Yes, the "$339 MSI *might* be ok" but the $2199 "i7 iMac is a pretty good deal".
If you need a quad core i7 and also need a big screen LCD, the i7 Imac isn't that bad.
Otherwise, it kind of sucks compared to $799 i7 minitowers that are easy to find.
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's New 27-Inch iMacs Experiencing Performance Issues?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, the "$339 MSI *might* be ok" but the $2199 "i7 iMac is a pretty good deal".
If you need a quad core i7 and also need a big screen LCD, the i7 Imac isn't that bad.
Otherwise, it kind of sucks compared to $799 i7 minitowers that are easy to find.
i almost didnt even notice your sarcasm there, it was so well hidden!
i stand by my claims, and i do need a big screen (to replace my two current screens) and i do need the i7 CPU. the screen itself would cost a good $1000Aus to purchase (at that quality), for $600Aus you can have a TFT panel, but not IPS - and only 2048x1152.
there are so many variables that come into play, most important ones being the OS and personal preference of course. thus why i have not built a hackintosh that is just as powerful. i priced a hackintosh up similar to the iMac - $1500-2000Aus for the hackintosh, and then another ~$1000Aus for the screen. the hack has no 3 year warranty either! so there goes any savings (not to mention a few hassles that would appear along the way trying to install).
Your posts before that, however, talk about a power management issue with the Nvidia driver.
Now you're saying that your new Imac works fine with an ATI driver.
What's changed - why were you talking about Nvidia for a while, now ATI - and never acknowledged your mistake?
i almost didnt even notice your sarcasm there, it was so well hidden!
i stand by my claims, and i do need a big screen (to replace my two current screens) and i do need the i7 CPU. the screen itself would cost a good $1000Aus to purchase (at that quality), for $600Aus you can have a TFT panel, but not IPS - and only 2048x1152.
there are so many variables that come into play, most important ones being the OS and personal preference of course. thus why i have not built a hackintosh that is just as powerful. i priced a hackintosh up similar to the iMac - $1500-2000Aus for the hackintosh, and then another ~$1000Aus for the screen. the hack has no 3 year warranty either! so there goes any savings (not to mention a few hassles that would appear along the way trying to install).
Please - the $339 dual core laptop is not in the same league as any $2000 system. I've tried to emphasize that from the OP.
The OP was "why do people buy Windows", and my response was "maybe value" with a link to the ad for the $339 dual core laptop.
well of course it isnt, anybody who argued against it would be shot to death!
i was justifying my reasons for getting the iMac after you decided to say you could find an i7 mini for $799.
well of course it isnt, anybody who argued against it would be shot to death!
i was justifying my reasons for getting the iMac after you decided to say you could find an i7 mini for $799.
I don't understand your phrasing "after you decided to say you could find an i7 mini for $799". A Dell XPS 8000 with a Core i7-860 with 3 GiB RAM, DVD-RW and 512 MiB Radeon HD has a *list* price of $798.
The phrase "decided to say" borders on an insult, for which I'd graciously accept your apology.
No offense but after being on here for a long time nobody needs to apologize to you Aiden unless they broke forum rules.
You live to argue with Mac people on MR.
can you provide a link to the prices, on the US store all i see is the XPS 8000 for $1768.39 - and that is for the i7-860 CPU.
the little smiley after it should have indicated to you the sarcasm and humour in my comment. there was no offence meant at all.
p.s. Peace i can hold my own hehe but thanks anyway
Cancelled my order
We have PCs and a G5 iMac at my house. The iMac just can't keep up with the PCs when surfing the internet. Any site with FLASH drives CPU usage through the roof. I always accepted that we needed a faster computer with more RAM.
I have been waiting weeks/months to upgrade this iMac and ordered the Core i7 machine the day that it was announced. Now that I see these posts about the surfing speed, I realize there is no hope for the Apple iMac.
I don't care about the cost. I just want an all in one iMac that allows websearch, youtube, facebook, and email without any hiccups. As someone had mentioned, 300 dollar netbooks can do this without a hiccup. When will Apple understand that connecting to the web is more important than Garageband or playing MP3s. Internet connectivity should be their top priority. Apple only customers won't understand any of this unless they do a side by side comparison between a MAC and a PC.
I'm so disappointed in Apple. It doesn't matter if Safari is supposedly the "fastest" browser. So you get to the page faster, but you can't navigate or display the content correctly?
Sorry. I just cancelled my $2200 order tonight. I'm going to buy a Lenovo or Gateway all in one instead. It will cost half the price but will at least do what I want it to do.
We have PCs and a G5 iMac at my house. The iMac just can't keep up with the PCs when surfing the internet. Any site with FLASH drives CPU usage through the roof. I always accepted that we needed a faster computer with more RAM.
I have been waiting weeks/months to upgrade this iMac and ordered the Core i7 machine the day that it was announced. Now that I see these posts about the surfing speed, I realize there is no hope for the Apple iMac.
I don't care about the cost. I just want an all in one iMac that allows websearch, youtube, facebook, and email without any hiccups. As someone had mentioned, 300 dollar netbooks can do this without a hiccup. When will Apple understand that connecting to the web is more important than Garageband or playing MP3s. Internet connectivity should be their top priority. Apple only customers won't understand any of this unless they do a side by side comparison between a MAC and a PC.
I'm so disappointed in Apple. It doesn't matter if Safari is supposedly the "fastest" browser. So you get to the page faster, but you can't navigate or display the content correctly?
Sorry. I just cancelled my $2200 order tonight. I'm going to buy a Lenovo or Gateway all in one instead. It will cost half the price but will at least do what I want it to do.
I haven't experienced any flash problems or hiccups yet, and I'm on a early 2008 iMac (2.8GHZ C2Duo, 4GB Ram, Sbow Leopard). Maybe it's because I'm using Nvidia 8800GS graphics set? Maybe this is a ATI vs Adobe issue?
I honestly don't believe that "forum rules" have any meaning any more. Many of the Instantly Bannable Offenses seem to be ignored, as well as other common courtesies.
im sorry to hear that you had to stop your order, it would have been one heck of a powerful machine!
however we still arent certain where the problem lies. you would assume that a brand new computer could play <1mbps movies! my 3 year old MBP can play 20mbps+ movies without hiccups. so the problem lies with the software, not the hardware.
sooo uuhhh, which one of those rules did i break??
Go to the entry "Home" -> "Desktops" and the $699 "Core i5" option. Upgrade to the 2.8 GHz Core i7 option for $99. $798.
Accept that nothing intended, peace.
You didn't do anything much - just the "decided to say" phrasing seemed to question my honesty. I was mainly referring to a small set of posters who do extended off-topic ad hominem tirades that the moderators never seem to notice.
Well, Apple tends to be fairly tight-lipped when it comes to product development. I have no doubt that Apple knew about the 5*** series of cards while working on the iMac updates. I would speculate that it came down to a few factors:
* availability - AMD is having a hard enough time providing the 5*** series as it is now to the PC market. Apple using 5*** series chips also would further strain that supply, and thus Apple probably wouldn't want to take a risk at seeing delays with shipping iMacs
* familiarity with the 4850 - Apple already has worked out integrating it into the iMac's compact frame. Including the option for a 5*** series card would likely entail additional design time to incorporate it into the case. Sticking with the 4850 eliminates this.
I think you're going to be solely disappointed with benchmarks from games such as Crysis, to be honest. A 4850 has enough of a time playing Crisis at high settings at 1680x1050. At 1920x1200 it really suffers, and once you get to 2560x1600, it's not-playable. Granted, the iMac 27's resolution is lower, at 2560x1440, but it'd still likely be non-playable.It all depends on what you play though, I'd play Crysis on a 30" 2560x1600 resolution and cut the quality back a bit compared to my 23" 1920x1200 resolution if I had the choice
I'd love to try the iMac out though, test it on Crysis and some other games and see what it comes back with, hopefully we will get some good benchmarks when the Core i7 starts to ship (if it hasn't already).
Remember, much was made in the enthusiast community about the fact that the Radeon 5870 could finally allow someone to play Crysis at maximum settings at 30 fps. Granted, as you said, one can simply lower the settings, but you're going to have to lower the settings quite a bit to get the 4850 to play Crysis reasonably well on the 27", and at that point, who cares? A nice, pretty 27" monitor with a game being played that's graphically gimped.
ahh got it. i "upgraded" it a little bit, tried to make it as close to the iMac i7 as i could. 24" screen, 4GB RAM, GTS240, 1TB HDD, 3 year warranty. total of $1737. not bad i guess.
trust me, my intelligence does not span that far. i can hardly put a sentence together let alone mask an insult inside of it. i am here to learn and to expand my vision on technology, not to nit-pick with users. now let us get on with the conversation at hand.
I went to Dell and did just that.
$1600 if you include a 1TB HD , 4 GB RAM , Windows 7 Ultimate and a 24" LCD Display. And that's NOT a 27" LED backlit display.
i did that too
but the conversation wasnt really about that - it was about the cheap i7 machines.p.s. you missed the GPU and the speakers
the new iMac speakers are really something!!
Please girls, we're starting from a $339 laptop - not maxing out a mini-tower or all-in-one!
I already have 3 24" displays, the fact that an Imac includes another one is a negative, not a positive. That's the primary reason some people hate all-in-ones - you toss a perfectly good screen to upgrade the CPU, or toss a perfectly good CPU for a better screen. Or you toss both because one of them has failed.
If you have a display and want a Core i7, you can get one at Dell for less than $800. To buy the cheapest Apple Core i7 is about 2.5x to 3x more.
Please girls, we're starting from a $339 laptop - not maxing out a mini-tower or all-in-one!
And you're complaining about insults, sarcastic or not.
"the use of irony to mock or convey contempt"
Can people raise their hand if they give a load?
(SuperNerds in the corner raises their hands)
Again, lets raise our hands to see who cares. I can assure you, not 100% of the Computer Market as you imply in your posts.
But wouldn't "Please guys" be an insult to the women who are here?
Sometimes you can't win....
You are right. Judging by current market share, only 96% of the market cares.
Rofl
Talk about Cliched. I wasn't talking just about macs. A typical Computer upgrade is upchucking the old one or passing it on and getting a brand new one from the local electronics store. Screen, Norton and all. Even the High end ones at most electronics outlets are Core 2 at the best.
Oh and its nice to see that your marketshare value has changed again.
Good job for consistency there.
I'm getting tired of the bickering! Apple need to speak up! They have to address why Snow Leopard is buggy and why the new iMac 27 inches are lagging in performances.
Please girls, we're starting from a $339 laptop - not maxing out a mini-tower or all-in-one!
I already have 3 24" displays, the fact that an Imac includes another one is a negative, not a positive.
That's the primary reason some people hate all-in-ones - you toss a perfectly good screen to upgrade the CPUor toss a perfectly good CPU for a better screen.
--The iMac has both a good i7 CPU and a bigger and better LED display.
Or you toss both because one of them has failed.
--- If that happened with an iMac it would be replaced quicker than you could get through to Dell support.
If you have a display and want a Core i7, you can get one at Dell for less than $800. To buy the cheapest Apple Core i7 is about 2.5x to 3x more.
--See above post where it was shown to be $1600 without the bigger and better display
Also you have changed the subject.
Originally Posted by DoFoT9
well of course it isnt, anybody who argued against it would be shot to death!
i was justifying my reasons for getting the iMac after you decided to say you could find an i7 mini for $799.
Originally Posted by AidenShaw
I don't understand your phrasing "after you decided to say you could find an i7 mini for $799". A Dell XPS 8000 with a Core i7-860 with 3 GiB RAM, DVD-RW and 512 MiB Radeon HD has a *list* price of $798.
-----
Please be consistent. You were talking about a mini tower.
And I guarantee you the "typical consumer" does NOT have 3 24" displays.
Literary agents should lurk on Macrumors. Seems there are a lot of aspiring fiction writers on these boards.