Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Updates iMac with Haswell and Faster PCIe Flash Storage

A couple of theoretical questions

A couple of questions regarding the upgraded iMac comparing to late 2012 version:

1. Do you think it would be possible to somehow do a DIY upgrade from a WiFi 'n' to 'ac'? Is the WiFi controller external or somewhere on the logic board? This is the only long-term 'problem' of late 2012 iMacs for me - not having the 'ac' WiFi speed. I guess we'll have to wait for a teardown and some comparisons.

2. How the top end GPU options in both models compare? When looking at benchmarks it seems previous GTX 680MX is a little bit faster than current GTX 780M?
 
hardikdim said:
so what about ppl who bought recently launched imacs which is just 10months old.
apple think that it can silently refresh new imacs and people will easily accept the fact that they are fools.
not so cool stop fooling people apple :( :(

they should atleast replace processors for newly bought imacs
Click to expand...

Exactly, ordered my 27" maxed iMac in December! got shipped in February.
This is what apple is saying to early adopters, screw you and thank you for testing our beta machine.
 
Doesn't even get a mention on the Apple website and no indication that it's a new product in their Store either. Shame, I can remember when this would have been important news, now Apple simply don't seem all that bothered.
 
Okay, lets hear from the guy who will wait for the, what's the name of the next processor? :)
 
Macboy Pro said:
Actually, the 1TB SSDs are down to $580.
Click to expand...

And what is the speed on those? The latest macbook air has reads over 800 megs per second and writes just under 800. I would be really surprised if these drives aren't that same speed if not a bit faster.

So if you're going to make a real comparison, what's the price of a pcie SSD that has speeds around 800?

That extra speed does cost extra money. So what's the price tag on the non-apple version at that speed?
 
JayCee842 said:
Do you not have a life? :confused: Every time I come on this website your comments are among the first, if not the first on posts.
Click to expand...

That's none of your business, really.

Yeah, I have Twitter streaming up on the side of my screen while I'm working and I follow MacRumors.

I work at my desk for a large portion of the day. Shouldn't really concern you anyway.
 
gielie said:
Exactly, ordered my 27" maxed iMac in December! got shipped in February.
This is what apple is saying to early adopters, screw you and thank you for testing our beta machine.
Click to expand...
That would be the same for all PC manufacturers and more so for some that update their product line 2 or 3 times a year.
 
hardikdim said:
so what about ppl who bought recently launched imacs which is just 10months old.
apple think that it can silently refresh new imacs and people will easily accept the fact that they are fools.
not so cool stop fooling people apple :( :(

they should atleast replace processors for newly bought imacs
Click to expand...

Huh? They typically refresh around the year mark.
 
gielie said:
Exactly, ordered my 27" maxed iMac in December! got shipped in February.
This is what apple is saying to early adopters, screw you and thank you for testing our beta machine.
Click to expand...

No, buyers remorse not accepted. Everybody in the world knew the iMac would be updated eventually. So, if you purchased one 10 months ago so be it. MacRumors is full of comments from guys saying I will wait for Haswell. Why didn't you?

I'm waiting for the upgraded MacMini. I could have purchased one several months ago. Nope, I decided to wait so that I would not have your buyers remorse. We are all adults here. Live with your decisions. Besides, if your current IMac is performing the way you want, what's the problem.
 
Shagrat said:
OK, ASUS PQ321Q UltraHD is a 32" 4K screen. $3500 approx.

Gonna sell a lot of iMacs with that cost factored in.

Not.
Click to expand...

Those prices will come down quite fast. Just look at the prices of 1st gen 4K TV's and the 2nd gens.
 
gielie said:
Exactly, ordered my 27" maxed iMac in December! got shipped in February.
This is what apple is saying to early adopters, screw you and thank you for testing our beta machine.
Click to expand...

You got screwed!! I bet your maxed out machine didn't perform as well as advertised. I bet they put a 2007 macbook in the enclosure and OSX tiger popped up on the screen. lol!

I am pretty certain your post is sarcasm. :)
 
WilliamG said:
4K is simply not enough for a 27" iMac. I want 2560x1440 actual usable real-estate without scaling, like it is now! This will only happen when we see 5120x2880 27" iMacs. I don't want an effective 1080p 27" iMac (which a 3840x2160 would be).
Click to expand...

Well, like it is with the rMBP you can always simulate more real estate even if the resolution is 4K.
 
Bear said:
I believe Broadwell is the next processor after Haswell. I expect there will always be people saying to wait for X - whatever X is. I say buy when you need it.
Click to expand...

that one just keeps on giving...!

Just like "Safari is sna....."

or "G5 Powerbooks next Tue...."

or the oft repeated "FAIL...I'm moving to Win......"


All the usual tropes come out at times like this. :D
 
What resolution do people expect when there eventually is a retina version?

I wouldn't consider the current 2560 to be retina already. 5120 seems like way overkill at 27 inches, and even 3840 is probably a bit overkill for most users' viewing distances.

5120 would keep user interface the same, but incredibly unlikely. If Apple isn't going to double resolution, 3840 is going to be a fairly common resolution at some point, but at the quantity of product they sell they could probably pick whatever resolution they wanted. But at 3840, any visuals that are pixel doubled are going to appear bigger than they currently do, so they'd have to do an adjusted size thing like the optional choices on the current retina models. Really, they'd be better off if they went to true resolution independence system wide.

I wonder if it would make the most sense to go with something in-between the current 2560 and the 3840 of 4k, maybe something in the 3200 range. And they could probably go 2560 on the 21 inch. Both should put it in around the 150 PPI range, arguably more appropriate for "retina" than the 200 the laptops are at (or 300 for mobile devices).
 
thepowerofnone said:
This obsession is really, really dumb. The current generation is 109ppi which at a normal viewing distance pretty much is Retina. "Retina" is just a clever term the Apple marketing department spun to say "the pixels are so small at viewing distance that you can't tell them apart". A Retina iMac in the classical term of doubling in both directions is just stupid, its massive overkill and good luck powering that many pixels with a current-gen mobile processor. Yes, the new Mac Pro will be able to power 4K displays, but 4K displays were never intended to be included in 27" monitors because the resolution is unnecessary. I have an rMBP, and I wouldn't buy a iPad mini until it is made Retina, because those are both legitimate screen sizes where pixel density makes a noticeable difference, so I get the attraction there. However when I plug my rMBP into my ancient 20" Cinema display running a mere 1680 x 1050 resolution I can honestly say that the side by side difference isn't very noticeable because I don't sit two inches from my monitor.

I can't understand people who want this or that on their computer or device just because they want the "latest and best" with no real reason; fortunately for me you drive down the prices of the products which are actually fit for purpose with no silly gimmicks by price discrimination so by all means hold out, just please stop whining about it like its a big deal.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct.

In fact, Apple has ALWAYS defined retina as a screen where you CANNOT discern pixels from viewing distance - considering that such a distance in the case of the iMac is much farther than that of iDevices (in my case at least 80cm), there is zero need for a retina display at this stage.

Don't believe me? Check this, then:

http://isthisretina.com
 
Last edited:
Bear said:
Only a few percent faster. Also probably use a tad less electricity. If you're also getting a Fusion Drive or SSD, that also adds in to the improvement. And if you are doing any heavy graphics, those changes will help.

Why? Unless you're running your iMac flat out getting a new iMac will probably not help much.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I have an older one, and it is getting a little long in the tooth. Its the first core duo (white!)... so maybe I will just get the last model at a discount, a "little" power savings does not matter much when I plug it in all day!
 
theanimala said:
This is how things should be done more often. Not every little incremental upgrade needs to have a grand announcement during some keynote speech.
Click to expand...
There is not even a blue badge on the website telling me these iMacs are any *new*. This is not only a silent update, its outright invisible. If not for MacRumors I wouldn't know. This can't be good for sales.
 
iBug2 said:
No and it's not even close.

rMBP is 220 ppi. For the iMac to be retina at 109 ppi, you'd need to sit at a distance twice as long as you use your macbook, which is not the case. I use my Macbook at an approximate distance of 60cm. There's no way anyone uses an iMac at 1.2 meters. At most it'll be around 70-75cm's. So you need around 200ppi for a retina iMac. And that's feasible today. Just cram the 4K into the 27 inch screen and you are done.
Click to expand...

... You clearly aren't a scientist or maybe you just haven't thought this one through. Yes, you can use your rMBP at 60cm and it will be retina, however what you have apparently failed to realise is that that screen is actually still "Retina" at closer viewing distances. In fact, it achieves an equivalent pixel density to an iPhone at a normal viewing distance of 10" at just 15". Why? Because the iPhone actually has quite a low PPD and the rMBP screen is awesome. You can sit just 50% further away from the screen and get the same density. By that logic you would be viewing your non-Retina iMac at about 30" for it to have an equivalent pixel density to the iPhone, which is VERY reasonable. Most people put the monitor near the back of their desk and most desks are easily 30" deep, and most people don't sit with their eyes over the edge of the desk. Please.. quit the knee jerk reaction and do the maths before accusing me of stupidity.
 
BRLawyer said:
By the way: what the heck is Iris Pro that people are talking about?
Click to expand...

it's the code name of the embedded gpu in the intel chip.. they are in the HD5x00 line-up. The former ones were HD4000 and HD3000. Mac mini use them since they don't have a dedicated GPU.
 
lol, people like this make me laugh. I bought an iMac 27 on 8/31. That's 24 days ago. Yet, instead of complaining and whining like a child, I'm going to go home and edit photos on it. Guess what, it performs as well as it did yesterday before the new one was announced.

EVERYTHING you own in life has silently been refreshed and replaced with a newer version. How do you think progress occurs? Does that mean we're all fools? How is Apple (or any other company that replaces products with newer versions) fooling ANYONE?

hardikdim said:
so what about ppl who bought recently launched imacs which is just 10months old.
apple think that it can silently refresh new imacs and people will easily accept the fact that they are fools.
not so cool stop fooling people apple :( :(

they should atleast replace processors for newly bought imacs
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back