Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hands-On Impressions and Other Tidbits From Today's Releases
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Tom's Hardware tested them both, and seemed to think that the Core i5 was the better deal.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5,2410-11.html
Apple's only charging $200 extra for the i7 though....
Just think!
Think about how big that internal battery could have been if they got rid of the CD drive! We would be talking about a twelve hour life span instead of 7.
Oh by the way he was talking about the iMac. So if you find a new iMac manual feel free to post.
Oh hey, just found an answer to your question. The new user manuals are up on Apple's site and the Macbook does indeed have a user replaceable hard drive:
http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/MacBook_13inch_Late2009_UG.pdf
Think about how big that internal battery could have been if they got rid of the CD drive! We would be talking about a twelve hour life span instead of 7.
Oh by the way he was talking about the iMac. So if you find a new iMac manual feel free to post.
It is the iPhone headset. You can use the mic as the input when you plug them into the iMac. It works now on unibody macbook pros. Much better sound quality for the person on the other end to hear you from the mic rather than the computer's mic.
Every vendor is going to charge for bumping up the processor. It's really only a $80 price gap for the components.
I have to agree that the Core i5 750 is the best value over all from Lynnfield. Pretty much every review site I've read says the same thing. 4 cores, 4 threads with an agressive Turbo Boost, lower TDP than Bloomfield, and no chipset to cool makes it a nice platform for Nehalem.
You sacrifice the PCI-Express 2.0 lanes but how many of us really need more then x16 for the GPU?
hm the new macbook looks slick, i wouldnt mind one however firewire ive become dependant on of late.
i like it sort of took form from the TimeCapsules/AEBSn now if only the time capsules were that much more simpler to open up
iMac
this is actually the first time im impressed with apple in ages...especially the latest updates to their OS and other software (itunes names, SL, anyway)
i love the resolutions they packed into them.
i currently use a 17" mbp & 30" display at work....this intrigues me....i would love to sell the 30" and upgrade to teh 27" for a stationary workhorse and something to port my 17" over or maybe downgrade for portability to a 13" mbp ... if it works the way im assuming. it would be amazing as the resolution is almost on par with the 30" but the LED backlit is really tempting as i couldnt imagine what price point a larger than 24" LED display would be if they were to ever make one on that scale.
hm....it seems straight forward but id love to know if it is as straight forward as it seems.
not bad price points either. especially for an all in one solution
i like it sort of took form from the TimeCapsules/AEBSn now if only the time capsules were that much more simpler to open up
iMac
this is actually the first time im impressed with apple in ages...especially the latest updates to their OS and other software (itunes names, SL, anyway)
i love the resolutions they packed into them.
i currently use a 17" mbp & 30" display at work....this intrigues me....i would love to sell the 30" and upgrade to teh 27" for a stationary workhorse and something to port my 17" over or maybe downgrade for portability to a 13" mbp ... if it works the way im assuming. it would be amazing as the resolution is almost on par with the 30" but the LED backlit is really tempting as i couldnt imagine what price point a larger than 24" LED display would be if they were to ever make one on that scale.
hm....it seems straight forward but id love to know if it is as straight forward as it seems.
not bad price points either. especially for an all in one solution
But let's assume I don't have a problem paying extra for the i7, provided the performance gain is there...is HT alone worth it for current uses?
Not really. The Core i5 750 is fine unless you run Cinebench 24/7.
Turbo Boost makes it a 3.2 GHz single or dual core processor when necessary too.
I believe its referring to the Apple headphones that ship with iPhone and iPod touch. Like the current MacBooks, the new iMacs will now allow you to use the mic and clicker that are on those headphones. Previously, you would just get audio.
Not really. The Core i5 750 is fine unless you run Cinebench 24/7.
Turbo Boost makes it a 3.2 GHz single or dual core processor when necessary too.
OK, I am definitely tired after arriving from Copenhagen...please tell me, in brief terms, the difference between HT and Turbo Boost, and whether these are OS-neutral and of immediate benefit to uses such as Handbrake and so on.
I prefer the Air's MagSafe adapter because it fits better on my lap while in my recliner... The adapter doesn't go straight out into the arm of the chair and always come off when I shift positions. It's a bonus for me anyway.
Future proof.. While YMMV, in general you get about 25% more oomph out of a hyperthreaded CPU. As more and more programs become multi-threaded, grandcentral aware etc those extra Cores (both real and virtual) make more sense. Right now for most users the i7 is overkill (heck, the i5 is too). But in the long run it will pay off. If you've ever run handbrake on a 2 core machine, and then on a 8 core machine you know what I mean.
Turbo Boost shuts down inactive cores on a CPU and boosts the clock speed on the remaining active ones. For example Instead of four 2.66ghz cores, it turns into a two 3.2ghz core machine. It's done on the fly in the background and is transparent to the user.
Hyperthreading is the ability to run two "threads" through the CPU at once (process 2 things at once basically). A 4 core machine shows 8 cores, even tho it's just 4 cores doing 2 things at once. The computer sees it as 8 tho. (new mac pros can show 16 cores, even tho 8 are physical, and 8 are virtual)
I bought the 2.8ghz "Extreme edition" 2007 iMac when it came out, and I'm still happy today with it. Had I bought the low end I probably would be upgrading now.
Those are some seriously nice updates, in fact I am seriously considering getting one of the 27" monsters
So what you're saying is...instead of paying money for a fancy HDTV AND for a Mac, buy the iMac and wall mount it with wireless keyboard and mouse...and also have your set-top box connected to it so you have both....
Brilliant move on Apple's part.
Brilliant move on Apple's part.
The i7 in the imac is a lynnfield. The 860. And it benchmarks better than the core i7 920. Certainly faster than a i5. Enough to justify it IMO.
why target display mode... a hint of things to come???
The target display option is very cool, but it seems a bit gimmicky for Apple.
I.e., what's the use case?
(I know, I know, there are always people that will want something, but Apple always does its best to ignore them. And I haven't heard people asking for this anyway. E.g., think about the blu-ray situation.)
Makes me wonder if Apple doesn't have something up their sleeve vis-a-vis the (presumably) forthcoming tablet?!?
By the way, the early iMacs could sort-of do target display mode because the monitor was connected to the motherboard by a standard VGA connector. I routed it through a KVM so I could use the iMac monitor with the Mac and my Windows machine.
The target display option is very cool, but it seems a bit gimmicky for Apple.
I.e., what's the use case?
(I know, I know, there are always people that will want something, but Apple always does its best to ignore them. And I haven't heard people asking for this anyway. E.g., think about the blu-ray situation.)
Makes me wonder if Apple doesn't have something up their sleeve vis-a-vis the (presumably) forthcoming tablet?!?
By the way, the early iMacs could sort-of do target display mode because the monitor was connected to the motherboard by a standard VGA connector. I routed it through a KVM so I could use the iMac monitor with the Mac and my Windows machine.
The Core i5 750 has about 90% of the performance of the Core i7 920.
It's up the the user for what they want. I have a Core i7 750 and it's GREAT.
This has been a banner week for Apple.
Another recoed quarter, rosy Mac sales, and now a superb round of hardware updates.
My next purchase will be the new mouse, possibly followed by Apple's tablet (hopefully) in early 2010.
In the meantime that new Macbook looks quite tempting . . .
Another recoed quarter, rosy Mac sales, and now a superb round of hardware updates.
My next purchase will be the new mouse, possibly followed by Apple's tablet (hopefully) in early 2010.
In the meantime that new Macbook looks quite tempting . . .
Unless you want a screen larger than 27 inches, like, say 37-42 inches.
Too bad that Mac Mini doesn't have a digital video input. As much as I like clean lines... a stand-alone box makes more sense.
A mac Mini and a Samsung LED 42 inch HDTV would make a longer-term solution for independent upgradeability of the computer hardware, compared to the screen hardware.
But the digital video input is good, if one would want to output from other video sources through the computer might be good, rather than having to switch digital inputs on the monitor all the time.
Recommendations on configuration please
Here is what I am planning to buy. I would love to get some recommendations on any shortcomings to this configuration. Eg, is 2x4GB of RAM distinctly better than 4x2GB of RAM (that is, worth the extra dollars)?
Configure your iMac 27-inch:
- 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
- 8GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 4x2GB
- 2TB Serial ATA Drive
- ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB
- 8x double-layer SuperDrive
- Apple Magic Mouse
- Apple Wireless Keyboard and User's Guide
- Apple Remote
- AppleCare Protection Plan for iMac - Auto-enrol
Anything there I should change? Graphics OK?
In Australia this is coming out at AUD$ 3,822.02 - it's a business expense so that is well within budget.
Happy customer Apple - keep it up!!!
Here is what I am planning to buy. I would love to get some recommendations on any shortcomings to this configuration. Eg, is 2x4GB of RAM distinctly better than 4x2GB of RAM (that is, worth the extra dollars)?
Configure your iMac 27-inch:
- 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
- 8GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 4x2GB
- 2TB Serial ATA Drive
- ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB
- 8x double-layer SuperDrive
- Apple Magic Mouse
- Apple Wireless Keyboard and User's Guide
- Apple Remote
- AppleCare Protection Plan for iMac - Auto-enrol
Anything there I should change? Graphics OK?
In Australia this is coming out at AUD$ 3,822.02 - it's a business expense so that is well within budget.
Happy customer Apple - keep it up!!!