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

[Patroclus]

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...

FYI, Moore law does not apply anymore. If you have not noticed, CPU clock speed don't double anymore. The only solution is to increase CPU threads by adding cores (not part of moore law). Now CPU cores generate lots of heat, so unless you want 64 cores, which I don't think 90% of Apple consumer need in their laptop / imac, it does not make sense to come up with large amount of cores. What makes more sense is to improve the CPU which Apple has done with M1. I have a Late 2013 4core i5 Imac 27". I love the new iMac, but i'm waiting for the 27" version. I don't think they'll release them at this Dev Conference. The new Imac is not even in stores yet. Will probably release new ones for December 2021.

 

[Mac4Mat]

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!

I just hope they not only produce the replacement for the 27in. but also produce a high spec 24in. with the same chipset.

 

[jonnysods]

I just hope they not only produce the replacement for the 27in. but also produce a high spec 24in. with the same chipset.

I feel like they made the 24" for consumers, and the 27 or however its may are resized would be a higher spec machine. Just as long as it's not an M1 but it has more resources it will be most welcome!

 

[falkon-engine]

To me the older iMac has a better physical design...it looks better... but even if it were $1000 off I still wouldn't buy it given its older technology.

 

[Realityck]

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

Even the best model sold usually in stores uses 512 MB SSD, a 1TB is optional, so some stores ordered non-standard configuration with that as seen online. see https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-imac/27-inch

Where these eventually get cleared out you will still have that problem.

 

[Realityck]

dup

 

[tigerintank]

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

If we wait for a while then something very much like this will appear on eBay as 'reconditioned' Intel Macs - it'll be the only way Apple can shift them from their warehouses.

I don't think this is particularly surprising for the old architecture that Intel is, but I do think the consistent low price sales of M1 Macs with 8G RAM is a sign that someone miscalculated somewhere with those...

 

[coolbreeze2]

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

So if M1 makes it possible for hackintosh and if Apple puts macOS in jail to work only with M1, what will happen to the hackintosh?

 

[nathansz]

So if M1 makes it possible for hackintosh and if Apple puts macOS in jail to work only with M1, what will happen to the hackintosh?

you will only be able to run whatever the last macos version is that runs on intel

assuming that the last intel mac has already been released maybe two or three versions from now, then a couple years of security updates still after that

no different than buying an intel mac right now

edit: there is also always the possibility that intel macos will at some point require a t chip to instal

 

[jtopp]

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 hard drive in the new model is an SSD.

 

[MauiPa]

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...

oh man, I am still laughing having read this. Even trolls say more informed things some days. So where do I start?

Jumping to Everymac, https://everymac.com/systems/apple/imac/specs/imac-core-2-duo-2.4-24-inch-aluminum-specs.html. You can ascertain that the 2007 iMac sported an Intel T7700 core 2 duo pushing a Geekbench score of 600 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/7703090. (about even with an iPhone 6). won't even go into the slow RAM (667 DDR2), HDD and barely adequate (by todays standards) Display.

The referenced machine above is again an Intel - 6-core i5 with a Geekbench score of 5500 https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/...arly-2019-intel-core-i5-9600k-3-7-ghz-6-cores so almost 10 times faster at just that one thing, much faster RAM, a super fast SSD, and a highly rated 5k display.

I have no idea what you are measuring on your compute test and doubt that you do either. so if you are complaining about Intel not jumping performance 128 times on their silicon, well, you just don't understand Moores law at all.

And maybe you should compare your raspberry pi. https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/2496805. so it has a Geekbench score of about 600 also, just like the 14-year old iMac. so I guess you would need about 10 of them to be equal to the 2019 Intel i5 iMac, how would you even begin?

And you know the Intel iMac is essentially a closeout? the new iMac has the new M1 chip at about 7700 Geekbench https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/8107327, matter of fact, just the single core score is 3 times what the old iMac and your raspberry pi multi-core.

Sorry, I'm still laughing, I don't mean to be rude, but that was really funny.

 

[MauiPa]

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

best I can tell an Apple 5k display is comparable to a display at much more than $500, but you could downgrade

 

[MauiPa]

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.)

Even a broken analog clock is right twice a day. don't go equating a bad but somewhat lucky methodology for knowing what you are doing

 

[MauiPa]

you will only be able to run whatever the last macos version is that runs on intel

assuming that the last intel mac has already been released maybe two or three versions from now, then a couple years of security updates still after that

no different than buying an intel mac right now

I think Intel Macs will be fully supported for at least 6 more years, probably more like 10

 

[nathansz]

…

 

[nathansz]

best I can tell an Apple 5k display is comparable to a display at much more than $500, but you could downgrade

perhaps, but it’s lifespan is limited to the useful working lifespan of the rest of the imac, i think that makes it less valuable than a comparable stand alone display

 

[nathansz]

I think Intel Macs will be fully supported for at least 6 more years, probably more like 10

the last power pc macs were 2005. leopard was the last power pc macos in 2007.

if the same timeline holds then with last intel macs being 2020 last intel macos could be 2022, then three years of security updates would be fall 2025 end of intel support

 

[Realityck]

the last power pc macs were 2005. leopard was the last power pc macos in 2007.

if the same timeline holds then with last intel macs being 2020 last intel macos could be 2022, then three years of security updates would be fall 2025 end of intel support

That might have been accelerated because there wasn't the equivalent value with the older Moto RiSC versus x86 Intel?
For all the bang up spew about how great PPC Macs were I didn't think they were that fast or useful.

Where as the Intel Macs that the Mac owner community uses are frequently years old, you can own a 2015 Mac and you are still running the latest 6 years later, and the speed is acceptable for most tasks, and its upgradable hardware wise to keep making them more useful.

This switch to M1 Macs while looking fast, lacks viability of ownership with processors becoming faster each year. That might cause consumers to upgrade more often to a newer computer.

So those two things might make the value of continued supported on the x86 Mac based computers way more important then those so so PPC Macs that were quickly devalued by businesses.

I really don't think we can use the same comparison as when the PPC Macs transitioned to the Intel Macs.

 

[Scoob Redux]

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%.

I think that depends on whether the new large iMac follows the missteps of the 24". If it has a white bezel, external power supply, and only USC-C ports, then any of the current 27" models would be better.

 

[Mac4Mat]

I just hope they not only produce the replacement for the 27in. but also produce a higher spec 24in. with the same chipset.

Even a broken analog clock is right twice a day. don't go equating a bad but somewhat lucky methodology for knowing what you are doing

Yes its rather sad when someone posts about Moore's Law, but doesn't understand what it states.

 

[PeterZwegat]

Tbh I still prefer the 'old' design and port selection. Just make that bezels (much) thinner and upgrade the interior including the M1X. Boom, would sell great. But lets see what is about to come in autumn. Redesigned 30"-32" 6K, why not.

 

[MauiPa]

perhaps, but it’s lifespan is limited to the useful working lifespan of the rest of the imac, i think that makes it less valuable than a comparable stand alone display

So 10 years or so is not enough? Realistically the display components wear more than any other part of the computer. Although I’m sure there are some failed displays, this is not a common event

 

[DakotaGuy]

I think Intel Macs will be fully supported for at least 6 more years, probably more like 10

10 years? Highly doubtful. 6 years is more likely, but even then I doubt it will anything more than security updates. If we go by what happened in the transition from PPC to Intel there will be one more or maybe two at best major software releases for Intel. Apple will move quickly once the roll out is complete to sell new computers to everyone. Ending support sooner then later is a great technique to increase sales.

 

[nathansz]

So 10 years or so is not enough? Realistically the display components wear more than any other part of the computer. Although I’m sure there are some failed displays, this is not a common event

a 2020 imac isn’t going to be a great computer 10 years from now and is only going to be supported by apple for 5 more years at most

it’s not just about the wear of the components but how useful they are.
a 5k display 10 years from now will still be decent. 10th gen intel will not, even if it hasn’t melted by then

i only replaced my 2011 imac last year after squeezing every last bit out of it. and i had to upgrade the gpu a couple years ago to keep it supported that long

the display however, was still fine

 

[nathansz]

That might have been accelerated because there wasn't the equivalent value with the older Moto RiSC versus x86 Intel?
For all the bang up spew about how great PPC Macs were I didn't think they were that fast or useful.

Where as the Intel Macs that the Mac owner community uses are frequently years old, you can own a 2015 Mac and you are still running the latest 6 years later, and the speed is acceptable for most tasks, and its upgradable hardware wise to keep making them more useful.

This switch to M1 Macs while looking fast, lacks viability of ownership with processors becoming faster each year. That might cause consumers to upgrade more often to a newer computer.

So those two things might make the value of continued supported on the x86 Mac based computers way more important then those so so PPC Macs that were quickly devalued by businesses.

I really don't think we can use the same comparison as when the PPC Macs transitioned to the Intel Macs.

while all of that is fine and well, it doesn’t really matter if the end user thinks their intel mac is good enough for them 6 years from now.

apple likes to drop old tech quickly. look at how fast they stopped supporting non-metal gpu, or cpu’s without certain instruction sets. it won’t be long before there’s something they want to do with the os that they can’t (be bothered) to code for intel and it’s done

also, there was no viable consumer platform running on ppc when they made that switch. now apple is once again competing with wintel (and amd.) they are going to want to play up that difference by introducing things that only apple silicon can do, even if only because they don’t write x86 code to do it

i would put money on intel support (defined as final security update to an intel macos) ending by the end of 2026, maybe sooner