Anandtech's review of 27" iMac w/6970M

[mankymanning]

For me, the Mac resale value makes it a no-brainer. I am a casual gamer but need a fast powerful computer for work. I also am constrained in terms of space so an all-in-one makes good sense.

I can buy a souped up imac today for say £2400, I know that I will be able to sell it a couple of years down the line for say £1000, an equivalent PC would be almost worthless, possibly the monitor for the PC might retain some value.

Either way when weighing up depreciation and the fact it has been the tool I use to do my job for all that time iMacs win hands down.

 

[MythicFrost]

This pretty much seems to summarize the gaming:



I'm in the market for a new desktop, and I'm trying to figure out if I just want to build a miniITX or buy an iMac.

The review was the best I've seen of the new iMac and pretty much hit the pros and cons that I've felt about the system. I still have a hard time thinking about putting down $2K on a machine with an underpowered gpu and no upgradability besides the RAM.

I'm not a big gamer, just want to be able to play Diablo 3. I mainly will use it for web development and photo editing, so I know everything else has more power than I need. Decisions, decisions, decisions ...

The iMac with the 6970M will do really well for gaming as long as you don't need to max everything (and you play under Windows, not OS X). The card is basically a 6850 with ~12% lower clocks and thus ~12% less performance (FPS). Check out some of the game benchmarks at that link.

The thing is, current iMac is fine for running today's games but like Anand mentioned in his review, what about games coming in 2012 or 2013? It most likely won't be able to drive them at the native resolution with good graphics while keeping a playable frame rate. That is the biggest issue. Since you have absolutely no upgradeability, you are forced to sell your whole iMac to get an upgrade.

I disagree with what he said. Keep in mind that the majority of his tests were under OS X, which results in less performance than in Windows.

I often see people say how will it do with games in 2012, or 2013? Well, it should be able to play with the same graphics quality. The iMac might be able to play "Medium" today, but the quality of the graphics in Medium in 2011 may be equal to "Low" in the future like 2013. We're not going to be losing anything.

If the graphics quality doesn't change in Medium from now to 2013, then we'll see no performance decrease.

 

[Codpeace]

my point is, if you get a new machine every year, it means that at your first purchase you already chose the wrong one...

I understand your point, but a lot (or at least some) Apple lovers always want the newest equipment. I think it is a love for design, most likely. And plenty of folks just don't care at all about money, or don't need to care about it, and the expense involved is their least concern. My point was that maintenance/prophylactic upgrades are not unnecessary and they do not indicate a lack of foresight. The opposite is true.

Speculating and generalizing, PC users generally don't "love" their machines, per se, they love their performance or simplicity or low price or whatever. Many will always pop for the newest/fastest GPU because they are gamers or video artists/professionals.

In my view, Apple's scheme is a means by which Apple leverages its design to increase sales of their no doubt extremely profitable AppleCare. Insurance is a profitable enterprise. OTOH, in the case of someone like me, they will lower their margin re AppleCare because I will not do prophylactic upgrades and thus, when my hard drive fails as it WILL do, they are going to get dinged. If I could change my hard drive every year I would and they would instantly no longer be liable for that component.

 

[cirus]

For me, the Mac resale value makes it a no-brainer. I am a casual gamer but need a fast powerful computer for work. I also am constrained in terms of space so an all-in-one makes good sense.

I can buy a souped up imac today for say £2400, I know that I will be able to sell it a couple of years down the line for say £1000, an equivalent PC would be almost worthless, possibly the monitor for the PC might retain some value.

Either way when weighing up depreciation and the fact it has been the tool I use to do my job for all that time iMacs win hands down.

The 2400 pound imac with be roughly equivalent with a 1400 pound PC (less if you get a good 24 inch monitor instead of a 27 inch IPS moniter-some people feel this is too large).
Yes, but what would a 1400 pound (can't do proper symbol) PC be like?

A 2400 pound imac with a resale value of 1000 pounds or a 1400 pound pc would cost the same. There is also the chance that that imac brakes somehow and is not covered by warranty (Applecare runs out or accidental damage). In which case the resale value is zero.

But if its gets your work done then its worth it.

 

[Hellhammer]

I disagree with what he said. Keep in mind that the majority of his tests were under OS X, which results in less performance than in Windows.

Many people prefer gaming in OS X though.

I often see people say how will it do with games in 2012, or 2013? Well, it should be able to play with the same graphics quality. The iMac might be able to play "Medium" today, but the quality of the graphics in Medium in 2011 may be equal to "Low" in the future like 2013. We're not going to be losing anything.

If the graphics quality doesn't change in Medium from now to 2013, then we'll see no performance decrease.

I think it's more about the fact that you just can't run games at the highest settings. For someone who is used to homebuilt gaming rigs which run everything at maximum, it may not sound that cool when your new 2000$ iMac can't even run the today's games at maximum settings at native resolution. The games Anand tested weren't even that intensive, besides Metro 2033 but the iMac couldn't even run it at 1920x1200 with playable FPS.

For anyone besides a hardcore gamer, the iMac should be a great computer. However, I fully understand why serious gamers won't even take a look at the iMac, it's simply way too compromised.

 

[iSayuSay]

Apple should include option for dual 6970M crossfired on imac to make gamer people bow down and respect iMac in every way possible. Forget the worthless 2gb vram upgrade and go for another 6970m gpu option ... Say for extra $250

Alienware laptop can do SLI, so iMac should be able too with 27" ginormous body

 

[Michael D.]

Apple should include option for dual 6970M crossfired on imac to make gamer people bow down and respect iMac in every way possible. Forget the worthless 2gb vram upgrade and go for another 6970m gpu option ... Say for extra $250

Alienware laptop can do SLI, so iMac should be able too with 27" ginormous body

Doesn't seem likely. is keen to keep the iMac a rather quiet machine. If SLI were even possible due to the sleek form factor, I somewhat doubt will ever offer this on an iMac.

Apple doesn't really target hardcore gamers with its products.

 

[flopticalcube]

Um, huh? When I consider your response, it doesn't make any sense at all. Hard drives DO fail, not if but when. If today you buy a maxed out iMac 2011, the hard drive will fail. If today you buy a maxed out Dell, the hard drive will fail. If today you buy my 4-yr old 1330m with a brand new hard drive, the hard drive will fail. No matter the specs, no matter the expectations, no matter your level of tech expertise or education or income or religion, your hard drive will fail. If your computer system is highly dependent on the integrity of its hard drive, WHEN that hard drive fails you will be screwed regardless of how fancy or common your screen, CPU, GPU, or anything else is. In such a system, prophylactic replacement of the hard disk is just good common sense.

I agree with your stand on HDs, particularly in tight all-in-one spaces but once a year seems a bit excessive. Furthermore, it's not that difficult to do on an iMac. The whole procedure takes about 45 min the first time you do it.

Apple obviously has decided that you will not keep the computer for more than a few years and making it difficult to service for the non-technical person is one of the drivers of Apple Care which is a large source of profit for Apple.

 

[Codpeace]

I agree with your stand on HDs, particularly in tight all-in-one spaces but once a year seems a bit excessive. Furthermore, it's not that difficult to do on an iMac. The whole procedure takes about 45 min the first time you do it.

Apple obviously has decided that you will not keep the computer for more than a few years and making it difficult to service for the non-technical person is one of the drivers of Apple Care which is a large source of profit for Apple.

Re Apple Care: precisely my point.

Re annual HD replacement: probably a little excessive, sure, but it isn't very expensive, either. Plus a year of evolution brings me a bigger drive plus other innovations sometimes. This year it brought me a Seagate hybrid drive which is totally awesome! It has really speeded up a lot of things on my little, old Dell (which has been a fine machine).

 

[mankymanning]

The 2400 pound imac with be roughly equivalent with a 1400 pound PC (less if you get a good 24 inch monitor instead of a 27 inch IPS moniter-some people feel this is too large).
Yes, but what would a 1400 pound (can't do proper symbol) PC be like?

A 2400 pound imac with a resale value of 1000 pounds or a 1400 pound pc would cost the same. There is also the chance that that imac brakes somehow and is not covered by warranty (Applecare runs out or accidental damage). In which case the resale value is zero.

But if its gets your work done then its worth it.

The overall cost is the same yes but I know which I woud prefer to own. Besides with Applecare lasting 3 years, I would probably look to replace at about the 2 year mark anyway, the year of Applecare left massively affects resale value.

As I am purchasing through my business for business use then the economics makes sense in my case but not necessarily for everyone.

 

[henrikrox]

Many people prefer gaming in OS X though.



I think it's more about the fact that you just can't run games at the highest settings. For someone who is used to homebuilt gaming rigs which run everything at maximum, it may not sound that cool when your new 2000$ iMac can't even run the today's games at maximum settings at native resolution. The games Anand tested weren't even that intensive, besides Metro 2033 but the iMac couldn't even run it at 1920x1200 with playable FPS.

For anyone besides a hardcore gamer, the iMac should be a great computer. However, I fully understand why serious gamers won't even take a look at the iMac, it's simply way too compromised.

It would not worry about fps etc. Crysis is still one of the most demanding games.

Almost no game are being developed specifically for the PC. Im talking about multiplatform. With games being developed for the consoles then ported to the PC, you arent really asking for much from your hardware.

Sure you will have games like the witcher 2 that looks gorgeous on the PC, and the imac will struggle. but the mainstream games, like cod etc, will run fine on the imac for years to come.

Also, east european games is a mess when it comes to requirements.

 

[MythicFrost]

I think it's more about the fact that you just can't run games at the highest settings. For someone who is used to homebuilt gaming rigs which run everything at maximum, it may not sound that cool when your new 2000$ iMac can't even run the today's games at maximum settings at native resolution.

Yeah, that's true. But you have to make some compromises with an all-in-one. Many gamers play at 1080p and with the 27" iMac you get stuck at 1440p, which is pretty demanding.

The games Anand tested weren't even that intensive, besides Metro 2033 but the iMac couldn't even run it at 1920x1200 with playable FPS.

Yeah, but... it was on Very High quality. Drop it back to Medium and it should do well at 1440p.

For anyone besides a hardcore gamer, the iMac should be a great computer. However, I fully understand why serious gamers won't even take a look at the iMac, it's simply way too compromised.

I consider myself a hardcore gamer, I absolutely love playing at the highest settings. However, I'm forced to compromise.

Apple should include option for dual 6970M crossfired on imac to make gamer people bow down and respect iMac in every way possible. Forget the worthless 2gb vram upgrade and go for another 6970m gpu option ... Say for extra $250

Alienware laptop can do SLI, so iMac should be able too with 27" ginormous body

Never gunna happen I'm afraid

OS X doesn't support CF or SLI. Apple would need more room for the second GPU, and at that point they'd probably be better off using desktop GPUs over mobility GPUs.

 

[archer75]

M
I think it's more about the fact that you just can't run games at the highest settings. For someone who is used to homebuilt gaming rigs which run everything at maximum, it may not sound that cool when your new 2000$ iMac can't even run the today's games at maximum settings at native resolution. The games Anand tested weren't even that intensive, besides Metro 2033 but the iMac couldn't even run it at 1920x1200 with playable FPS.

For anyone besides a hardcore gamer, the iMac should be a great computer. However, I fully understand why serious gamers won't even take a look at the iMac, it's simply way too compromised.

I don't know why anand didn't test at higher resolutions but that's all I play at. And many youtube videos out there will confirm that at native rez the imac can handle many games at max settings(aside from metro)

I have tested WoW, EQ2, AoC, Dragon Age, EVE, Crysis 2, Civ5, all at native resolution. I have watched videos on Bad Company 2 and Portal 2 gameplay. The new imac is quite impressive. For me, as long as a game isn't choppy and i'm at native rez at max settings or pretty damn close to it, i'm happy.

My gaming desktop is a Core i7 920, 460GTX 768mb and I can say that this new imac does better at 2560x1440 than my gaming pc does at 1920x1200.