In HD video editing you can almost never have too much horsepower. The more horsepower, the less time you wait.
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 Sandy Bridge Quad-Core iMacs with Thunderbolt
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In HD video editing you can almost never have too much horsepower. The more horsepower, the less time you wait.
An unfair statement, to say the least. From Notebookcheck:
"All in all, the Radeon HD 6970M shows an impressive performance. AMD's old top model, the Radeon HD 5870, is surpassed in every benchmark by about 50%a testament to the new model's formidable performance. Even Nvidia's rugged GeForce GTX 480M winds up a whopping 33% behind the Radeon HD 6970M. Only the GeForce GTX 485M manages to top AMD's new hard hitter. Nvidia's new crème de la crème processed data almost 12% faster. Since the GeForce GTX 485M was coupled with a speedy Sandy Bridge processor, the Radeon's shortfall here is not written in stone. Paired wit a similar CPU, the Radeon HD 6970M might actually measure up to the GeForce GTX 485M in the end.
Besides that, the new model's reduced energy consumption in idle mode as well as its extended list of featurescompared to the older Radeon HD 5870are praiseworthy. The Video Decoder (UVD3) relieves the CPU considerably, and HD3D even allows for the playback of 3D material. However, the Radeon HD 6970M seems better fit for the 17" format: the 15.6" Eurocom W860CU Cougar teetered on the edge of bearable temperature, system noise and power supply during testing.
After completing all tests, the verdict is: demanding gamers will find the Radeon HD 6970M to be an extremely powerful graphics card that can smoothly run most games in a high resolution with maximum graphics settings. Only when dealing with few games like Metro 2033 or Crysis, you shouldn't go too crazy with the detail settings if you want a fluid refresh rate. Expensive, energy-consuming, error-prone dual-GPU systems (e.g. GeForce GTX 460M SLI) are only worth it if for those accepting nothing less than perfection. Most gamers, however, will find themselves perfectly accommodated by a Radeon HD 6970M or a GeForce GTX 485M."
What else do you need?
I just noticed Amazon took down their own listings of the (now) older model iMacs. The only ones up are third party vendors. So hopefully soon?
I want i want! With more and more games on Steam and the mac app store this is great news! The CPUs rock too! Only thing i want now is a matte screen but the rest is great! I could easily get 5 years out of one of these badboys
Not a ringing endorsement for a $2200 desktop machine.
This would be great in a notebook, not so much for a high end desktop.
Notebooks are normally MORE expensive than "high-end desktops", so it's difficult to get your point...but thanks anyway.
I think MacWorld (and others) who want to label this "Target Display Mode" are going to confuse folks. Tacking on another longer adjective, "Thunderbolt Target Display Mode" , just makes increases the confusion. Maybe "Thunderbolt Display Mode" or something new. When you put the entire former mechanisms name into the new name folks are going to think it is compatible in some way. It isn't.
I think you have a typo. This MacWorld article:
http://www.macworld.com/article/159616/2011/05/imacs_thunderbolt_target_display_mode.html?lsrc=top_1
says that the iMacs can't turn into displays for the 2010 (and previous) MacBookPros (and anything else that outputs DisplayPort (DP) data). It can for the 2011 (Thunderbolt) ones.
2010 27" iMac as display for 2011 MBP should work. (because TB fell back into DP only mode.)
2011 iMac as a display for 2011 MBP should work ( negotiated at the TB level.)
Thunderbolt is backward compatible with standard DisplayPort connections. It will negotiate backward into DisplayPort only data traffic for standard conforming connections. What Apple did was non-standard and there is little good rational for including their hack into the something that Thunderbolt has to deal with over the long term.
My point is that using a Mobile low power GPU will not yield "excellent" performance in a desktop environment.
They compromised GPU performance to avoid extra fan noise. I can respect that decision. I just wont expect to get "excellent" performance.
Maybe for you it's OK, for me it's excellent as such...the benchmarks give it great praise even in a scenario of high-resolution, high-end gaming. The only GREAT bummer for me is the price in Switzerland, especially considering that the Swiss Franc is worth much more than the US dollar nowadays...ONE THOUSAND dollars higher than the US for the top-end model with additional options...it really seems like Apple is subsidizing poor US citizens by overcharging richer markets...ridiculous.
Last edited:
His point is that most would consider an iMac a desktop computer, despite the fact it has to use the mobility range of gpu's from nvidia/ati due to size/heat-dissipation considerations.
The 6970M for all intents and purposes is an under clocked HD6850. Which isnt bad at all - and will even be overkill in many ways for those that dont play games.
But it isn't "excellent" for a desktop as you've said. Remember laptops dont have 2560x1440px screens attached to them. Anyone with a hackintosh can go out and spend under $200 and buy a HD6870 and gain far superior performance in OSX.
Also dont read into what I'm saying and presume I'm taking a swipe at the new iMacs. I honestly think its a fantastic update. But "Excellent" GPU is very relative, and since it is in the desktop category - I'm going to disagree. My assessment would be "Average", perhaps a tad "Above Average".
Point taken. But I am talking about my experience and expectations, and the fact that I don't need to be playing a game in the highest possible resolution (for me 1920x1080 would be fine, for which the high-end benchmarks show the 6970M is an excellent performer).
Now the only question is: how to avoid the Swiss overcharge?
Apple is a master at balancing specs on their systems in order to maximize the experience without simply tossing in the highest spec components across the board. I do think that the 6770m/6970m are a good match for what they are attempting to deliver. I need to talk with the wife, but one of these may be in my future.
The Swiss overcharge almost makes me feel guilty for the ~10% business discount...
Yeh I'm the same - It's more than good enough for what I usually do. Good luck with the swiss overcharge!
You say that as if it were news. Not having a matte screen option has been the case for YEARS now, where have you been?
The real-life performance difference between a SATA2 and SATA3 SSD will be essentially zero (at least due to the interface, obviously if one is MLC and the other SLC it's a different story). Outside of benchmarks you'd rarely be able to tell the difference.
I think youre missing the point presented. Theyre saying that a desktop should not be judged by notebook standards. As the GPU's used in the iMac are not desktop cards...its fair to say that its relative performance is average.
I think they are saying using the desktop 6970 would have been better than using the mobile version.
Is that just Apple marketing speak for "we want you to buy it from us, not a 3rd party," or have they changed user upgradability of RAM?
Thunderbolt is essentially a PCIe slot on cable with DisplayPort piggybacked on top. It's difficult to see how someone *couldn't* create a TB->USB3 breakout box (though it is likely to be relatively expensive).
I don't think you have anything to worry about.
MacBook Pro v iMac
I have what may be a dumb question.
My office bought me a brand new MacBook Pro last week. I had to take it to the Genius Bar on Sunday because it was already acting up and was just totally screwed. They wanted to give me a replacement one, but I didn't have a receipt at the time. I have the receipt now and was planning on going back this evening.
The question is, are these new iMacs better than the MacBook Pros? Currently I have a 15in 2.0GHz i7 with 8GB memory and 500GB hard drive. I would like to replace it with 21.5in iMac with 2.5GHz i5 with the same specs. I have no need for a laptop. Are these comparable? Which one is better? I am a designer so I constantly have CS5 running. Is the i5 in the iMac better than the i7 in the MacBook Pro?
I have what may be a dumb question.
My office bought me a brand new MacBook Pro last week. I had to take it to the Genius Bar on Sunday because it was already acting up and was just totally screwed. They wanted to give me a replacement one, but I didn't have a receipt at the time. I have the receipt now and was planning on going back this evening.
The question is, are these new iMacs better than the MacBook Pros? Currently I have a 15in 2.0GHz i7 with 8GB memory and 500GB hard drive. I would like to replace it with 21.5in iMac with 2.5GHz i5 with the same specs. I have no need for a laptop. Are these comparable? Which one is better? I am a designer so I constantly have CS5 running. Is the i5 in the iMac better than the i7 in the MacBook Pro?
Its difficult to understand any of your points when they're riddled with inconsistencies and subjective opinions.
By the way, there are countless examples that render your point moot.
"High End Desktops" can always cost more than notebooks because of their capabilities for expansion and customization.
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Just returned frOm the Apple store and exchanged my 2 week old iMac for this new one! I heart Apple : )
They even did a free transfer!
Just returned frOm the Apple store and exchanged my 2 week old iMac for this new one! I heart Apple : )
They even did a free transfer!
iMacs are always going to provide greater "bang for the buck"...so if you dont need a mobile platform*, cheers to your new iMac friend
*Id really consider the possibilities of needing a notebook in the near future though. It would be a shame to need one and have to buy out of pocket. Stay well
PS: Just curious, why not go for the 27inch? The base 15inch is actually a tad more expensive than the base 27.
Silent Running
While the desktop 6970 would have certainly been faster, it's not necessarily better. I understand the reasoning behind using mobile parts. The desktop 6970 is a beast of a GPU. Due to the heat it generates, it requires a relatively open case design and a dedicated cooling system. This would significantly affected the design of the iMac and resulted in it being somewhat loud under load.
While the desktop 6970 would have certainly been faster, it's not necessarily better. I understand the reasoning behind using mobile parts. The desktop 6970 is a beast of a GPU. Due to the heat it generates, it requires a relatively open case design and a dedicated cooling system. This would significantly affected the design of the iMac and resulted in it being somewhat loud under load.
Last edited: