Well, that sounds like a good complaint until you realize that the 5k display ALONE costs $2500 when you buy from dell. So, yeah, this is still an EXCELLENT value.
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.
Apple Releases New 15-Inch MacBook Pro With Force Touch and $1,999 27-Inch iMac With Retina Display
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, that sounds like a good complaint until you realize that the 5k display ALONE costs $2500 when you buy from dell. So, yeah, this is still an EXCELLENT value.
except your critical review:
1)it still comes with 8GB ram (2 4GB chips!!!)
2)a non-SSD drive. Oh, but for an extra $500 you can get a 512GB flash drive (not sure if it's SSD or PCIe or other) when you can pick them up anywhere for $180 at RETAIL prices.
3)Oh, but wait...there's more!....they don't even tell you what i5 chip you are getting.
4)And there's no i7 option for people that, you know, spend $2000 and actually want some killer performance to somewhat future proof their investment.
..isn't really too critical.. 3 & 4 are inaccurate and 1 & 2-- you're just pointing out the base config.. upgrade them if it's such a problem.
You must be the one lucky newborn that has never actually experienced the good
ol' spinning harddisks, but grew up with fast SSD... Well that sucks. I was hoping to get a new MBP but now I'm on the fence. Either way, I was planning on replacing it once Skylake comes out but now I'm not sure.
seriosly? for just 300 usd you got fusion drive (should be standard now), better gpu (still not sufficient for this resolution)... what is 5k display alone good for with underspecsed computer that cant be upgraded?
Moore's Law has smashed into the brick wall called physics.
----------
Well, at least it's more possible now that Intel has cancelled Broadwell-H entirely because it would have a short shelf life, since Skylake-H will be on time.
Yea the 14nm tech node is a challenging one
Intel has very limited yield currently.
Maybe some people don't need faster cpu/gpu and just want the better resolution?? Hey, that includes me. I use it primarily for web browsing/email and trading stocks. I don't play games.
So I waited and now I don't have the option to change from an i5 to i7 and go with a the better graphics card in the lower end 27" model? WTF? Really Apple. Come on, now I have to spend an extra $400 to get those options. Well I knew this day would come. Hey, if anyone knows where I could by the older configured 27" iMac with an i7 and the 4gig graphics card option hit me up. Nice upgrade but it's a joke they are taking options away.
The hate is AMAZING.
I see that Retina iMac got cheaper for the same that it offered before. But people still focus on the base model that has been added to lineup that has a bit less than higher spec model, that got smaller price.
Second is the MBP. People moan about the fact that Apple not upgraded the CPU and Memory, because Intel did not brought new CPUs, but no, its ****ing Apple's fault. They brought faster and more efficient GPU from AMD. "OH NO, I LIKE NVIDIA MORE, WHAT HAVE YOU APPLE DONE?!!!!!".
They have given more for the same amount of money.
How the ***** can be that a bad thing?
I see that Retina iMac got cheaper for the same that it offered before. But people still focus on the base model that has been added to lineup that has a bit less than higher spec model, that got smaller price.
Second is the MBP. People moan about the fact that Apple not upgraded the CPU and Memory, because Intel did not brought new CPUs, but no, its ****ing Apple's fault. They brought faster and more efficient GPU from AMD. "OH NO, I LIKE NVIDIA MORE, WHAT HAVE YOU APPLE DONE?!!!!!".
They have given more for the same amount of money.
How the ***** can be that a bad thing?
What is the joke here? That Apple hasn't switched to AMD in the light of the Intel stalling? If you consider a certain behaviour as ridiculous, it would be nice to know what the relevant party would have needed to do to not appear ridiculous.
I was planning on waiting for Skylake to upgrade, and these changes only confirm it. Though it is probably still too much hope that Apple will allow for a dGPU with more than 2 GB of vRAM in the next go-round.
The point is they took away that option to upgrade to the i7 and a better graphics card. Which IMO is a big issue. You have to spend more to get those options.
Did they? imac 27 - non retina - crippled and cant be upgraded.. cheaper retina one is a joke...
So, is the 2.5 GHz i7 w/ 16 GB RAM an upgrade from a 2012 15" rMBP with a 2.6 GHz i7 and 8 GB RAM?
I went from a 2.26GHz Core 2 Duo to a 2.0GHz Core i7 quad core, and I'm about to go from 2.0GHz i7 quad core to a Intel Core M 1.1GHz ;0)
No they DIDNT.
Its still in higher priced model, which was the factual "old" Retina iMac and it got CHEAPER.
If you need to spend more money on CPU and GPU why not buy the higher end model in the first place?
Then you can get the model with the fusion drive. Still excellent value if you want the 5k display.
Yea the 14nm tech node is a challenging one
Intel has very limited yield currently.
I'm well up to date with the latest in semiconductor lithography, it's just a little galling just how delayed these chips are, and I no doubt believe part of it is due to a lack of competition. But if you can fire out dual core chips, then why not their quad core brethren? Surely the yields can't be that bad?
Now to wait and see if the dGPU is worth the upgrade, Apple is claiming a 70% boost. At least they didn't go with a DDR3 variant. But so little info I can dig up on this chip that I'll need to wait for Anandtech or someone to bench it and work out what exactly it is before I decide to take the plunge.
Also million dollar question now that Broadwell-H is clearly dead... When will we be seeing Skylake? 2015 or 2016?