You can buy a $29 adapter from Apple not really an accessory that's going to break the bank for those who are used to using FW800
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.
2012 iMac - next big date?
- Thread starter AlphaMF
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
You can buy a $29 adapter from Apple not really an accessory that's going to break the bank for those who are used to using FW800
Do you think it's worth upgrading from the i5 to the i7 I can't tell if it's worth the money?
Also it's a shame the fusion option is either 1TB or 3TB, 1tb seems like not enough and 3tb I'd imagine would be way too expensive.
Do you know exactly which chip model the new iMacs are going to be running?Even if it isn't the ultra low power chip for Ultrabooks the point stands that a major selling point for all the Ivy Bridge chips(including the top end CPU's) was the move to the 22nm lithography and the reduction of TDP wattage. That means less power consumption and less heat.
Why are we idiots? The Zune arguably performed at a better level than the iPod; but that worked out well.
Apple is a design company. It perplexes me that you're here complaining about this?
yeah, i know right. what kind of crap is that...every other item is available except ipad mini and that preorders the 26th.
The interesting part is that even though the 680 MX is not listed on Nvidia's site yet, if you compare the 675M vs 675MX and the 670M vs 670MX, it seems as though the X is the "super duper" version. Good news.
Check this out
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gtx-675mx/specifications
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gtx-675m/specifications
675MX
GPU Engine Specs:
960 coresCUDA Cores
600 MHzGraphics Clock (MHz)
48.0Texture Fill Rate (billion/sec)
Memory Specs:
1800Memory Clock
GDDR5Memory Interface
256 bitMemory Interface Width
115.2Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec)
675M
GPU Engine Specs:
384 coresCUDA Cores
620 MHzGraphics Clock (MHz)
39.7 Texture Fill Rate (billion/sec)
Memory Specs:
1500 Memory Clock
GDDR5 Memory Interface 256bit
Memory Interface Width 96.0
The 680MX must be a MONSTER.
Notice there's no release date either, only a month. I'm assuming they don't even have an inventory built up yet.
This is for mehh
27-inch iMac 3.2GHz
Magic Trackpad
16GB memory upgrade (two 8GB)
3TB Fusion Drive
768GB of flash storage
3.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 (Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz) with 8MB L3 cache
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX graphics processor with 2GB of GDDR5 memory
27-inch iMac 3.2GHz
Magic Trackpad
16GB memory upgrade (two 8GB)
3TB Fusion Drive
768GB of flash storage
3.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 (Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz) with 8MB L3 cache
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX graphics processor with 2GB of GDDR5 memory
I have an Ivy Bridge i7 3770K in a PC I built in May... totally overkill for pretty much anything.
Going to be getting this new iMac to replace the aging 2008 iMac my wife uses... New thin design will fit on the desk better and consume less power and be quieter. With the new screen design resulting in less glare I'm not sure what there is to complain about... If it was just about Perf then you aren't going with Apple to begin with so why get in a big huff.
Overall, this was disappointing but expected. Given the list of negatives with the new iMac, I have to say that right now I'm leaning towards either a refurb 2011 or a new Mac mini. I could live with any one of the drawbacks of the new one (December wait, no Firewire, no optical drive, unknown heat issues) but together they seem a bit much for me.
I was determined to replace my limping Mac mini with a top of the line iMac for future-proofing: I'm constantly having issues with this machine and Lion not gracefully handling its pathetic graphics (GMA 950). Windows often don't repaint properly without moving other windows over them, which gets frustrating quickly.
I wanted to make sure the same didn't happen in a few years with my next machine.
But now I'm starting to look at doing the same thing again, and not getting the very top of the line. That new Mac mini is enticing with its price and still fairly modern hardware - 2.6 GHz quad core i7, USB 3, still has Firewire. But will the Intel HD 4000 graphics burn me again a few years down the line? And I also had my heart set on 32 GB memory.
Such a dilemma.
I was determined to replace my limping Mac mini with a top of the line iMac for future-proofing: I'm constantly having issues with this machine and Lion not gracefully handling its pathetic graphics (GMA 950). Windows often don't repaint properly without moving other windows over them, which gets frustrating quickly.
I wanted to make sure the same didn't happen in a few years with my next machine.But now I'm starting to look at doing the same thing again, and not getting the very top of the line. That new Mac mini is enticing with its price and still fairly modern hardware - 2.6 GHz quad core i7, USB 3, still has Firewire. But will the Intel HD 4000 graphics burn me again a few years down the line? And I also had my heart set on 32 GB memory.
Such a dilemma.
3TB Fusion Drive
768GB of flash storage
I don't think you can have both, unfortunately. The fusion drive is just a 128 GB SSD and a 3 TB HDD with the SSD used for caching. I don't believe that you can still stick in the 768 GB flash as well, looking at the specs on Apple's site. But maybe you're in luck.
It depends what you do and how long you will keep this machine. Most people don't need i7 but like I said, depends what you do...personally, I'd rather spend the extra money on SSD
Yeah, its not really antiglare, but the glare has been reduced by 75% from the previous iMac. Its all because of how the new screen was set up.
Yes, the MX looks like a monster if you compare the 670M and 670MX and the 675M and 675MX. The 680MX is going to be beast. I am not sure how they are going to keep all of this cool in the new enclosure though.
You can't compare these. 670M and 675M are Fermi, while 670MX and 675MX are Kepler. We'll need to stay tuned to hear what the 680MX is all about. It will certainly be better than 680M but we don't know by what degree.
I for one would like to know why Apple is skimping on the VRAM. If they gave me 2GB on the 675MX I'd probably just use that..
But will the Intel HD 4000 graphics burn me again a few years down the line?
Such a dilemma.
Yes!
- Status