rebate saved almost $400. So I feel it so worth it even though it's not one of the brand new 2008 versions.

Now about the screen. My first glossy one. I HATE IT. Love everything else but I see everything reflecting back though my studio windows to the side. That glare. If I had a choice I would opt for matte. No argument.

But everything else is so cool.

The new iMacs look great but to me the difference was not worth $400. And I installed 2GB of RAM which I bought for $58. NOT through Apple. Would have been $200 from them.

 

[macrumorino]

Meaning i think what the OP was saying is you cant have a matte screen behind the current aluminum/glass design of the iMac...it wouldn't work well with for one 'AND' consumers for the most part like the glossy screen and the iMac is by definition a consumer desktop.

Not that matte screens are retarded in general which you were making the OP sound like (twist much?)

Also what's with the attitude?..."and?"...i mean seriously?

First, the "attitude": you merely repeated what the OP stated. Since I had already read that, I needed further information of your meaning.

Now to your reply: perhaps you did not read my reply to him very well either? As I recall, the Apple Cinema Display, in all its matte glory, also has some metal case.

Now it would probably be "retarded" to put a shiny glass on top of a matte finish (although I fear that the OP would then proceed to defend it with the same vehemence)... would it also not be "retarded" to assume that those of us that insist on a matte finish a-la white iMac want that?

My point here is that there is an essential singularity at the vortex of the Apple Fanboy, because he has to simultaneously defend the glossy iMac and the matte Cinema Display. Feel free to address that.

 

[D4F]

First, the "attitude": you merely repeated what the OP stated. Since I had already read that, I needed further information of your meaning.

Now to your reply: perhaps you did not read my reply to him very well either? As I recall, the Apple Cinema Display, in all its matte glory, also has some metal case.

Now it would probably be "retarded" to put a shiny glass on top of a matte finish (although I fear that the OP would then proceed to defend it with the same vehemence)... would it also not be "retarded" to assume that those of us that insist on a matte finish a-la white iMac want that?

My point here is that there is an essential singularity at the vortex of the Apple Fanboy, because he has to simultaneously defend the glossy iMac and the matte Cinema Display. Feel free to address that.

How old are you?

 

[macrumorino]

<rant> The funny thing is I dont own an iMac either. Nor do I want to own one. They are too expensive for me. What I was saying is that no amount of wishful thinking will make the impossible happen. I assure you it causes me no pain whatsoever to see Apple or the iMac criticized. They are just a company, it is just a computer, I have no personal stake in them at all. I am just tired of the whiners, when they complain Apple doesnt produce what they personally want. It doesnt matter to Apple if you dont like the iMac. Really it doesnt. Sales are up 50% on last year. So obviously lots of people dont agree with you.
I have no intention of buying the new iMac either, because it doesnt meet my needs. However I dont come to forums like this and complain endlessly about it. <end rant>

Well, now, that's different. Now you are talking about what you choose to do, or not choose to do, and leaving others to do as they see fit. That's something we can all agree to, I'm sure.