Future of the nR iMac?

[rainydays]

That's such a ridiculous statement. I know you're trying to be controversial but a fast cpu isn't only worth it when running all cores at 100% for hours on end (even if you had proof that the cooling can't cope. Which you don't.)

Not at all ridiculous. We were talking about a specific area of computing here: music production. Now when it comes to music production you rarely max out any core even for small periods of time.
The only times that happens is when you do things like bounce tracks or mix down, which is rarely and there the difference in performance will hardly be worth the upgrade.

The only thing a faster CPU will give you is larger headroom for effects and instruments. For most people the CPU speeds have surpassed the needs for music production a long time ago. Even with fairly large projects you'll probably end up only using 60-70% of the CPU. If that is the case then a CPU upgrade will make no difference whatsoever to the performance.
If you only reach 70% CPU usage with your projects then a 11% performance boost will make no difference whatsoever and be a complete waste of money.

Now there are people who are working with a large amount of resource intensive virtual instruments and effects. They are maxing out their systems and need to freeze tracks all the time. If that is the case then the upgrade might be very well worth the price. However, I'd question why they wouldn't go for a Mac Pro instead.
Those users are the rare exception though. For most people making music a 3.5GHz i7 is plenty enough.

The iMacs fans are about 33db on full anyway. Hardly an issue and I've not had that happen outside of playing games anyway

Again, the context is music production not games. Loud fans will raise the noise floor and it will make working with audio harder. Cranking up the monitors is not a solution here.
This is especially important as the iMac sits right in your face and you can't stuff it away.
So now you'd need to freeze tracks, not because you run out of resources but because you need to keep the noise down. Back to square one.

 

[nrubenstein]

It's all about price, though. Apple has to keep offering a more affordable iMac, at all times. So, they will have to choose one of the two routes:

1. Go retina-only, but manage somehow to keep at least one retina model in lower price
2. Keep a couple cheap models with non-retina

If you read what I wrote, you will see that I said that I expect them to keep a non-Retina entry level model.

----------

I'd have paid $550 extra for no increase in performance, just to enjoy how much better Logic Pro is on a retina display...

That's not much more than I spent to go from the iPad 2 to the iPad 3 in full knowledge that I'd be unlikely to keep it for much more than a year. Worse performance, higher weight, and high heat output, but Retina display.

There are far fewer tradeoffs with the iMac. Really, it comes down to the lack of TDM (whatever), and marginally higher heat output that is not actually an issue outside of a studio (and way overblown).

 

[nrubenstein]

Not at all ridiculous. We were talking about a specific area of computing here: music production. Now when it comes to music production you rarely max out any core even for small periods of time.
The only times that happens is when you do things like bounce tracks or mix down, which is rarely and there the difference in performance will hardly be worth the upgrade.

The only thing a faster CPU will give you is larger headroom for effects and instruments. For most people the CPU speeds have surpassed the needs for music production a long time ago. Even with fairly large projects you'll probably end up only using 60-70% of the CPU. If that is the case then a CPU upgrade will make no difference whatsoever to the performance.
If you only reach 70% CPU usage with your projects then a 11% performance boost will make no difference whatsoever and be a complete waste of money.

Now there are people who are working with a large amount of resource intensive virtual instruments and effects. They are maxing out their systems and need to freeze tracks all the time. If that is the case then the upgrade might be very well worth the price. However, I'd question why they wouldn't go for a Mac Pro instead.
Those users are the rare exception though. For most people making music a 3.5GHz i7 is plenty enough.



Again, the context is music production not games. Loud fans will raise the noise floor and it will make working with audio harder. Cranking up the monitors is not a solution here.
This is especially important as the iMac sits right in your face and you can't stuff it away.
So now you'd need to freeze tracks, not because you run out of resources but because you need to keep the noise down. Back to square one.

You do benefit from the rush to idle, however. In a peaky CPU usage situation, the faster machine will finish and get back to idle consumption sooner than the slower one. That doesn't guarantee that it offsets the higher output, but if you are actually only intermittently using a large fraction of the CPU power, you will have a much lower heat output than you think.

 

[rainydays]

You do benefit from the rush to idle, however. In a peaky CPU usage situation, the faster machine will finish and get back to idle consumption sooner than the slower one. That doesn't guarantee that it offsets the higher output, but if you are actually only intermittently using a large fraction of the CPU power, you will have a much lower heat output than you think.

I actually did a fair amount of testing with the 4GHz i7 and Logic earlier this week. I had a really hard time deciding if I should go for the upgrade, especially since Logic benefits so much from HT (actually, it's masking its flaws, but that's another subject). So I decided to take a trip to a friend who recently bought it and try it out.

With a fairly regular project at 50% CPU load noise was not an issue. But once I started going up to 65-75% the fan started spinning faster and was very noticable. At continuos use above 80% the fan would eventually spin close to full speed. And this is with a room temperature at 23C, I can imagine that it gets worse in the summer.

I decided to go with the i5 because of this. Sadly, I have to say. Because the extra headroom of the i7 would have been nice and I wouldn't mind paying for it.
But having a near silent computer 24/7 is worth having to freeze a few tracks here and there. I understand very well that others might have different priorities and I have no problems with that.
It's just such a shame that you'd even have to consider such things. I guess I'll have to wait until more energy efficient CPUs are released to bump up the speed.

 

[5iMacs]

This is a very valid point of view, rainydays. I think a full understanding of how much that extra 14% of clock speed on the i7 costs you, (exacerbated by cooling limits in the iMac) is still emerging in these forums.

To put some numbers to these anecdotes, which I think are quite valid, consider encoding video with Handbrake. The i7 gives you a 20% increase in encoding speed, which can be valuable if you do a lot of that batch work under a time limit. But it overheats to 98C (the chip doesn't let you go hotter), spinning the fan at 2700 and throttling down to 3.8GHz to keep from melting. Can you even use the computer comfortably while that is going on?

The i5 meanwhile cruises along at 86C, idle fan speed (1200), with the tradeoff of getting the job done in an hour instead of 48 minutes.

This should not come as a surprise. If you've been following CPU technology over the years you know that you can't increase clock speed without a significant increase in power usage. And 3.5GHz is much closer to the sweet spot that these chips were designed for.

 

[PatriotInvasion]

I think the nR iMacs still have a considerable amount of time left and will get updated soon. Even more so than the Retina MacBook Pros, Apple is really pushing the envelope of technology here on the 5K iMac. I see it remaining as a very high end option for creative pros for quite some time before they can get price points down to the current levels needed to do away with nR models.

The iMac is also due for a case redesign in late 2015 since that will mark 3 years since this model has been around. Historically, the iMac has gotten a facelift every 3 years. When the Rev B 5K iMac is released in an updated case enclosure, I will be first in line.

 

[nrubenstein]

I think the nR iMacs still have a considerable amount of time left and will get updated soon. Even more so than the Retina MacBook Pros, Apple is really pushing the envelope of technology here on the 5K iMac. I see it remaining as a very high end option for creative pros for quite some time before they can get price points down to the current levels needed to do away with nR models.

The iMac is also due for a case redesign in late 2015 since that will mark 3 years since this model has been around. Historically, the iMac has gotten a facelift every 3 years. When the Rev B 5K iMac is released in an updated case enclosure, I will be first in line.

Why is the 5K iMac today pushing the envelope further than the rMBP in 2012?

 

[SKx]

Hello all, I'm new here and I'm actually new to apple desktops/notebooks.

I plan to purchase my first Apple product that isn't an iphone, later this month and it's the iMac 27 inch Late 2013.

Considering the price and what the desktop will be used for, I decided to go with the nR iMac.

My question is, how good is the iMac 27" nR screen?

 

[nrubenstein]

Hello all, I'm new here and I'm actually new to apple desktops/notebooks.

I plan to purchase my first Apple product that isn't an iphone, later this month and it's the iMac 27 inch Late 2013.

Considering the price and what the desktop will be used for, I decided to go with the nR iMac.

My question is, how good is the iMac 27" nR screen?

It's excellent among regular screens.

...and utter crap comparatively. I would hold off, rather than buying last year's model for not much less. (The price premium is $500 once you add a Fusion drive, which should be the absolute minimum spec.)

 

[SKx]

It's excellent among regular screens.

...and utter crap comparatively. I would hold off, rather than buying last year's model for not much less. (The price premium is $500 once you add a Fusion drive, which should be the absolute minimum spec.)

If $700 was really the only difference I would def hold off for a little bit, but I didn't mention that I'm able to purchase the nR 27" for $1350 so I'm looking at $1150 more for the 5K iMac which I don't even need.

I won't be doing anything heavy, just your basic functions like web browsing, office documents, and netflix/hulu/youtube.

I understand that compared to the 5K screen, it really doesn't even compare..I just wanted to know how it stacks up to other screens.

 

[nrubenstein]

If $700 was really the only difference I would def hold off for a little bit, but I didn't mention that I'm able to purchase the nR 27" for $1350 so I'm looking at $1150 more for the 5K iMac which I don't even need.

I won't be doing anything heavy, just your basic functions like web browsing, office documents, and netflix/hulu/youtube.

I understand that compared to the 5K screen, it really doesn't even compare..I just wanted to know how it stacks up to other screens.

For $1,350, go for it.

 

[rainydays]

I understand that compared to the 5K screen, it really doesn't even compare..I just wanted to know how it stacks up to other screens.

It's an excellent screen! I honestly don't think it's utter crap compared to the 5K even though they are worlds apart when it comes to sharpness and detail.

 

[Lankyman]

The current 21.5" iMac $1099 base will be the 2012 13" Non-Retina MBP of the iMac line up.

We call it the iMac Air in the UK.

 

[koulmj]

We call it the iMac Air in the UK.

Km so drunk most of the time that it foesnt materr what my pixal rate is

 

[PatriotInvasion]

Why is the 5K iMac today pushing the envelope further than the rMBP in 2012?

Because Apple had to build a custom timing controller and fuse together two DisplayPort 1.2 pipes to achieve the necessary throughput for 5K. This resolution won't be nativeley supported with the DisplayPort spec until version 1.3 which isn't scheduled until late 2015.

I believe the rMBP in 2012 was able to achieve 2880x1800 with less crafty engineering and jimmy rigging.

 

[inhalexhale1]

I think the iMac will follow the same path as the rMBP. The higher end 27" will go all retina first, with the 1440p models phased out. Then the 21" will get the update.

I don't think you need to worry about them dropping the current non-retina models overnight, and only offering retina models at a premium.

 

[asiga]

I don't know if Intel is the one to blame here, but these last couple of years I've been constantly feeling like all Mac models are awaiting a refresh. Even now. Some years ago I could configure a Mac with specs which would remain "current" for a couple of years. Now all models (even the Pro) are using components that await a (delayed) refresh, both the CPU, the GPU, the display, and display connection protocols.

This makes me say "it's not a good time for buying a Mac". But I've been saying this for a couple of years now.

 

[Serban]

they are already power enough since ivy bridge...now we need it to be more efficient with haswell what they are now. I like that.

 

[Alesc]

I don't know if Intel is the one to blame here, but these last couple of years I've been constantly feeling like all Mac models are awaiting a refresh. Even now. Some years ago I could configure a Mac with specs which would remain "current" for a couple of years. Now all models (even the Pro) are using components that await a (delayed) refresh, both the CPU, the GPU, the display, and display connection protocols.

This makes me say "it's not a good time for buying a Mac". But I've been saying this for a couple of years now.

Same impression here...

 

[nrubenstein]

Because Apple had to build a custom timing controller and fuse together two DisplayPort 1.2 pipes to achieve the necessary throughput for 5K. This resolution won't be nativeley supported with the DisplayPort spec until version 1.3 which isn't scheduled until late 2015.

I believe the rMBP in 2012 was able to achieve 2880x1800 with less crafty engineering and jimmy rigging.

The TCON is just not *that* big a deal. Compare that with the work that they are doing with the ARM processors, and I think that you will find that it was much more a matter of scaling an existing design. (The nomenclature on the chip also suggests that.)

As for the data bus, well, again, rolling your own inside of an AIO/laptop product isn't really that big a deal. It's not like they are, say, engineering a functional GPU switching kludge routine.

 

[twingo]

Non-Retina has no future.

 

[redheeler]

Non-Retina has no future.

Exactly. Consider it CRT.

 

[PatriotInvasion]

As for the data bus, well, again, rolling your own inside of an AIO/laptop product isn't really that big a deal. It's not like they are, say, engineering a functional GPU switching kludge routine.

Fair enough, but Apple will certainly be able to achieve 5K throughput easier with DisplayPort 1.3 on top of Skylake in late-2015/early-2016.

I've also seen reports of stuttering with Mission Control animations. Those kind of hiccups plagued the early rMBP's as well. Either way, the 5K iMac is a phenomenal machine, but my original point was that I think the nR 21.5" and 27" models will be around for longer than perhaps the nR MBP's were post-2012.

 

[Chippy99]

Non-Retina has no future.

Nor does LCD, so on that basis, best not buy a RiMac?

i.e. your comment is of no meaning or value.

 

[nrubenstein]

Fair enough, but Apple will certainly be able to achieve 5K throughput easier with DisplayPort 1.3 on top of Skylake in late-2015/early-2016.

I've also seen reports of stuttering with Mission Control animations. Those kind of hiccups plagued the early rMBP's as well. Either way, the 5K iMac is a phenomenal machine, but my original point was that I think the nR 21.5" and 27" models will be around for longer than perhaps the nR MBP's were post-2012.

I'll confess that I have never seen Mission Control run smoothly on any Mac, but I have not seen it on a high spec late 2013. My 2012 27" work iMac can't do it, nor can any of the other machines in my signature. IMHO, it's more a software issue than a speed issue.

As for the lifespan question, well, it's hard to say what the real lifespan will be. If you configure a non-Retina iMac to the nearest spec equivalent, it's only a $300 premium to the Retina. At the very least, I would be shocked if you could buy more than the base model non-Retina machines by the end of next year.

The real question is whether they completely kill off the non-Retina 27" iMac or keep it around for that odd group of people that is willing to pay up for a Mac, but not willing to pay up for a good one.