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

2012 iMac or 2013 iMac?

WilliamG said:
if you need an iMac now, buy one now. If you don't, then don't. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

Lets state the obvious shall we? The idea was to try and have an intelligent guess what the benefits of the '13 are. As it is, moot point for me personally as already ordered but the tipping point was the GPU upgrades in '13 unlikely to be as dramatic as '12 so didnt wait
 
When looking at the slides that have been released regarding Haswell, or the info floating around from IDF/Hotchips, Haswell is seeming less impressive than Broadwell. Haswell adds FMA3 and some other instructions, alongside having a better graphics processor (though it's unclear just how much better, GT3 notwithstanding). On the other hand, integer/float performance is at best going to be incremental. Broadwell, though not a new architecture per say, is where substantial changes are going to be taking place between the chipset, performance (and especially graphics) improvements, and a large drop in power consumption. It's fairly common to see rather hopeful commentary farther out, and then more realistic expectations near the release, but Broadwell on paper appears to be the processor to look out for, not Haswell. So, I don't think waiting on the 2013 iMac is really going to net one anything except a bit more speed and minor incremental updates (if any).
 
xVeinx said:
When looking at the slides that have been released regarding Haswell, or the info floating around from IDF/Hotchips, Haswell is seeming less impressive than Broadwell. Haswell adds FMA3 and some other instructions, alongside having a better graphics processor (though it's unclear just how much better, GT3 notwithstanding). On the other hand, integer/float performance is at best going to be incremental. Broadwell, though not a new architecture per say, is where substantial changes are going to be taking place between the chipset, performance (and especially graphics) improvements, and a large drop in power consumption. It's fairly common to see rather hopeful commentary farther out, and then more realistic expectations near the release, but Broadwell on paper appears to be the processor to look out for, not Haswell. So, I don't think waiting on the 2013 iMac is really going to net one anything except a bit more speed and minor incremental updates (if any).
Click to expand...

That's what I am talking about. Proper analysis. Thank you.
 
Wait if you can wait.

While the 2012 iMacs look nice and have good function, I bet the next step will be a broader one regarding processors. 2013's iMacs will almost certainly retain the 2012 design, but they could also begin packing retina displays. We'll see. There is an undoubtable stride in processing coming in the next couple years; a stride from Intel and possibly Apple, if Apple starts making their own desktop processors again.

I'd prefer a smaller, retina iMac. A 20" retina would be better for me than a 27" non-retina. Sharper and smaller is preferred.
 
Confuzzzed said:
Here we go!

We now know that ac wifi will be in iMac 2013, so given today's news (thread below) are you tempted to wait it out? To me, wifi is one of the significant bottlenecks on performance so sorely tempted but don't want to wait to September. Arghhhh

https://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/0...m-to-add-802-11ac-gigabit-wi-fi-to-2013-macs/
Click to expand...

I prefer wired internet to my desktop machines anyway, for a Laptop i could see that as a big selling point but not on my iMac.
 
torana355 said:
I prefer wired internet to my desktop machines anyway, for a Laptop i could see that as a big selling point but not on my iMac.
Click to expand...

Alas, the iMac lives too far away from the router and running 50 metre cables round the house would probably land me with divorce papers from luddite wife
 
Will not cancel current order

There will always be something different coming out.....for any product.
 
Am I clatching at straws? The 2011 MBP was updated twice in the same year, March and October. If someone could guarantee me the ac chip would land in an iMac by June, I woul wait. BUT nobody will (or can) and simply do NOT want to wait until September (maybe).
 
Waiting on 2013 Rev B iMac because...

1. Still saving for it, I have $2,000 cash saved up for it.
2. I need to save my plane fare ticket money too, not buying this out here because they put a $1,000 markup premium on it.
3. Want to get the best bang for my buck since this is a machine that I hope to last me a good 10 years. Don't question my expectation, because my Dell Dimension died last June after 9 years, so I am not expecting any less from Apple here.
4. I plan to splurge on RAM so I need to save that money separately.
5. I want the Fusion drive.
6. Need to save the FedEx shipping money, which is about $200 US since I can't bring it back to Jamaica with me on the plane.
7. Gonna buy an iPad 5 at the same time.
8. Its Rev B, so I am again, hoping whatever kinks that might be in Rev A will be resolved for the most part in Rev B. You might say there is none now, good for you. No one expected 2009 to 2011 Macs to have bad hard disks.
9. Its my money, my decision.
10. My brother is buying a second hand MacBook Pro 2011 (his first) and he said he will let me keep it for while and fix it up for him (transfer over his files from his Dell Inspiron). So that should hold me over for a while.
11. I have a fast HP desktop right now with 8 GBs of DDR3 RAM, Intel Xeon 3.2 processor I got in 2011 still super fast with a 160 GB SSD. So, its not a desparate rush.

12. I am hoping for a better GPU in at the least in the base model.
 
10 years!? Things aren't built to last today and computers, cars, phones... They don't make them like they use to. I bet the HD will physically wear out or the GPU will burn out in 3 years. Mine has.
 
Mr. Dee said:
1. Still saving for it, I have $2,000 cash saved up for it.
2. I need to save my plane fare ticket money too, not buying this out here because they put a $1,000 markup premium on it.
3. Want to get the best bang for my buck since this is a machine that I hope to last me a good 10 years. Don't question my expectation, because my Dell Dimension died last June after 9 years, so I am not expecting any less from Apple here.
4. I plan to splurge on RAM so I need to save that money separately.
5. I want the Fusion drive.
6. Need to save the FedEx shipping money, which is about $200 US since I can't bring it back to Jamaica with me on the plane.
7. Gonna buy an iPad 5 at the same time.
8. Its Rev B, so I am again, hoping whatever kinks that might be in Rev A will be resolved for the most part in Rev B. You might say there is none now, good for you. No one expected 2009 to 2011 Macs to have bad hard disks.
9. Its my money, my decision.
10. My brother is buying a second hand MacBook Pro 2011 (his first) and he said he will let me keep it for while and fix it up for him (transfer over his files from his Dell Inspiron). So that should hold me over for a while.
11. I have a fast HP desktop right now with 8 GBs of DDR3 RAM, Intel Xeon 3.2 processor I got in 2011 still super fast with a 160 GB SSD. So, its not a desparate rush.

12. I am hoping for a better GPU in at the least in the base model.
Click to expand...

Just a shout out to a fellow Jamaican. Whatagwan? :D
 
Mr. Dee said:
3. Want to get the best bang for my buck since this is a machine that I hope to last me a good 10 years. Don't question my expectation, because my Dell Dimension died last June after 9 years, so I am not expecting any less from Apple here.
Click to expand...

Just my opinion, but I think it would be MUCH better to spend $1000 every 5 years than $2000 every 10 years when it comes to computers. The performance gap between $1000 and $2000 is hardly noticeable, whereas the performance gap between a 5 year old PC and a 10 year old PC is enormous.

10 years is just way too long to own a computer, considering how fast technology is moving.
 
Spungoflex said:
Just my opinion, but I think it would be MUCH better to spend $1000 every 5 years than $2000 every 10 years when it comes to computers. The performance gap between $1000 and $2000 is hardly noticeable, whereas the performance gap between a 5 year old PC and a 10 year old PC is enormous.

10 years is just way too long to own a computer, considering how fast technology is moving.
Click to expand...

Which iMac desktop exist for $1,000? The entry level 21 inch cost $1,300 and don't excuse the $300. I want the 27 inch base model, which what I am buying. I am not the type of user who expects the upgrade year by reselling the previous year model at a lost.

My expectation for it to last 10 years is not unrealistic, in fact, it should be more realistic now considering what computing means today. We are talking about a lot of task are moving to the web: email, photos. This will of course be a machine I expect really do common consumer activities. I won't be expecting it to run the latest pro apps. Even when Apple cuts it off with future OS X releases, I should still be able to get more value out of the machine. I know a intern at my place of work who owns a 10 year old PowerBook G4 12 inch which uses for all her work, web browsing, listening music. She has Office 2004 on it and it does was she needs. Its running 10.4.11 and works just fine for her.

Now this is a 10 year old unit and its doing what she wants on obselete architecture (G4) not even a G5 system.

Now why should I expect any less from a 10 year old Rev B iMac 2013 model?

Please note too, this will be a desktop system. I plan to purchase a MacBook Pro when Broadwell becomes available next year since I understand that processor will heavily target notebooks. So while the desktop might not be updated I will likely upgrade to future revision notebooks. So a MacBook Pro might be updated every 3 years.

We have to understand that machines are so fast now, that for the average user any machine you buy today is likely to last you a long while, especially since so many task have moved to the web.
 
Mr. Dee said:
We have to understand that machines are so fast now, that for the average user any machine you buy today is likely to last you a long while, especially since so many task have moved to the web.
Click to expand...

This is true, its not like 10 years ago where computers were quite slow and upgrades were essential to keep up with new apps that were coming out. A SSD based 2012 iMac should be fast enough for a long time to come for general tasks.
 
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