not sure if anyone else noticed this, but the only mention of "pcie" storage is in the press release. i could be wrong but i would think apple would plaster that somewhere on the spec sheet on the imac page, just like on the mac pro which doesn't even exist yet. i have a feeling that was a gaff / typo, and can't see apple ommiting something like that off their marketing. "hey, we added 10gbps wifi to the new iphone, should we mention that to our customers?" "nahhh, they will figure it out for themselves".
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 Updates iMac with Haswell and Faster PCIe Flash Storage
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
last time they added the NEW besides the MAC PRO, the entire planet revolted against Apple and forced them to replace NEW by REFRESH.
They didn't take any chance since it's was a minor bump.
Nothing bad, but I presume this just means Apple have no plans for any real changes/upgrades to iMacs this year, and it would be a "Is that it" type of event if they made a big deal of this on stage.
So it's just a little chip upgrade and no other mention of iMacs this year.
So it's just a little chip upgrade and no other mention of iMacs this year.
I agree that retina is defined by discerning the pixels, and iMacs are certainly viewed further away than mobile devices. But I doubt that many people would seriously argue that current iMac resolution is already retina, and that any increase in resolution wouldn't be visible.
I'd say there's zero need for doubled resolution (as some have said, or even going up to 4k). But higher resolution absolutely would look better, except for people who have pretty bad eyesight (I almost typed iSight) and people who have their monitors unusually far away.
But it comes down for Apple whether it makes sense to pick an optimal resolution or if 4k might be overkill but make the most financial sense due to economy of scale. And how to manage the size of things on the screen with a new resolution.
I kept saying once I pay off my 300 f/2.8 IS II that I'd either upgrade my 5D Mark III to a 1DX, or get a new iMac, depending on if new Macs were out. Well, new iMac, here I come. 3 TB Fusion, 4 GB video card, i7. That should work well with LR5! 
I upgraded about 4 months ago as I had the money and bought one of the top of the line iMac (3.4GHZ i7 2GB Fusion drive)
I have been running Resolve (Video Editing/ Color Correcting) and the machine seems like it would benefit with 4gb memory card instead of 2. So if I sell my machine for $2k is the extra $400-500 worth it.........
Someone help me out here
thanks
I have been running Resolve (Video Editing/ Color Correcting) and the machine seems like it would benefit with 4gb memory card instead of 2. So if I sell my machine for $2k is the extra $400-500 worth it.........
Someone help me out here
thanks
Does it use the same RAM as the 2011 iMac or not? Would I be able to use my RAM sticks in the new model?
p.s.: A $500 difference in Switzerland - what a terrible mark-up on the original price, given that the local tax here is just around 8%.
p.s.: A $500 difference in Switzerland - what a terrible mark-up on the original price, given that the local tax here is just around 8%.
Question is, will Iris pro be able to handle retina 15"?
It is only in the ultra-low res 21" iMac.
I'm amazed the i7 option isn't more money given it's a "build to order" option and those always seem to be insanely overpriced. OTOH, the default machine comes with a 1TB 5400 RPM drive, which is just ridiculous in 2013. It should be a 7200 RPM 3TB drive at a bare minimum. At least I could get dual 5400 RPM drives in my Mac Mini and RAID them to get decent performance without spending a fortune. SSD drives are still too expensive for anything approaching rotational drive storage for things like media so an external media drive is still needed, IMO.
By the time you add a 1TB SSD drive, 32GB of ram, an i7 CPU and the 780M GPU to the 27" iMac, you're looking at almost $4000!!!!!! HOLY CRAP! Just IMAGINE how much the new Mac Pro is going to cost you! Even dropping to 16B ram and only a 500GB SSD, you're STILL looking at over $3000! The default specs on the low model just don't impress that much with an old hard drive and a GPU from Intel that is still trying to catch up with the 650M from 3 years ago.
I'm going to see what kind of gaming capable Hackintosh I can get for half the money.... (I've got multiple 27" monitors here already; I don't need one build in).
By the time you add a 1TB SSD drive, 32GB of ram, an i7 CPU and the 780M GPU to the 27" iMac, you're looking at almost $4000!!!!!! HOLY CRAP! Just IMAGINE how much the new Mac Pro is going to cost you! Even dropping to 16B ram and only a 500GB SSD, you're STILL looking at over $3000! The default specs on the low model just don't impress that much with an old hard drive and a GPU from Intel that is still trying to catch up with the 650M from 3 years ago.
I'm going to see what kind of gaming capable Hackintosh I can get for half the money.... (I've got multiple 27" monitors here already; I don't need one build in).
The big difference is not SATA vs. PCIe but SSD vs. HDD. Although we all welcome faster SSDs the real-life perceivable difference between a SATA SSD and a PCIe SSD is non-existent (except if you copy large files which you won't do that often given their limited size).
It's just unbelievable that Apple is still using magnetic drives in their pricy desktop line by default. They should all come with at least a 256GB SSD (which by now costs around 150$). So in reality Apple is selling outdated technology for an insane price. But it's thin, admittedly. If you like that to be optimized instead of usability.
I honestly have no idea why people keep linking Mac releases to OS X releases. The two have little or nothing to do with each other. There is absolutely no requirement that new hardware absolutely requires a major new operating system. Why is this so hard to grasp?
no one knows what you do but you can inspect the performance of the machine with the built-in utilities. If your cpu is running at 100%, the 4gb memory card won't do any good. Find the bottleneck (memory,storage,cpu) and then decide how to fix the issue.
Your files may not go on the SSD so if you had a faster storage system, would probably help you a lot. You could always try an external SSD for video production.
Perhaps you are an older gentleman or have less than ideal eyesight, unfortunately. But I see the pixels at regular viewing distances. The iMac screen is quite fuzzy compared even to the iPad.
Depends on what you're doing. I know that when I load a big Logic session and it takes five minutes to load the samples from SSD, if I upgrade to SSD that is twice as fast and load those in 2.5 minutes, I'm going to perceive that.
But my point is that a real comparison of two SSD should include the speeds as well, of course one that is much slower can be much cheaper.
Of course, we're going to have to wait until someone has their hands on one of these before we see benchmarks.
Neither will I. I'm pretty much fed up with the pixelization of my late 2009 27" iMac.
Bull. Whilst you may not be able to actually distinguish individual pixels at those working distances, you still can see jagged edges/antialiasing artifacts. Text simply does not look as crisp as it would at double the res but same virtual real estate surface area.
It's expensive, yes. But it's way cheaper than the previous option, and it's PCIe to boot.
They don't mention PCIe by name, but if you go to the store and click on "Learn More" about the fusion drive option it says it's 50% faster than before. But yes, it's slightly odd they aren't emphasizing that.
I honestly have no idea why people keep linking Mac releases to OS X releases. The two have little or nothing to do with each other. There is absolutely no requirement that new hardware absolutely requires a major new operating system. Why is this so hard to grasp?
Apple may be waiting on Mavericks for the rMBPs, because it does a lot to fix the scrolling lag. Of course, if they wanted to they could make a special build of 10.8.5 for them, they've done things like that before.
Also, it's not so much that new Macs would "require" it, but it would be a better experience for the user. No messing with the Up to Date program, (if it's not free) no hassle in downloading and installing the upgrade.
Last edited:
Perhaps you are an older gentleman or have less than ideal eyesight, unfortunately. But I see the pixels at regular viewing distances. The iMac screen is quite fuzzy compared even to the iPad.
Exactly. Anyone stating the opposite must be blindly defending Apple - or have a bad eyesight. I too hate the pixels on my 27" late 2009 model.
imacs should have around 160ppi and everybody would be happy. But in these updates there are any differences from 2012 models? i mean in real life
is Fusion drive PCIe quicker than Fusion drive 2012?
is 780M 4G vRam better than 680MX 2G vRam?
is Haswell better than Ivy Bridge in terms of performance
so? we will see any differences?
is Fusion drive PCIe quicker than Fusion drive 2012?
is 780M 4G vRam better than 680MX 2G vRam?
is Haswell better than Ivy Bridge in terms of performance
so? we will see any differences?