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

lowendlinux said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

Because that's not enough for a IPS 4K extended range glass with antireflective coatings display, AND a Iris Pro 6200 AND the magic keyboard and mouse AND OS X AND then a PCI-Express SSD.

Where do you get an AIO with a 4K display and a PCI-Ex for the same money?

Where do you even get an AIO with a 4K display for $1499???

Nowhere!
 
Zirel said:
Because that's not enough for a IPS 4K extended range glass with antireflective coatings display, AND a Iris Pro 6200 AND the magic keyboard and mouse AND OS X AND then a PCI-Express SSD.

Where do you get an AIO with a 4K display and a PCI-Ex for the same money?

Where do you even get an AIO with a 4K display for $1499???

Nowhere!
Click to expand...

the Asus and the iMac are both 4k and AIO for about $1500 what am I missing?
 
PaulKemp said:
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.
Click to expand...

Geekbench is not the appropriate answer. What do you do with it? you should wait a few days so that people can do some benchmarks (other than GB) and see if any of the tools match yours. If you do the usual mail/web browsing it may not be that interesting. You would probably from a SSD with your current config.
 
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...
well the current drive is indeed faster than the one in the 1999 iMac. The drive run at the same speed but the density of information is different, you can read more for the same speed, which ends up being faster.
 
Zirel said:
Please, in store, and in USD$
Click to expand...

It was announced at $1500..

What do you want me to say? I really don't even know what this is about anymore both computers are or will be available both are 4K and both in the $1500 ball park. I'm not really defending or denying any of it, I didn't even know about the Asus until I googled 4K AIO for the other thread
 
Not sure what was happening today but I visited one of their stores and looked at the new retina models. The 21" looked ok but what amazed me was how long the 27" version took to load Word. In fact, it was slow at loading (the icon was bouncing) that I just walked away. Nearly £2000 ? :confused:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
AndrewWx said:
Do you have a super huge need for internal storage? The transfer speeds you get from ThunderBolt external drives means that there is little to no difference between external and internal. I have a 5 bay Drobo and a LaCie duel disk daisy chained to my MacBook pro TB port and I never worry about speed or space.
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting question... I'd attempted at one point a couple years back keeping my iTunes library (a couple TB of movies, TV series, and music) on an external disk, but it just ended up causing endless problems, and iTunes freaked out a couple times, and refused to acknowledge the external library's existence, so I had to blow a half-day re-importing everything into iTunes, etc.

This experience is what pushed me towards my SSD+HD internal home-Fusion rig - and it's performed like a champ ever since.

I've also had challenges with external TB drives not waking, or sleeping, or connecting as-expected - I tried using an SSD in a TB enclosure as my startup drive for a while, with a an external 2TB HD as my bulk data drive, and it just never worked right at all.

To be fair, all of that was when TB was a new technology, and with first-generation TB enclosures, etc. It's totally possible that the tech has gotten better, and an internal SSD with external HD that iTunes, Photos, etc. point to will work better than it used to.

However, given that I'm committing to that plan when I buy an iMac (or going with the 3TB+128SSD Fusion option), for the life of the machine, I'm a little gun shy. If I buy it with just the 256GB SSD, then I'm on the hook for making it work, whether I'm attempting a home-Fusion with an external drive, or just pointing iTunes, Photos, etc towards external libraries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
netdudeuk said:
Not sure what was happening today but I visited one of their stores and looked at the new retina models. The 21" looked ok but what amazed me was how long the 27" version took to load Word. In fact, it was slow at loading (the icon was bouncing) that I just walked away. Nearly £2000 ? :confused:
Click to expand...

My current experience is that when I use a pure hard drive machine these days, my instant response is 'THIS THING IS BROKEN!'.

SSD's and Fusion/Hybrid rigs are the only sane way to go. I wouldn't buy an HD-based rig for anything right now, unless I had a plan to switch to an SSD. I think it's ludicrous that Apple's offering their flagship 27" with that option, even as the base model. Their crappy 24GB+1TB Fusion rig should be the bare minimum, IMHO.

The one thing that really gripes me about Apple atm is that everything is premium-priced, but their base models for most items have seriously bargain-basement specs. 16GB iPhones, 8GB/1TB 27" iMacs, etc. Those weren't great specs in 2010, and in 2015, they're actively insulting in $1800 computers and $750 phones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gudi, Benjamin Frost and Tsaksonakis
wallysb01 said:
It will be interesting to see how things evolve on the Mac Pro side in the coming months. With broadwell Xeons suitable for the Mac Pro due out soon, supposedly TB3 ready to go (why wasn’t it in the iMac?), and the next class of GPUs having been available for a while, a Mac Pro update seems only around the corner (1Q 2016 maybe?). But that’s only if it happens at all.

I get that Apple is doing a pretty good job keeping reasonable computers performance-wise with these amazing displays at decent price points, but man, they have really made it hard to walk a middle ground of needing at least some real performance and not wanting to shell out $2000+ bucks. The 21’ iMac is still on Broadwell thanks to needing Iris Pro because for what ever reason a dGPU won’t fit? I mean, huh? We can get dGPUs into laptops, why not desktops? I’d really like to see that 21’ with Skylake and enough GPU to push a second monitor. Personally, I find these 27’ 5K screens a bit too big AND they soak up a lot of $$$. The 5K iMac with the bottom SSD and the i7 is $2,259 with the M390. I’m sorry, but WTF? A mediocre GPU, small SSD and a $370 CPU is well over $2000? A headless PC with better specs (>= 16gDDR4 RAM, much better GPU) can be had for <$1000. Decent 4K monitors are what now, $400-$500 bucks? The 5K iMac screen is nice and all, but my load to you pay for it. And you just don’t have any other option if you want up to date computing performance.

Maybe there will be a saving grace in the Mac Pro update? Maybe a 4-core with 1xGPU and less TB ports? I wouldn’t count on it, but one can hope right? Maybe the Mac Mini is the answer and we’ll see a return of a 4 core option? Again, I’m not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

Yep, exactly. I totally get that the 5K screen is ultra-premium, and can't be had for less than $1600 as a stand-alone item. But... if that means that the base price for a functional 27" iMac is $2200-2400, then something's seriously wrong with the product line-up. It's kind of insane that my options are an $800 Mac Mini, a $2300 iMac, or a $3200 Mac Pro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DCIFRTHS, Gudi and Tsaksonakis
Deanster said:
Yep, exactly. I totally get that the 5K screen is ultra-premium, and can't be had for less than $1600 as a stand-alone item. But... if that means that the base price for a functional 27" iMac is $2200-2400, then something's seriously wrong with the product line-up. It's kind of insane that my options are an $800 Mac Mini, a $2300 iMac, or a $3200 Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

or an $1100 - $1500 21.5 iMac
 
lowendlinux said:
It was announced at $1500..

What do you want me to say? I really don't even know what this is about anymore both computers are or will be available both are 4K and both in the $1500 ball park. I'm not really defending or denying any of it, I didn't even know about the Asus until I googled 4K AIO for the other thread
Click to expand...

So, it costs the same as the base 4K iMac, and still has an HDD...

Cool!

Are people complaining at Asusrumors.com?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huck and vetruvian
Deanster said:
My current experience is that when I use a pure hard drive machine these days, my instant response is 'THIS THING IS BROKEN!'.

SSD's and Fusion/Hybrid rigs are the only sane way to go. I wouldn't buy an HD-based rig for anything right now, unless I had a plan to switch to an SSD. I think it's ludicrous that Apple's offering their flagship 27" with that option, even as the base model. Their crappy 24GB+1TB Fusion rig should be the bare minimum, IMHO.

The one thing that really gripes me about Apple atm is that everything is premium-priced, but their base models for most items have seriously bargain-basement specs. 16GB iPhones, 8GB/1TB 27" iMacs, etc. Those weren't great specs in 2010, and in 2015, they're actively insulting in $1800 computers and $750 phones.
Click to expand...

I've got an SSD in my PC with Windows 10. The PC is ancient but it still loads Office apps in a couple of seconds.
 
lowendlinux said:
or an $1100 - $1500 21.5 iMac
Click to expand...

Oh come on, step back and read were this started. It came with the assumption that this computer will be for those with substantially higher computational needs that just checking Facebook and working in Excel, but don’t want all the bells and whistles that drive the price well above $2000. That $1100 iMac comes with a 1.6GHz dual core. Its a mobil processor, its capped at 16GB of ram. Sheesh. Its not what we’re talking about here.

Also those 4K 21’ iMacs are not going to be able to push a second monitor. By the time you put the i7, 16GB of RAM and the 256GB SSD in the 4K 21’ iMac, you’re at just about $2000. All for the CPU performance that basically matches the 2013 21’ iMac with the i7. The middle ground 21’ iMac is $1600, but then you’re handcuffed by the 2.8GHz i5.

I’m not saying these are bad computers, or don’t pack enough performance for 95%+ of the population. The problem is that Apple is really missing those that want to pay <$2000 but still have a modern computer with competitive performance to the best desktops out there. That doesn’t mean a 2.8GHz Broadwell chip. The i7-6700K is scoring 18000-sh on windows machines, those less iMacs are down in the 12000 range. This is the the thing. For those that want to pay that extra $200 for the best, or nearly the best, CPU performance out there for a desktop, it also HAS TO come with about another $500 or more for the 5K screen. There is no middle ground of top of the line, modern CPU performance without all these bells and whistles Apple now also includes.

The Mac Mini used to help solve this problem with a quad core i7 that ran up there fairly close to the desktop haswell chips (it multicore geek benched 12710 while the 3770 in the iMac geeked 13907). More recently than that, you could put the i7-4770S in the 21’ iMac, while the i7-4771 was in the 27’. Those geeked 14122 and 14767, respectively. Never has the discrepancy in performance between the top of the line 27 iMac and the 21’ iMac or Mac Mini been as large as it is today. Part of this is Intel’s fault, we don’t yet have Skylake processors for the Mac Mini, but part is Apple’s fault. There is no reason why Skylake could not be in the 21’ iMac. Sure it would require a GPU for 4K screen, but A) fine put one in there and B) you’re still selling models without a 4K screen anyway. Its just frustrating. One goofy decision (no GPU in the 4K screen) leads to the next (the non-4K model can’t have a better CPU than the 4K model). And its not like Apple would have to give up selling computers to the 95% just to make those more like me (that would want a high performance machine from Apple but not a $2400 one) more interested in their products. Just put a ***** top shelf quad core i7 in a Mac Mini or 21’ iMac....
 
maflynn said:
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.
Click to expand...

My top of the line 2008 iMac is still going fine. Will probably replace in '16 or '17. I feel it was worth speccing it out.
 
840quadra said:
What argument? I simply stated my feelings about Kaby Lake from which you jumped in and said Skylake has better thermal performance. Apparently you were comparing it to Broadwell (which I never mentioned) which is correct, but not correct when compared to Kaby Lake, which was the context of my post you quoted.

Since they were so late jumping into broadwell, A guy (OK maybe just me) can have hopes that Apple will get it's hands on early copies of the next processor, can't he?
Click to expand...
Well yes, of course you can dream :)!

If you're waiting to make your own personal purchase then fine, but if you're waiting for Apple to have something good I think they'll already have it with Skylake.
 
69Mustang said:
That is one way of looking at it. Another way is 5400 rpm platters should not be in a premium computer; especially a premium priced computer. A $350 Best Buy bargain computer? Okay, understandable. A $1K+ machine? No amount of justification can make that seem right to me.
Click to expand...

This is the same company that sells 16gb iPhones. As long as they're making money, they don't care that they're selling you an inferior product.
 
69Mustang said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe that cheap drives are killing the PC/Mac market. Things don't feel any faster than they did 10 years ago. In fact, with larger file sizes they often feel slower. Why would you upgrade?
 
Lots of 5400 rpm moaning here. Don't people realise its a heat issue, the iMacs have never had 7200rpm and the Fusion drive is running with a 5400 rpm drive too (again for speed).

Should a 1TB fusion be standard? Probably, but people seem to lose their minds here that the base model of anything Apple does isn't high enough spec for them.
 
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