Still no Skylake? Looks like I'll be hanging on to my 2012 iMac.
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 to Launch 4K 21.5-inch Retina iMac Next Week, iPad Pro in Early November
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So Microsoft just launched the most impressive "Surface Pad Pro" yet (even looks a lot like a Macbook Pro, but doubles as a tablet) and has Skylake on it already while Apple releases OUTDATED/OBSOLETE technology at the same relative time (kind of like the new AppleTV as Roku and Amazon and NVidia all recently released their 4K capable models).
Come on Apple flavored Kool-Aid drinkers, tell me how people don't NEED Skylake yet. It's just too damn new and fast for people in 2015 and there's not enough interest in better/faster/more powerful technology. Let's wait until the next chipset comes out and then release Skylake models. After all, you need more than a tiny percentage using something before Apple can invest in it....
Come on Apple flavored Kool-Aid drinkers, tell me how people don't NEED Skylake yet. It's just too damn new and fast for people in 2015 and there's not enough interest in better/faster/more powerful technology. Let's wait until the next chipset comes out and then release Skylake models. After all, you need more than a tiny percentage using something before Apple can invest in it....
How do desktop GPUs have trouble pushing 4k? It's nothing. You've been able to run multiple 1440p displays on lesser graphics for years.
Same here. X-Plane really needs a powerful computer and waiting patiently for the next update of the 27" and will go for the best spec I can
Sounds tempting on the surface, but by the time you properly spec the machine (using current prices) you might as well get the 5K iMac. Starting with the 21.5" non-retina iMac, if you bump up to an i7 (3.1GHz), 16GB of RAM, a 1TB Fusion Drive and only a GeForce GT 750M 1GB, the price is $2099. If you get a 27" 5K iMac with base i7 (3.3GHz), 16GB of RAM, a 1TB Fusion Drive and a Radeon R9 M290 2GB for only $300 more at $2399.
I think by this point all of the iMacs should probably come with a Fusion Drive standard. SSD upgrade options to also be lowered to a fairer price as SSD prices have plummeted over the past year. There's just no way that 500GB is worth $500 as the prices of SSDs are now less than $0.50/GB. Even when including the Apple tax (which I'll usually happily pay) it's way too high. If they keep the 8GB of RAM as standard, then they might consider at least lowering the upgrade price, especially for the 16GB tier which seems really out of whack. Or maybe dropping the starting price. Alternatively they could set the standard at 16GB with 32GB and 64GB upgrade options priced higher. The needle needs to move forward somehow.
I'd really like a 5K iMac with a mid-range i7, mid-range graphics, 1TB SSD and 32GB of RAM for around $3200 or less. I might be able to do it if I upgrade my own RAM (which I think you can still do on the 27" model), and use a 512GB SSD with external SSD drives for storage. I've already got my Lightroom catalog on a 4TB RAID 0 drive that gets backed up to a standard 4TB drive. I'm planning on upgrading to a higher-MP, possibly full-frame camera sometime over the next year so having more RAM will really help process those huge RAW files. I've been planning on a Skylake upgrade for a while but I might wait and see how my camera situation pans out. As it is my 2012 rMBP is still running like a champ and my main reason for wanting to upgrade is to have a larger, external retina display. I'll probably have this next machine for at least five years so I want decent specs. I might look at the Mac Pro as well if they update it soon.
I think by this point all of the iMacs should probably come with a Fusion Drive standard. SSD upgrade options to also be lowered to a fairer price as SSD prices have plummeted over the past year. There's just no way that 500GB is worth $500 as the prices of SSDs are now less than $0.50/GB. Even when including the Apple tax (which I'll usually happily pay) it's way too high. If they keep the 8GB of RAM as standard, then they might consider at least lowering the upgrade price, especially for the 16GB tier which seems really out of whack. Or maybe dropping the starting price. Alternatively they could set the standard at 16GB with 32GB and 64GB upgrade options priced higher. The needle needs to move forward somehow.
I'd really like a 5K iMac with a mid-range i7, mid-range graphics, 1TB SSD and 32GB of RAM for around $3200 or less. I might be able to do it if I upgrade my own RAM (which I think you can still do on the 27" model), and use a 512GB SSD with external SSD drives for storage. I've already got my Lightroom catalog on a 4TB RAID 0 drive that gets backed up to a standard 4TB drive. I'm planning on upgrading to a higher-MP, possibly full-frame camera sometime over the next year so having more RAM will really help process those huge RAW files. I've been planning on a Skylake upgrade for a while but I might wait and see how my camera situation pans out. As it is my 2012 rMBP is still running like a champ and my main reason for wanting to upgrade is to have a larger, external retina display. I'll probably have this next machine for at least five years so I want decent specs. I might look at the Mac Pro as well if they update it soon.
There's no Skylake model out there that could compete with Broadwell's Iris Pro 6200. To have the best iGPU in the world, you have to take Broadwell. It is faster than any other integrated GPU, even AMD APU's are not king of the hill anymore.
Last edited:
how much the 4k/5K displays cost nowadays?
Retina iMacs are expensive.
1440p are in $650 smartphones nowadays, it is the PPI costing more or screen real estate?
Retina iMacs are expensive.
1440p are in $650 smartphones nowadays, it is the PPI costing more or screen real estate?
Last edited:
I'm going to hook up the new retina Apple TV to this when it gets released later this month. Oh wait...
Update the Apple Thunderbolt Display already! It seriously needs a resolution bump.
make it two
4K 21.5"
5K 27"
I think my 2012 Mac Mini can drive 4K resolution not sure...
No it would not. However, it would likely run 1080p quite nicely. 4k gaming is still the realm of people who either can afford $800 just for a video card or are interested in SLIing two video cards together. Neither option is available for a Mac.
I occasionally game on my riMac with the upgraded video card, but I only play at 1440p. Once you get above that performance drops off drastically. You're still looking at 2 to 3 years before 4K gaming is common on PCs and so I would say probably 4 to 6 years before a Mac can capably game at that resolution.
I would say that my riMac is about comparable to a GTX 760 for gaming. My game machine by contrast has a GTX 970 and I still can't play 4k on that with decent settings.
Why do they insist on sticking with the stupid 21 inch? They should at least have a middle tier that 23 or 24 inch.
Nice indeed but my guess is the higher price for such entry-level iMacs might then scare away potential PC switchers; we all know the price differential is already quite steep even with the current 5400 rpm spinners.
For now, until SSDs become a whole lot less expensive, Apple needs the lowest possible price point for an entry-level iMac and its ecosystem experience, if it wants to attract more switchers.
Going with Windows is not the answer or an option for many of us here.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RQA6E20/ref=psdc_1292116011_t2_B00RQA6M5Y
BX100 are even cheaper.
500GB SSDs are less than $200 at retail, it is no longer expensive. With apple using SSDs in laptops, it costs less than that. MacBook Air costs $1099 which has 256GB SSD, iMac still starts at $1099.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Except for the fact the they keep upgrading to the most expensive SSDs on the market in the Macs so the price never goes down. What they need to do is give the option for a standard SATA SSD, which are significantly cheaper than PCIe but significantly still faster than spinners. Just make the current PCIe SSDs under the "High Speed Flash storage" moniker in BTO.
It's ridiculous that if you can't afford to shell out $500+ for a decent amount of flash storage, you are stuck with a HDD/Fusion when you could just stick a standard 512GB SATA Solid state drive in there for the same price.
Last edited:
I want a matching monitor. Looks like garbage to have a Retina iMac and an old Apple monitor with it.
You both make good points. My mistake was thinking for a moment like a manufacturer, rather than as a consumer.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
if you look at the price of MacBook Air which has SSDs right now, it is feasible. does not even need to be standard SATA based SSD, everyone already moving to PCIe based SSD.
Apple has better leverage since they use same SSDs across board. even there was rumor they pay by NAND (not even at component level to the suppliers).
23-24" is the ideal size for most people who don't need the extra space of a 27-30" monitor.
21.5" feels awfully small, and the price jump to 27" is quite steep as well as the 27" feeling too large for many users.
