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

[MacRumors]

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.

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.

27-inch iMac (512GB SSD) for $1,699.99 ($299 OFF)​

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)

 

[niho]

It's happening!
I guess new 27" is coming at WWDC for sure

 

[sirozha]

Duplicate

 

[sirozha]

It's happening!
I guess new 27" is coming at WWDC for sure

You guess for sure? That's an oxymoron.

 

[niho]

You guess for sure? That's an oxymoron.

It's definetely maybe

 

[Sasparilla]

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]

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 $2000	2021 iMac for $2000	% Change
Memory	6 GB	8 GB	33% Improvement
Storage	1 TB	512 GB	50% Worse
Compute	2 x 2.4 = 4.8	6 x 3.3 = 20	316% 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 eMac	2007 iMac	x Change
Cost	$800	$2000	2.5x
Memory	256 MB	6 GB	24x
Storage	60 GB	1 TB	17x
Compute	1 x 800 MHz = .8	2 x 2.4 = 4.8	6x

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...

 

[coolbreeze2]

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

 

[Dekimasu]

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 $2000	2021 iMac for $2000	% Change
Memory	6 GB	8 GB	33% Improvement
Storage	1 TB	512 GB	50% Worse
Compute	2 x 2.4 = 4.8	6 x 3.3 = 20	316% 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]

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]

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

 

[Zdigital2015]

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 $2000	2021 iMac for $2000	% Change
Memory	6 GB	8 GB	33% Improvement
Storage	1 TB	512 GB	50% Worse
Compute	2 x 2.4 = 4.8	6 x 3.3 = 20	316% 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 eMac	2007 iMac	x Change
Cost	$800	$2000	2.5x
Memory	256 MB	6 GB	24x
Storage	60 GB	1 TB	17x
Compute	1 x 800 MHz = .8	2 x 2.4 = 4.8	6x

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]

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.)

 

[hellosil]

Great deals for your Intel needs.

 

[nathansz]

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.

ram yes, gpu no

 

[coolbreeze2]

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?

 

[now i see it]

I'd choose this one over the new 24" M1 model

 

[nathansz]

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

OpenCore Install Guide

Current supported version 1.0.2

dortania.github.io

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

 

[Realityck]

It's happening!
I guess new 27" is coming at WWDC for sure

Just discounted to move existing inventory. When you start seeing most dealers run out of stock, then it’s close. But a lot of us wish they were coming soon.

 

[arvinsim]

Meh, processor is still the i5

 

[jerryk]

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]

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 $2000	2021 iMac for $2000	% Change
Memory	6 GB	8 GB	33% Improvement
Storage	1 TB	512 GB	50% Worse
Compute	2 x 2.4 = 4.8	6 x 3.3 = 20	316% 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 eMac	2007 iMac	x Change
Cost	$800	$2000	2.5x
Memory	256 MB	6 GB	24x
Storage	60 GB	1 TB	17x
Compute	1 x 800 MHz = .8	2 x 2.4 = 4.8	6x

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

Apple's Scorpius CPU (Aquarius project) - 1989 : Apple Computer : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

If you've used computers over the decades, you're probably aware the CPU chips have multiple cores and graphics instructions (or SIMD instructions)....

archive.org

 

[Chiromac81]

I'm looking for 1 TB macs-why are these never offered on mac rumours sale??

 

[jonnysods]

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!

 

[GSWForever8]

What a great deal! Wait, no M1? Never mind.