Apple Releases New Sandy Bridge Quad-Core iMacs with Thunderbolt

[drsmithy]

To some (many) people, the all-in-one form factor is highly desirable. To deny that is foolish. It may not be your liking, but that doesn't extend to everyone.

I'm not. I quite like the look of the iMac myself, which is why we own one. I'm questioning the premise that an iMac can't be compared to a PC because of the form factor.

Especially given the aesthetics of an iMac sitting on a desk vs an LCD sitting on a desk with a computer out of sight underneath are nearly identical

 

[bpaluzzi]

I'm not. I quite like the look of the iMac myself, which is why we own one. I'm questioning the premise that an iMac can't be compared to a PC because of the form factor.

Especially given the aesthetics of an iMac sitting on a desk vs an LCD sitting on a desk with a computer out of sight underneath are nearly identical

Fair enough -- I'd counter with saying that the form factor of the iMac is a value-add. You can compare PCs to iMac, but not without counting the added value of the form-factor.

For example, my iMac is on a small desk in my living room. There's no room for a tower underneath - it would have to be a tower (or a small factor PC like a mini) on top of the desk. For me, I'll take the slight performance hit of using mobile components, for the convenience/aesthetics of having a single piece of equipment and a single cord coming out of the back.

 

[jasonp99]

I am not sure. What is crazy is that a 27'' iMac with:

3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
4GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
2TB Serial ATA Drive + 256GB Solid State Drive
AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5
Totals $3049 regularly, and only $2844 with the education discount.

Compare that to the Mac Pro with:

One 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Nehalem”
3GB (3x1GB)
2TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive
512GB solid-state drive
ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
Totals $4,449 and that is without the 27" monitor. Add that in and you are looking at $5,449. All that with education discount is $5,000.

You get computer that is more powerful and takes up less space for about 60% of the cost. I want to order one sooooo bad. Damn you school loans. Damn you all to hell.

Edit: I should go into sales...

Nehalem processors are far more powerful than an i7. We use 4-,8-, and 12-core Nehalem chips on our server farm at work, they are the fastest we have (with 96gb-192 gb of RAM).

 

[Frosticus]

After 2 years, I finally have my own Mac and no longer need to steal my girlfriends crummy MacBook

Only unboxed a couple of hours ago, but very happy so far - Geekbench'd at 7937

 

[diamond.g]

Nehalem processors are far more powerful than an i7. We use 4-,8-, and 12-core Nehalem chips on our server farm at work, they are the fastest we have (with 96gb-192 gb of RAM).

Protip: Nehalem is i7 (technically SB i7 is the successor to Nehalem i7).

 

[lilo777]

To some (many) people, the all-in-one form factor is highly desirable. To deny that is foolish. It may not be your liking, but that doesn't extend to everyone.

All-in-one form factor definitely has some advantages for certain applications. Kitchen computer is one example that comes to mind although in this case PC with a touch-screen probably would do better. Other than that, it's hard really to think about any scenario where all-in-one has any advantages. Computer being a major productivity tool in any office why would anyone sacrifice performance (in a broad sense) for a form factor?

 

[Yebubbleman]

All I want to know is how the new GPU's stack up against desktop versions....

All I want is the equivalent to the 6870 1gb desktop version. All the power I'll need for a long, long time.

Sorry, Charlie, the AMD Radeon HD 6970Ms featured in the high-end 27" iMac today are essentially underclocked desktop AMD Radeon HD 6850s. So expect slightly worse performance than that desktop card. It is better than the current Mac Pro's base ATI Radeon HD 5770, but not as good as the 5870 that you could upgrade it too, if that helps.

6970m = 6850

6970m = underclocked 6850, but close enough.

wow, am i the only suprised by quad core all over the place and 6970m as the gpu? thats a good gpu isnt it? how is that compared to the mobility 5850

isnt the 6970m the best mobile gpu amd has?

It's the best MOBILE GPU AMD has. It's a decent GPU, but for a $2000 desktop, it's kind of weaksauce, seeing as a $1000 Hackintosh could have the full 6850 that the 6970M is an underclocked version of, let alone a 6870. Still, it's the best you'll see in an iMac today while one of the chief design goals of the iMac is to be thin.

I think they are saying using the desktop 6970 would have been better than using the mobile version.

Also impossible.

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.

You can hackintosh a desktop quite easily; a laptop, not so much; given that, the iMac isn't all that great of a bang for buck, really. For Apple-branded machines, yes, the iMac will always be better bang for the buck than a MacBook Pro; but that's the way desktops have always been against laptops. Otherwise, paying $2000 for $900 worth of hardware and $800 worth of display seems a tad off to me.

And that's EXACTLY what separates perfectionist Mac users from ordinary Windows hobbyists...for the latter it's all about specs without any regard to battery life, design, noise levels and overall build quality.

Bottomline: I do NOT want to build my beige box, I do NOT want to worry about custom cooling, I do NOT want to infringe OS X's license by using it on unsupported machines and I do NOT want to worry about stickers on my keyboard or CPU.

Specs are what you are paying for. Otherwise it's decoration, and I'm sorry man, in this economy most people can't afford to spend money on "pretty".

Also, I think your idea of Windows hobbyists is a bit skewed. Most of them are after the same goal you are: to have the damn thing JUST WORK. Yes, an iMac is quieter than a Hackintosh, more likely than not. But an iMac has many many many more heating problems than a Hackintosh ever will. I see more iMacs coming through my computer repair shop than I do any other Mac. As much as I like the design personally and as quick as I will be to buy one once they finally get Blu-Ray (anytime between now and never), I'd be fooling myself if I didn't admit just how clunky they can be in practice.

I am placing an order, but would like to question the BTO
I will choose the 27inch version
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
4GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
1TB Serial ATA Drive

Now the graphics is where I am stuck
Should I go for this
AMD Radeon HD 6970M 1GB GDDR5
or
AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5

What is the 2G version going to give me more that the 1G can't handle.

My usage will be mostly Mac OSX, with the occasional boot into Windows 7 to do some stuff the Mac can't do easily. Game play is not likely.
Viewing photos is a must, and very little video editing.

I expect the computer to last a few years.

Also - where can you get a thunderbolt to DVI/VGA adapter from so you can run an external monitor?

1. Today, more VRAM will probably only matter if you plan on using your Thunderbolt ports to drive two additional 27"/30" monitors. Otherwise, not worth it. However, as minimum system requirements for things inevitably go up, having more VRAM might delay your need to inevitably upgrade from this machine to whatever is to replace it in 5-6 years.

2. You can buy a miniDisplay port to DVI (or VGA) adapter from the Apple Store. Same adapters work.

Im tempted to go for the maxed out 27" with the 2Gb GPU. Just after a few opinions on the Radeon 6970m. It seems a pretty high end mobile GPU that even the new Alienware 17x has installed. I get the impression that the new iMac maybe a worthy gaming machine underneath? Im pre empting the launch of Battlefield 3 and if I can avoid getting a sole Gaming PC for the job with a shiny new iMac then I m prepared to go for it. Any gamers out their have any advice or indeed experience with the 6970m?

My last Gaming PC was a Dell XPS600 with SLI nVidia 7800GTX's running BF2 so I know GPUs have cam a long way. Cheers.

It's equivalent to a mid-range card of current. It really depends. If you must have a desktop Mac, do it. Otherwise, I'd game on a PC desktop and get a MacBook Pro for all of your Mac computing needs; you get the best of both worlds that way.

To some (many) people, the all-in-one form factor is highly desirable. To deny that is foolish. It may not be your liking, but that doesn't extend to everyone.

Uh. You are way wrong about that. First off, the iMac is the only really successful all-in-one and even then, its sales pale in comparison to that of the MacBook Pros and the MacBooks. It may be your liking; but don't kid yourself, while popular, it's not as popular as you think.

 

[err404]

...why would anyone sacrifice performance (in a broad sense) for a form factor?

You're obviously not the target audience. Personally I need a machine that is fast enough to perform any required task at a pace that doesn't impede workflow. Beyond that I would prefer a clean desk environment over additional performance (this includes clutter under the desk).

 

[lilo777]

You're obviously not the target audience. Personally I need a machine that is fast enough to perform any required task at a pace that doesn't impede workflow. Beyond that I would prefer a clean desk environment over additional performance (this includes clutter under the desk).

Why don't you just buy proper desk? Put computer inside and have less clutter than with iMac. An you do sacrifice more performance than you are willing to admit. Apart from things like mobile RAM and GPU, outdated SATA 3Gb controller etc., because of the all-in-one factor, you can not update CPU or any other parts or even the whole PC in a year or two because of the cost of 27" monitors. It's a $900 ballast right there.

 

[bpaluzzi]

Uh. You are way wrong about that. First off, the iMac is the only really successful all-in-one and even then, its sales pale in comparison to that of the MacBook Pros and the MacBooks. It may be your liking; but don't kid yourself, while popular, it's not as popular as you think.

So, are you ever going to tell me what I was "way wrong" about? I said that an all-in-one is a desirable form factor. You in no way disproved that. At all.

 

[bpaluzzi]

Why don't you just buy proper desk? Put computer inside and have less clutter than with iMac. An you do sacrifice more performance than you are willing to admit. Apart from things like mobile RAM and GPU, outdated SATA 3Gb controller etc., because of the all-in-one factor, you can not update CPU or any other parts or even the whole PC in a year or two because of the cost of 27" monitors. It's a $900 ballast right there.

None of those things matter at all to anyone other than geeks. Seriously.
Most people just don't care. They want a nice looking machine that works well enough for what they want to do.

 

[Eidorian]

And that's EXACTLY what separates perfectionist Mac users from ordinary Windows hobbyists...for the latter it's all about specs without any regard to battery life, design, noise levels and overall build quality.

It is not that hard to build a quiet and powerful machine. You should listen to my machine at full load and overclocked. Silverstone sells cases that would make the Mac Pro cry and your wallet.

When did being a hobbyist mean plastic and noise?

 

[Yebubbleman]

So, are you ever going to tell me what I was "way wrong" about? I said that an all-in-one is a desirable form factor. You in no way disproved that. At all.

You said it was a popular form factor. That was what I was contesting; not that it was desirable. I've owned two iMacs in my history as a Mac user. I'd happily own a third if they put Blu-Ray in it. But I don't think either of us are in the majority by any means.

It is not that hard to build a quiet and powerful machine. You should listen to my machine at full load and overclocked. Silverstone sells cases that would make the Mac Pro cry and your wallet.

When did being a hobbyist mean plastic and noise?

(Responding to the post that you're commenting on) More importantly, when did it mean beige? I mean, I know it did like fifteen years ago, but isn't that ancient history by computing standards?

None of those things matter at all to anyone other than geeks. Seriously.
Most people just don't care. They want a nice looking machine that works well enough for what they want to do.

Most people don't care about specs, but most people DO care about price, and I'm sorry, for the price, those specs are over-priced. Or did everyone suddenly become rich?

 

[bpaluzzi]

You said it was a popular form factor. That was what I was contesting; not that it was desirable. I've owned two iMacs in my history as a Mac user. I'd happily own a third if they put Blu-Ray in it. But I don't think either of us are in the majority by any means.

Actually, I never said it was popular. You said it was popular, though

Most people don't care about specs, but most people DO care about price, and I'm sorry, for the price, those specs are over-priced. Or did everyone suddenly become rich?

That's the thing, though. People don't look at it for specs. They look at it for experience. Only geeks care about specs. And a lot of people think that the iMac is worth what they want. They're not overpriced.

By the way, if you are comparing specs, you need to consider the form factor as a spec as well.

 

[lilo777]

None of those things matter at all to anyone other than geeks. Seriously.
Most people just don't care. They want a nice looking machine that works well enough for what they want to do.

Perhaps, but show me non-geeks who do not care for their money.

 

[US Marine]

They're not overpriced.

 

[bpaluzzi]

Image

Clever pic, but the sales shows that they're not overpriced.

Geeks have a tough time reconciling the fact that what normal consumers want / value is different from what they want.

Where are all these all-in-one machines with comparable specs and significantly lower prices?

 

[Eidorian]

Where are all these all-in-one machines with comparable specs and significantly lower prices?

Apple is the all-in-one market.

 

[bpaluzzi]

Apple is the all-in-one market.

Swing and a miss.

Unless you meant the only ones that sell ;-)

http://www.gateway.com/programs/zxseries/index.php
http://www.dell.com/uk/p/desktops?a...s&~ck=supertab-all-in-one-desktops#ViewByTabs
http://h40059.www4.hp.com/uk/homedesktops/product.php?id=XS969EA&experience=direct
http://www.acer.co.uk/ac/en/GB/content/series/z3

 

[err404]

Why don't you just buy proper desk? Put computer inside and have less clutter than with iMac. An you do sacrifice more performance than you are willing to admit. Apart from things like mobile RAM and GPU, outdated SATA 3Gb controller etc., because of the all-in-one factor, you can not update CPU or any other parts or even the whole PC in a year or two because of the cost of 27" monitors. It's a $900 ballast right there.

LOL, now I have to add the cost of a "proper desk" to the cost of a PC? How would a "proper desk" reduce clutter to less than a single cable from my iMac to the power outlet?
I built all of my PC's for over decade and do you know what I discovered? A well balanced machine degrades in performance at a uniform rate. It was never beneficial to upgrade piecemeal (beyond RAM and HD capacity). Once the GPU needed to be upgraded, so did the CPU and consequently the MB and RAM. Toss in a case and you just bought yourself a new machine.
To a slightly lesser extent monitors also fall into an upgrade curve. From 15" CTR to 21" CTR to 19" LCD to higher refresh rate 22" LCD to higher res 24"LCD. Any enthusiast will upgrade their monitor in rough lockstep with their PC. By the time the current iMac is outdated, I'll be looking for an ultrawide 35" OLED.
The only time piecemeal upgrades made sense for me was for unbalanced machines. The ones that started life with an under performing CPU or GPU.
BTW - Do you really upgrade your PC every "year or two". I think you just lost the right to talk down to people about over spending.

 

[US Marine]

Clever pic, but the sales shows that they're not overpriced.

No, you are incorrect. All the sales numbers show is that lots of people are ready and willing to pay exorbitant prices for their Apple hardware.

You can chalk it up to "aesthetic value," "the Apple experience," or the seamless integration of hardware and software, or whatever else you feel justifies the overpricing. If you want to argue that it's worth it because of those things, then fine. You and the many others who agree with you are certainly entitled to that opinion.
I for one love my Macbook Pro, and I certainly wouldn't trade it for any crappy PC laptop. However, in my next desktop computer I want enough balls to be able to do some next-gen gaming, and I don't want to pay through the nose for it. While I would love to get an iMac and just dual-boot it solely for gaming purposes, I probably won't because it's just not worth the ridiculous price for the hardware you get. And when it comes to things like gaming, hardware is what matters, not aesthetics, all-in-one nature, the experience, or anything else.
It sucks that I won't be able to have the sleek and sexy OS X (lest I build a hackintosh), but that's fine. Most of my everyday stuff will still probably be done on my MBP.

 

[al404]

Guys it is one of my first time on tris forum and it sounds really strange what i'm reading here

I had a iMac 24 core2duo 4gb RAM for 3 years, i can edit full hd movies on iMovie and run windows xp in parallels, i felt that I need to change my iMac because as a developer i need to run windows 7 in parallels, so my iMac it get a little slow mostly form my 4gb ram

Now those iMac has 4 core and till 16gb of ram, but most of you wonder if the Gpu is good enoght... For what?

I always beleaved that for game is a lot better a console

Do all of you need to' do ad ance hd video editing?
Do you need to do 3D rendering?

 

[US Marine]

I always beleaved that for game is a lot better a console

Well there is your problem right there, mate.

 

[Yebubbleman]

That's the thing, though. People don't look at it for specs. They look at it for experience. Only geeks care about specs. And a lot of people think that the iMac is worth what they want. They're not overpriced.

By the way, if you are comparing specs, you need to consider the form factor as a spec as well.

Ah, yes, the form factor. Thin to appear sexy to consumers like you who clearly don't care about what's going on under the hood, but thin as to generate a lot of heat, certainly more than those components should endure; thin to prompt one of the worst internal layouts of any Mac shipped since the iMac G5 gained an iSight camera in October 2005. Yeah, I've considered the form factor as a spec. Have you?

 

[Eidorian]

Swing and a miss.

Unless you meant the only ones that sell ;-)

http://www.gateway.com/programs/zxseries/index.php
http://www.dell.com/uk/p/desktops?a...s&~ck=supertab-all-in-one-desktops#ViewByTabs
http://h40059.www4.hp.com/uk/homedesktops/product.php?id=XS969EA&experience=direct
http://www.acer.co.uk/ac/en/GB/content/series/z3

I meant that the all-in-one market outside of Apple is insignificant.

Ah, yes, the form factor. Thin to appear sexy to consumers like you who clearly don't care about what's going on under the hood, but thin as to generate a lot of heat, certainly more than those components should endure; thin to prompt one of the worst internal layouts of any Mac shipped since the iMac G5 gained an iSight camera in October 2005. Yeah, I've considered the form factor as a spec. Have you?

Remember the previous version that you could open up?