MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
53,431
15,161


Amazon this week is still hosting a record low deal on Apple's 512GB 27-inch 5K iMac with 6-core CPU. You can get this 2020 model for $1,699.99, down from $1,999.00, after an automatic coupon worth $199.01 is applied at checkout.

iMac-27-inch-2020-sale.jpg
Note: MacRumors is an affiliate partner with Amazon. When you click a link and make a purchase, we may receive a small payment, which helps us keep the site running.

This sale is particularly notable because it knocks down the 512GB 27-inch iMac to the same price level as the 256GB model. It's also the best price we've ever tracked across all of the major Apple resellers online. The iMac is ready to ship today with Amazon's typical free shipping for all Prime members.



You can keep track of ongoing sales on Apple's iMac line by visiting our Best iMac Deals guide. There, we keep track of the best iMac offers from Amazon, Adorama, B&H Photo, and other retailers, so be sure to check back often if you're shopping for an iMac for the first time, or thinking of upgrading.

Article Link: Deals: Get Apple's 512GB 27-Inch iMac for Lowest Price of $1,699.99 ($299 Off)
 

Sasparilla

macrumors 68000
Jul 6, 2012
1,654
2,747
I hope this means the Apple Silicon replacement is about to be brought out. Been pretty quiet for anything but the Pro laptop for WWDC though.

That said, these are awesome machines for those wanting a direct boot to Windows. Had to finally (and reluctantly) replace the last model cheese shredder and needed the Windows boot and have been very happy.

Swirling in the background, one would expect sales of Mac's / PC's to cool off here at some point as well after being boosted by the lock down this whole last year.

It's definitely maybe :)
Great reply, I definitely sort of agree as well...
 

ArtOfWarfare

Suspended
Nov 26, 2007
9,213
5,250
I bought an iMac with 6 GB of RAM, 1 TB of storage, and 2 cores at 2.4 GHz for $2000.

It's remarkable how little Macs have improved over the last 14 years, because I bought that computer in 2007.

I think people give Intel too much crap for the limited improvement.

2007 iMac for $20002021 iMac for $2000% Change
Memory6 GB8 GB33% Improvement
Storage1 TB512 GB50% Worse
Compute2 x 2.4 = 4.86 x 3.3 = 20316% Improvement

Moore's Law says that today's iMac should be 2^(14/2) = 128x better, so yeah, by that metric, the compute hasn't improved by anywhere near as much as it should, but really? We want to blame Intel for how minor the improvements have been?

Before I had the 2007 iMac, I had a 2002 eMac.


2002 eMac2007 iMacx Change
Cost$800$20002.5x
Memory256 MB6 GB24x
Storage60 GB1 TB17x
Compute1 x 800 MHz = .82 x 2.4 = 4.86x

I realize I went from a budget model to a mid-tier model, but holy crap - across the board I got a computer that was many times better despite only being 5 years newer.

Such improvements just haven't happened since. It's not Intel's fault - Intel is doing way better than the other components. Memory and Storage just aren't improving like they used to...

Or maybe they are. I can buy comparable parts in much smaller form factors at much lower prices than before. See, for example, my Raspberry Pi. Maybe I should compare a current top end Raspberry Pi against the brand new iMacs...
 
Last edited:

Dekimasu

macrumors regular
Jan 17, 2008
226
12
Japan
I bought an iMac with 6 GB of RAM, 1 TB of storage, and 2 cores at 2.4 GHz for $2000.

It's remarkable how little Macs have improved over the last 14 years, because I bought that computer in 2007.

I think people give Intel too much crap for the limited improvement.

2007 iMac for $20002021 iMac for $2000% Change
Memory6 GB8 GB33% Improvement
Storage1 TB512 GB50% Worse
Compute2 x 2.4 = 4.86 x 3.3 = 20316% Improvement

Moore's Law says that today's iMac should be 2^(14/2) = 128x better, so yeah, by that metric, the compute hasn't improved by anywhere near as much as it should, but really? We want to blame Intel for how minor the improvements have been?

It seems you are equating GHz to performance. As you might say, that does not compute.

Note that a mid-2009 iMac with "2 x 2.3" gets a Geekbench 5 score of 547.
The mid-2020 "6 x 3.3" model you mention here gets a Geekbench 5 score of 6100.

People do not store as much of their data on their computers anymore.
A 2007 HDD and a 2020 SSD are also different in terms of speed and reliability.

I'm pretty sure you can get a used 2007 iMac for $100 if you really feel there isn't much improvement.
 

Mr. Dee

macrumors 68040
Dec 4, 2003
3,086
4,867
Jamaica
This is what it always should have been. With a 30 inch successor to the 27 inch appearing later this year though, kinda hard to justify it. I would buy it to keep my x86 VMs running for a little while longer.
 

nathansz

macrumors 6502
Jul 24, 2017
490
491
The only way I would buy this is if it were an i9 with 1TB SSD, at least 16GB RAM, and costs $1499.

make the ram 32 GB and the gpu a 5700xt along with that i9 and that’s pretty much my hackintosh. if you assume the display is worth $500 then i suppose that would be reasonable

although the ram is still slower and you can’t overclock the cpu

*to be fair i built before gpu prices went crazy
 
Last edited:

Zdigital2015

macrumors 68040
Jul 14, 2015
3,014
3,742
East Coast, United States
I bought an iMac with 6 GB of RAM, 1 TB of storage, and 2 cores at 2.4 GHz for $2000.

It's remarkable how little Macs have improved over the last 14 years, because I bought that computer in 2007.

I think people give Intel too much crap for the limited improvement.

2007 iMac for $20002021 iMac for $2000% Change
Memory6 GB8 GB33% Improvement
Storage1 TB512 GB50% Worse
Compute2 x 2.4 = 4.86 x 3.3 = 20316% Improvement

Moore's Law says that today's iMac should be 2^(14/2) = 128x better, so yeah, by that metric, the compute hasn't improved by anywhere near as much as it should, but really? We want to blame Intel for how minor the improvements have been?

Before I had the 2007 iMac, I had a 2002 eMac.


2002 eMac2007 iMacx Change
Cost$800$20002.5x
Memory256 MB6 GB24x
Storage60 GB1 TB17x
Compute1 x 800 MHz = .82 x 2.4 = 4.86x

I realize I went from a budget model to a mid-tier model, but holy crap - across the board I got a computer that was many times better despite only being 5 years newer.

Such improvements just haven't happened since. It's not Intel's fault - Intel is doing way better than the other components. Memory and Storage just aren't improving like they used to...

Or maybe they are. I can buy comparable parts in much smaller form factors at much lower prices than before. See, for example, my Raspberry Pi. Maybe I should compare a current top end Raspberry Pi against the brand new iMacs...
The 2007 iMac had a spinning HDD that at most transferred data at 70-80MB/s, while the current iMacs hit 1700-2000MB/s. The older iMac had DDR2-667 and the current iMac has DDR4-2666. Both of these contribute dramatically to the speed up in overall system performance. Both of these components are updated or are updating this year to PCIe 4.0 and DDR5. Intel just started supporting PCIe 4.0 natively in their CPUs, while PCIe 4.0 has been available since June of 2019. Why did it take Intel 2 years to adopt PCIe 4.0? Intel still does not support DDR5, but that’s not really their fault as DDR5 production isn’t slated to really get off the ground until Q32021, although we’ve been hearing about DDR5 since Q3/2017.

Intel has not had substantive gains in speed or process since 2015 when they finally released Broadwell. Why do you think Apple decided to release their own CPUs? Because Intel has dropped the ball on process and microarchitecture advances since Sandy Bridge, and Apple, like other PC OEMs was dependent upon Intel advancing in a timely manner. How anyone can apologize for Intel in this day and age when both AMD and Apple have proven they can make better, faster, more advanced CPUs on better process fabs and continue while Intel stays stuck in their morass is frankly mind-boggling.

On the flip side, I’m sure Snow Leopard would run like greased lightning on an M1 compared to Big Sur as developers take advantage of excess CPU power when they can and we ask macOS to do more than we did back at 10.6.

But by your own admission, your chart shows just how little Intel has moved the needle compared to what they should have if Moore’s Law actually held up. Other components have advanced tremendously (especially storage), but the Intel CPU is still the gatekeeper of everything flowing through the modern PC and that gatekeeper has butter fingers.
 

ArtOfWarfare

Suspended
Nov 26, 2007
9,213
5,250
Note that a mid-2009 iMac with "2 x 2.3" gets a Geekbench 5 score of 547.
The mid-2020 "6 x 3.3" model you mention here gets a Geekbench 5 score of 6100.

People do not store as much of their data on their computers anymore.
A 2007 HDD and a 2020 SSD are also different in terms of speed and reliability.

I'm pretty sure you can get a used 2007 iMac for $100 if you really feel there isn't much improvement.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Geekbench is more than just CPU, right? Improvements in RAM and GPU would also factor into an improved Geekbench score.

I said the CPU was over 4x better and the RAM was about 30% better, so both of those combined would be expected to yield a score that's about 6x better, so maybe from 550 on the older computer to 3300 on the newer computer. GPU and a larger cache within the CPU account for the rest of the improvement.

(I should also point out that your mid-2009 iMac appears to be worse than the mid-2007 iMac I was comparing it to... Apple maxed the RAM you could order at the time at 4 GB... I think I ordered it from Apple with 3 GB which came with a 1 GB and a 2 GB, and I went to OWC to replace the 1 GB with a 4 GB, for the 6 GB that my 2007 iMac had... I paid something like $1700 to Apple for the computer and then a few hundred to OWC for the 4 GB RAM stick. This was a trivial upgrade that could be performed in 3 minutes with fingers only, so I don't think it's unreasonable to bring this upgrade in. My 1 TB storage was a more involved upgrade requiring removing the screen.)
 

coolbreeze2

Contributor
Sep 24, 2009
1,040
660
make the ram 32 GB and the gpu a 5700xt along with that i9 and that’s pretty much my hackintosh. if you assume the display is worth $500 then i suppose that would be reasonable

although the ram is still slower and you can’t overclock the cpu

*to be fair i built before gpu prices went crazy
Man I wished I had the skills to build a hackintosh! What did you use as a guide? Do you think one day an M1 hackintosh is possible?
 

nathansz

macrumors 6502
Jul 24, 2017
490
491
Man I wished I had the skills to build a hackintosh! What did you use as a guide? Do you think one day an M1 hackintosh is possible?

it’s really not that complicated


m1 will likely never be possible since it’s a proprietary chip and chipset
 
Last edited:

jerryk

Contributor
Nov 3, 2011
6,846
3,766
SF Bay Area
Clearing the shelves of the Intel system. Now that the Mxx are shipping, for most users, it would be hard to recommend this even if it was 50%.
 

Mac4Mat

macrumors newbie
May 12, 2021
29
46
I bought an iMac with 6 GB of RAM, 1 TB of storage, and 2 cores at 2.4 GHz for $2000.

It's remarkable how little Macs have improved over the last 14 years, because I bought that computer in 2007.

I think people give Intel too much crap for the limited improvement.

2007 iMac for $20002021 iMac for $2000% Change
Memory6 GB8 GB33% Improvement
Storage1 TB512 GB50% Worse
Compute2 x 2.4 = 4.86 x 3.3 = 20316% Improvement

Moore's Law says that today's iMac should be 2^(14/2) = 128x better, so yeah, by that metric, the compute hasn't improved by anywhere near as much as it should, but really? We want to blame Intel for how minor the improvements have been?

Before I had the 2007 iMac, I had a 2002 eMac.


2002 eMac2007 iMacx Change
Cost$800$20002.5x
Memory256 MB6 GB24x
Storage60 GB1 TB17x
Compute1 x 800 MHz = .82 x 2.4 = 4.86x

I realize I went from a budget model to a mid-tier model, but holy crap - across the board I got a computer that was many times better despite only being 5 years newer.

Such improvements just haven't happened since. It's not Intel's fault - Intel is doing way better than the other components. Memory and Storage just aren't improving like they used to...

Or maybe they are. I can buy comparable parts in much smaller form factors at much lower prices than before. See, for example, my Raspberry Pi. Maybe I should compare a current top end Raspberry Pi against the brand new iMacs...
You've quoted Moores Law but used a formula that is not anything to do with Moores Law. Moores law was about the number of transistors on a microchip doubling every two years. Moores Law only reference to computers other than that was an 'expected increased speed and capabilities to improve."

The early PowerPc chips had 10million transistors the 1.0 GHz PowerPC 7445 I believe had 33million (please correct if you know different), the M1 has 16 billion.

Interestingly Apple were at the forefront of multicore processors

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MauiPa and rafark

jonnysods

macrumors 604
Sep 20, 2006
7,113
4,215
There & Back Again
Poor 27" iMac. She just knows her days are numbered.

I just did a few video exports on my M1 MBA with no fan - 47 degrees Celsius! Never would have stayed that cool on my 2019 MBP!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.