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

Apple's New iMacs Up to 20% Faster Than Previous Models in Geekbench Testing

mytdave said:
Noticed several things in this thread that should be given some clarity or correction:
.

CUT

.

A computer's storage device is the single biggest factor in perceived performance of the machine. Most people don't spend their time rendering massive scenes or doing scientific analysis, they spend most of their time waiting for files to open or to save, to view pics or tweak spreadsheets, or make Word docs. The speed of the hard drive (or SSD) is absolutely paramount. It doesn't matter what Apple's competition is doing, a 5400 RPM drive in today's iMac is an embarrassment. Apple computers are the flagship devices of the entire PC industry, and their configurations should reflect that. A fusion drive of 500GB should be minimum, and straight SSDs (256GB+) for everything else, with plenty of BTO options. A 128GB SSD as a fusion cache was probably overkill, but 24GB is cheap and pathetic - it should be 64GB.

.

So many people are down on the Intel integrated graphics. Perception people. What you may not know is that the performance of Intel's latest GPUs are significantly improved, on par with many discrete GPUs. Integrated used to suck, yes, but no longer. The most recent Intel integrated GPU has plenty of oomph to simultaneously drive three 4k displays. There are still plenty of discrete GPUs that can't do that.

.

I'm afraid that what Apple has been doing lately with substandard hard drives, 16GB iPhones, grossly overpriced accessories, etc. is just going to breed resentment, and if not today, there will come a day in the very near future where sales will start to tank, and this short term profiteering will end up destroying the company - if they don't change course. History can repeat itself. This is some of the same crap they pulled in the 1990's and it almost did kill the company.
Click to expand...
This.
Fortunately someone could understand what a modern iGPU is ...
BTW the "Apple is doomed" adagio doesnt apply here.
Apple is going in the wrong direction regarding "value", for sure, but they have plenty of margins to change the course if they wish.

melendezest said:
Perhaps you didn't quite understand the post.

Apple releases new machines every year, do they not?

My post was not meant to be exclusive to Macs, however, if you want the latest and greatest, you'll want to upgrade, particularly if you buy base models. For example, the 21" in iMac was not 4K last year, if you want to multitask on an iPad you need the latest model available, etc. Putting a 5,400rpm drive in a machine that expensive is BS, period. A clever scheme to steer you into spending more. There is actual sales science behind this (Brain Games is awesome).

I didn't suggest that people should upgrade every year. What I mean is that Apple leaves things out on purpose, so that you'll want to upgrade to the next one. They've always done that, but now, with soldered RAM and non-replaceable HDs, if you run out of space or want or need more power (even a year or two or three out) you're stuck with, guess what, having to get a whole new machine.

Thus the example of my 2011s. I can upgrade storage and RAM with ease, allowing me to have not only a machine that has lasted well over 4.5 years but one that Apple's current offerings still cannot match capability/flexibility-wise. I literally cannot buy an Apple portable that can store everything that I need to store internally (again, big family). Seven people's worth of photos, videos, music, documents, college papers, and film school projects spanning 15 years fill up a 1TB SSD real quick. And I'm sorry but frak the cloud. I want my stuff locally. In the event of a fire, love, relocation, vacation, divorce, military deployment, end-of-the-world, etc, I grab my 2 portables and go (my iMac is cloned and n-synced across the 15" & 17" MBP).

I grant, for some of this the iMac is an exception if, and only if, you upgrade it up front. But then again, that is true of all Apple products. The power and longevity may come at the high-end, which is a good strategy for them, but certainly not for me.

I'm not wealthy. I make decent money, but I have a big family so I have to save up for my Macs. The value is just not there anymore.
Click to expand...
Understood your post.
But iPhone/ipad and Macs are quite different markets.
Apple knows that people are going to keep a Mac for several years. I'm not happy about soldered RAM, not swappable hard drives or glued batteries.
But I still think that a base iMac 21.5 4K bought today (with a Fusion Drive because the 5400RPM is a nonsense) will be fine for 3 years, and up to 5 years for light users.
 
iSee said:
Nothing changes. If you can't afford an iMac with SSD you can't afford an iMac with doesn't matter whether the hard drive option exists or not.
Click to expand...
Its not as much as about affordability but rather spending that much money on a computer. That is I question the value I'm getting in return of spending 2k. Apple's decisions on this makes me question how best to use my funds.
 
Zirel said:
Enough of this BS

http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/desktops/lenovo/a-series/a740/?sb=:000001C9:000154FE:

This Lenovo costs the same as the 4K Retina, but has a FHD display... and a 5400rpm hard drive

http://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/desktops/hp-z1-g2-workstation-(energy-star)-p-f1l91ut-aba--1

This HP starts above the 5K Retina, at $2,899, but has a qHD display... and has a 1TB hard drive, yes, for that money you get something a little better and noisier, at 7200rpm

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=up275k3

Dell's 5K monitor doesn't have a keyboard, mouse, CPU, GPU, Hard Drive, SSD, etc. etc. etc. and costs more than a baseline 5K Mac!

And many, many more.

Stop acting like Apple is the only ones not offering a super expensive PCI-Express SSD in the baseline. You get what you pay for...
Click to expand...

He said "Another way is 5400 rpm platters should not be in a premium computer"

Not "Another way is 5400 rpm platters should not be in a premium Apple computer"

Apple isn't the only one that builds premium computers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 69Mustang
How does this stack up agains my 2011 iMac 3.4 GHz? Can I find some comparison tool against older models? I think it has a geekbenc2 score of 11,648.
 
gpat said:
Meanwhile, the standard 5400RPM hard drive is exactly 0% faster than the one in an 1999 iMac.
Click to expand...

Not true. Higher capacity drives can spin at the same speed and read/write data faster than lower capacity ones as the data is crammed into a much denser space.

This is also true for optical media. In terms of data density, Blu-Ray > DVD > CD

Look at the write speeds for each at 1x speed

Untitled.png


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD_and_DVD_writing_speed#CD.2C_DVD_and_Blu-ray_writing_speeds

And this is not even taking into account anything else such as connections and bus speeds etc.

And what's with the 70+ likes? And I thought MR users were tech savvy. Sigh...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: miguel cortez and bompf
lowendlinux said:
Apple isn't the only one that builds premium computers.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. Their market share says the opposite.

Apple Owns 91% Of $1,000+ PC Market
Jsameds said:
Not true. Higher capacity drives can spin at the same speed and read/write data faster than lower capacity ones as the data is crammed into a much denser space.
Click to expand...
It's still a spinning disk and while there has been progress indicated by the Advanced Format label, figuratively speaking it is "nothing" compared to an SSD.

c03534167.jpg
 
Last edited:
lowendlinux said:
He said "Another way is 5400 rpm platters should not be in a premium computer"

Not "Another way is 5400 rpm platters should not be in a premium Apple computer"

Apple isn't the only one that builds premium computers.
Click to expand...

A premium computer shouldn't cost $1499 either, specially if it has a superb 4K IPS display.
 
Gudi said:
It's still a spinning disk and while there has been progress indicated by the Advanced Format label, figuratively speaking it is "nothing" compared to an SSD.

c03534167.jpg
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the OP, which stated that the 5400 disk in this iMac is no faster than the one in the 1999 iMac, which is not true. SSD is irrelevant.
 
Jsameds said:
That has nothing to do with the OP, which stated that the 5400 disk in this iMac is no faster than the one in the 1999 iMac, which is not true. SSD is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure you knew that original post was full of hyperbole. I know it made me laugh. I'm sure most people got it as well. That's why it got so many upvotes. It was funny. Being pedantic on the other hand... :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gudi
lowendlinux said:
That still doesn't mean that the others don't build premium computers.
Click to expand...
If you can"t sell them, do you build them? The others offer premium priced computers running Windows 10 with limited response by the market. And that makes all the difference.

P.S. Much in the same way I'm offering myself as a sex god to the ladies, just like George Clooney. :oops:
 
what happens with those screens, if i use a different resolution from the max/native? will i have the typical "blurry" image? considering i also play games with imac (D3, SC2, hearthstone) it can be an issue with retina imac, because using max res will be impossibile
 
Gudi said:
If you can"t sell them, do you build them? The others offer premium priced computers running Windows 10 with limited response by the market. And that makes all the difference.

P.S. Much in the same way I'm offering myself as a sex god to the ladies, just like George Clooney. :oops:
Click to expand...

The study says that Apple has 91% that leave 9% that 9% represents a lot of sales. This place tends to think Apple is the only company making premium computers. OCN thinks everyone builds their own, and LQ thinks all SW should be ported to Linux. Niche boards are bad for judging a market as a whole.
 
I am guessing Apple knows that the personal desktop is probably the weakest market of all computers. Most people pick a laptop, or if you are a power user you will use Mac Pro. If you are in the very thin market of personal desktop, they will just build anything and slap the highest price they can on it, because you really want it and you will buy it however it comes.
 
lowendlinux said:
This place tends to think Apple is the only company making premium computers.
Click to expand...
And that's about the only reason to visit this place. I wouldn't bother following Apple news and pay their markup prices, if I'd think viable alternatives exist. Apple is the only company making Macs and that's the topic here on MacRumors. If you believe Windows or Linux or Hackintosh are also options worth talking about, you should visit another website.
 
Gudi said:
And that's about the only reason to visit this place. I wouldn't bother following Apple news and pay their markup prices, if I'd think viable alternatives exist. Apple is the only company making Macs and that's the topic here on MacRumors. If you believe Windows or Linux or Hackintosh are also options worth talking about, you should visit another website.
Click to expand...

I do visit those sites but that's not the point, the point is that it's not good to judge the whole market based on an echo chamber.
 
Zirel said:
Enough of this BS

http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/desktops/lenovo/a-series/a740/?sb=:000001C9:000154FE:

This Lenovo costs the same as the 4K Retina, but has a FHD display... and a 5400rpm hard drive

http://store.hp.com/us/en/pdp/desktops/hp-z1-g2-workstation-(energy-star)-p-f1l91ut-aba--1

This HP starts above the 5K Retina, at $2,899, but has a qHD display... and has a 1TB hard drive, yes, for that money you get something a little better and noisier, at 7200rpm

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=up275k3

Dell's 5K monitor doesn't have a keyboard, mouse, CPU, GPU, Hard Drive, SSD, etc. etc. etc. and costs more than a baseline 5K Mac!

And many, many more.

Stop acting like Apple is the only ones not offering a super expensive PCI-Express SSD in the baseline. You get what you pay for...
Click to expand...
Reading comprehension fail and research fail. Reading: My quote says "premium computer", not computer made by Apple. It was an indictment against crappy components in premium products. Research: Your first piece of supporting evidence is a 27" AIO with a hybrid drive. Hybrid drive. I'm gonna let that sink in a bit. In case it didn't sink in, that's exactly what people in this forum have been asking for; a hyb- Fusion Drive (Apple parlance). Your second piece of evidence? A computer without a 5400 rpm drive.o_O Finally, you present a monitor. In a discussion about hard drives, you present a monitor. At no point did you realize your argument had gone off the rails?

Stop acting like I even hinted that cheap drives was an Apple specific problem.
 
MacHiavelli said:
Think Apple is readying ARM Macs.

By managing/limiting expectations now, we'll all be thrilled when fast ARM Macs equipped with SSDs are finally released.

Intel's days in the sun are coming to an end.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/15...ated-by-higher-chip-prices-server-iot-markets

The age of the traditional desktop is essentially over.
Click to expand...

The A9 in the iPhones Geek benches at ~2500. The Broadwell in the 21" iMac benches at 3500 and the 27" Skylake at a few hundred more. Considering that Apple went from benching 1600 to 2500 in one processor generation, A8 to the A9 - would it not be safe to assume that they will start to obliterate Intel's i5's in performance with the A10 next year? Intel has really slowed down incremental speed updates the past 3 to 4 years. I cannot fathom the possibilities that the iPhone can do; with the 2017 A11 nearing frontline Intel Xeon's.
 
mdelvecchio said:
if the entry level isnt good enough for you, then upgrade that option. problem solved. please drive thru...
Click to expand...

Upgrade to what? The 1TB FD has an SSD of 24 Gbs, a fact which Apple appear somewhat reluctant to inform people. You have to doubly upgrade to the 2TB FD to get the same as my 2012, 21.5", i.e. 128Gb SSD.

This is at best disingenuous of Apple, at worst, criminal. If I were to replace my computer (which thankfully I don't need to 'cause it bloomin' great), I might have bought the 1TB FD, assuming it would have at least the same specs as the one I bought practically three years ago!

But no! It doesn't! And Apple don't really want people to know this, otherwise this less than minor detail would be quite clearly stated on their site! Thanks to this site I can warn others of this clearly transparent, and yet unsufferably opaque downgrade!

I know whom I'd like to drive through*; the leader of the gang, whose initials might just be... TC...

*No of course I would't!
 
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