iMac poor value?

[Strider64]

I don't want to jinx myself, but I know Apple products are overpriced and I don't really care. The reason every money when I tap that keyboard on my iMac Pro the monitor is usually on within 10 seconds at most. I rarely ever have a freeze up other than my external hard drives every once in awhile temporary freezing playing catchup to the iMac, but is usually when I'm saving something to disk. I was a PC person for over 35+ years and I was constantly saving my work to disk worrying that the computer would (not if) fail and freeze up on me. I like the whole Apple Ecosystem as I have an iMac Pro, iPad Pro, iPhone XR and the Apple Watch 3. They all work seamlessly for the most part together. Don't get me wrong I have certain nit picky issues with each one of them, but they are minor things that don't interfere with my work or fun. I'm not an Apple fanboy as I can easily work on a PC if I had to and I even was in a PC building mood in the 2000s. I even like some of the PC new hardware and technology that is out. I have never been the one that wanted a computer that was the fastest computer and I kind of like waiting a little bit for something to render. It gives me a chance to take a break and relax. Today I had a 3D file take about 5 minutes to render which is pretty fast for me, but I know others would had been complaining as it wasn't that big of a file.

 

[SkiHound2]

adamk77, This was a very thoughtful and informative post. I tend to think of Apple prices as inflated, and for somethings they clearly are, at least with respect to hardware (the memory upgrade prices are just nuts). But there's much to be said for a more seamless experience. And I've priced out build you own and custom built PCs and when you consider that you're getting a very nice 5k monitor in the iMac, they don't seem like such a bad deal. For someone who is interested in maximum game performance and is willing to tinker, keep drivers updated, etc., a PC is clearly the way to go. But Apple does provide more an "it just works" environment. And for many of us, that's worth something.

 

[adamk77]

 

 

[Jimmdean]

It's an expensive computer for sure. But it is also a very nice computer, and always a head-turner. For me the value is there.

 

[cynics]

Doesn't matter whether you're actually going to buy - if you just pick the "most expensive" from a sprawling range like Dell's you're sure to find the worst value-for-money, or something totally non-comparable. You've chosen a system with water cooling and a massive gaming case that is, well, compensating for something...

The "most expensive computer that Apple sells" is a tricked-out iMac Pro that has an extra digit in the price. Its not a way to compare systems.

Admittedly this is a good point, my point of comparison was garbage and I have no problem admitting I was wrong and (therefore I am) dumb.

However if we are going to be fair lets look at Dell's All-in-Ones. I used a Dell All-in-one I could customize which is the Optiplex which is also there "for work" model. This includes a 3 year warranty and onsite service.

The default SSD appears to be a 128gb SATA SSD.

Now this only doesn't mean much without.

Comparing across OS's and file systems isn't exactly fair but right out of the gate it would need to be a class 50 to entertaining the idea of fair comparison.

Meanwhile, if you build a Mac to a ~$2800 price you're quite likely to end up with a 2TB fusion drive with only a 128GB SSD component that isn't easily upgradeable - for a couple of hundred bucks you can easily add a 1TB SSD to that Dell in addition to what is there and you are unlucky you might need to use a screwdriver.

This is where Apples "devil is in the details" approach is lost on many people. MacOS's "Core Storage" operates on a block level when moving data to the SSD. This is levels of data the user can access since we are working at a file level. So not only are portions of programs moved to the SSD but portions of individual files as well. 128gb of SSD with a fusion in practice can operate with the real world "feel" of a MUCH larger SSD since you don't typically use ALL the data of a program and OS. For example if I only use 40% of what FCPX is capable of then that is all that will reside on the SSD. Plus since its operated through the native OS its smarter than all other hybrid solutions with caching, prediction, and background operation. At the speed SSD's apple offers its more of an Intel Optane solution and to be fair that Dell offers that option but you'd need to get a HDD.

I've never used Intel Optane however at 16gb I feel like you are picking your poison really. I would prefer an SSD just to be safe.

In the end for comparison to the mid tier non upgraded 27" iMac for $1999 I came up with this.

Which is a Dell 27" 4k, i5 8th gen processor (8600), 8gb RAM DDR4 , m.2 SATA 128gb SSD, 1tb 7200rpm HDD, nVidia 1050 4gb (only option), HDMI, display port, no TB3 though, IR camera (logging in?), windows pro recovery (FileVault). MacOS comes with an Office suite but I excluded Office 365 ($250) from the optiplex to account for its 3 year warranty although that gives the Dell and advantage since AC+ is $169.

I feel this comparison trades blows with the iMac. And in the end you have a plastic Dell All-in-one that is better at some things and worse at others for <10% less.

Upgrades on the other hand, Dell offers better prices. RAM is really only the direct comparison because the iMac upgrades goto a 9th gen Intel, and PCIe SSDs that are better. But with RAM the upgrade from 8-32gb is $228 dollars more with Apple with what is otherwise identical RAM (DDR4 PC4-21300). Conversely Apple supports unto 64gb and has 4 dimms vs 32gb and 2 dimms with the Optiplex. Plus there are larger SSD options which are difficult to price out at all. I don't think its coincidence Apple (and Dell) don't have direct comparisons in all aspects.

I couldn't find a customizable Inspiron 27" at this time for some reason.

I'd agree with that, but part of the reason is that nobody else is really trying to compete with the high-end 5k iMacs at the moment so there's nothing really like-for-like to compare it with. Still, the main reason the iMac is value for money is that it includes "$1200 worth" of display that is only worth $1200 to you if it was actually what you wanted...

You're speaking of 'value' which is subjective and I completely agree. You could say the same about Apples SSD's, my iMac has a SATA (Samsung EVO) and my MBP is PCIe. Without a specific requirement (4k 10bit video editing for example) they're comparable. I would recommend SATA to an average user purely due to the value perceived by me for their needs.

Value is why we will continue to agree to disagree. I don't expect to change your views and if you don't feel there is value in the iMac that you should definitely get something else because you'll never be happy with something you don't find value in.

 

[macduke]

Apple products have *always* been a poor value. People keep buying everything they put out so they keep pushing the limits on what they can get away with. That said I've bought nearly everything they make. Sigh.

I mean, I guess if you only compare spec to spec for hardware only. The iPhone chips are always a year or more ahead of the competition but even if they were half the speed I would still buy an iPhone because of the experience.

But when it comes to the Mac it's important to consider that many people use them to make a lot of money so the investment is sometimes minimal. Back when I was doing freelance before having kids I could use it to make enough money to pay it off in nearly a week sometimes. I work a lot faster on a Mac, my favorite design and development tools are on a Mac, as well as my favorite utilities. And this is coming from a guy who grew up on PCs and used to build PCs. My mind is clearer when operating on macOS, kind of like a "feng shui" thing, and it integrates really well with my iPhone and iPad Pro for continuity, sending messages, taking calls, syncing notes and reminders, copying and pasting via the cloud, and transferring photos.

About 7 years ago when I first started a job I had to use a Windows PC for the first few months and I immediately noticed my productivity take a big hit, and that was only a few years after switching to Mac when I still knew Windows reasonably well. My boss noticed a marked improvement as well when they finally got me an iMac. I was still keeping up with my tasks in Windows, but once I got a Mac I was exceeding expectations and knocking out some big projects ahead of schedule. For me it's worth it for the speed and reduced cognitive load.

 

[familychoice]

I tried to build a Dell XPS custom system after first seeing the iMac upgrade costs. Unfortunately they only offer a series of set systems here in the UK, and only one of these comes with an SSD. Not being able to build a system to match my requirements is a no-go, so despite using Dell for years I'll plump for the 27" iMac. It's not cheap, but even the base model will be fast enough for my requirements (with the 512 SSD upgrade), and to be able to use that screen for the next few years is something to look forward to. Getting away from Windows will be a bonus too.

 

[theluggage]

Value is why we will continue to agree to disagree. I don't expect to change your views and if you don't feel there is value in the iMac that you should definitely get something else because you'll never be happy with something you don't find value in.

I've actually been defending (-ish) the value of the iMac vs. other all-in-ones - I was mainly disputing your comments about SSD sizes in PCs and your choice of comparison (now resolved).

My position is that I didn't really want an iMac but ended up deciding I wanted MacOS more than a mini-tower (...and it was close run, helped by my last chance to get a Mac at a hefty education discount).

However if we are going to be fair lets look at Dell's All-in-Ones. I used a Dell All-in-one I could customize which is the Optiplex which is also there "for work" model. This includes a 3 year warranty and onsite service.

Interesting, I hadn't found the Optiplex all-in-one. The range is more restricted here in the UK with no customisations. Interestingly, they come with larger SSDs as standard than the US ones. The only 4k option comes with an i7-8700, 16GB RAM and 512GB NVMe drive - and is about the same price as the mid-range i5 iMac with a 1TB Fusion and a DIY 16GB RAM upgrade. I'd agree that is "trading blows".

The night and day difference with the Dell is that a couple of clicks gives you the service manual which shows how easy it is to change the SSD, HD and RAM - if I had one I'd probably slap in a 2TB 2.5" SATA SSD as a second drive...

This is where Apples "devil is in the details" approach is lost on many people. MacOS's "Core Storage" operates on a block level when moving data to the SSD.

Sure, Fusion Drive may be best-of-breed tech, but a cache is still a cache - with a PC its more affordable to have a 256GB or larger pure SSD system/applications/work-in-progress disc and a slower 'archive' disc (which could even be a cheaper SATA SSD).

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that Windows does let you designate a SSD as a cache drive (doesn't have to be Optane) - I have no idea how that compares with Fusion drive.

 

[maflynn]

I can't speak for 2019, but when I was researching a desktop computer, I found the iMac to be a very good value. For 2,500 (or there abouts), I got a 27" 5k display, 2 TB of storage, a decent processor and fair to middling GPU. I priced out some dells back in the day and I was getting more value for money. I understand Apple has gotten more expensive these days and other computer makers have had better deals, but the thing is for me is the display. You're getting a great display for that price and that's hard to beat.

 

[smetvid]

I don't the value is poor at all. Most of us don't buy Macs as a computer to compete with other PC computers. We buy Macs to compete with other Macs. Compared to pretty much every other Mac the iMac Pro is a great value outperforms all the other Macs except for three of the iMac Pro models with 10 core, 14 core and 18core CPU's. Thats pretty impressive.

Even compared to eGPU you have to remember that eGPU will never run as fast as it can inside of a computer. Its awesome we have eGPU but you really need a Vega 56 or even a Vega 64 to match the performance of the Vega 48 inside of the iMac. Give or take of course per application.

Yes it is silly that a 2019 computer has a HDD but you also have to remember not every user needs a SSD. As cool as they are a computer is not worthless if it has a HDD. This is even more true with the Fusion drive which is actually a really good balance between size and speed. Most users including those with a ton of design applications will never use 128GB on their system drive. The extra files like documents, photos, iTunes music and so forth work perfectly fine off the HDD portion of the Fusion drive. You have to keep in mind that a lot of people that walk into an Apple store and walk out with a iMac likely don't notice or care if their drive is a SSD or HDD. A Computer like an iMac tends to stay on at all times and since they don't crash very often can sometimes stay booted up for weeks/months or longer. This means the bootup time isn't even all that much of a concern. A portable computer like a laptop needs SSD because they boot up a lot and the system needs less moving parts to generate less heat.

The iMac is still great value because no matter what you get you end up with a $1,200 5k 27" 10bit p3 color monitor. That means the base model once you subtract that display cost is basically a $600 computer. Also includes a HD webcam, speakers, keyboard, mouse and SD card reader as part of that. You may be able to build a slightly better PC for $600 but you also have to make sure you include all of the above to make sure it has the same perceived value to users.

The top iMac uses a CPU that is $550 and a GPU that is likely $300. Nobody sells the Vega 48 yet so we don't know the real value but its safe to say it would cost more than the RX580 or RX590.

Apple may charge a lot for the SSD storage but you have to keep in mind it is flash storage capable of over 2,000 MB/S. This isn't an off the shelf SSD drive capable of 500 MB/S. So to be fair you need to build a PC with equally fast storage to compare prices.

If anything Apples fault is that the user doesn't have as many options. Most of their computers you are stuck with their CPU, GPU and storage options. You can either have a slower HDD or an insanely likely too fast Flash NVMe storage. Most users would likely be perfectly happy with plain old 500 MB/S SSD drives but Apple doesn't provide that as an option. This is why I always suggest to just get internal storage big enough for MacOS and the apps. Adding external storage to a iMac is very easy and you don't even have to see it hidden behind the computer. USB3 provides enough bandwidth for one fast SSD drive or if thats not enough you always have 40 GB/S with TB3. The need for a eGPU is almost pointless with the iMac so you have oodles of bandwidth for storage.

Like others have pointed out the true value of the Mac isn't the benchmark scores for the CPU or GPU or if it gets 84 fps vs 82 fps in a specific game. Its the overall value of having a low power draw computer with the smallest footprint and noise possible. Its using not just MacOS but a licensed and supported copy of that OS on a system that is under warranty. A warranty that most of us can walk into a local store to get support. We don't want an ugly bulky tower sitting on or under our desk with a 1200 watt power supply jacking up our energy bills. We prefer Apple find ways to use less hardware and power for equal or better results. Synthetic scores may be lower compared to a PC but you also have to factor in the Apple applications and how well they use that hardware. Metal is a new way to utilize GPU processing and when applications take full advantage of Metal they perform very well on modest GPUs.

 

[Cashmonee]

I agree with a lot of others that the display is the iMac’s saving grace when it comes to value. Having said that, it is unfortunate that Apple chooses the highest end display for you without really giving another option. So yeah, the display adds significant value, but you are restricted from choosing a “lesser” display. A mini with a dGPU would solve this. As it is, if you want a desktop Mac with a dGPU, your only option is really the iMac unless you want to spend a ton on a Mac Pro or iMac Pro. The iMac display is gorgeous, but I would like the option to choose something more affordable so I can spend my budget on other components.

 

[smetvid]

I agree with a lot of others that the display is the iMac’s saving grace when it comes to value. Having said that, it is unfortunate that Apple chooses the highest end display for you without really giving another option. So yeah, the display adds significant value, but you are restricted from choosing a “lesser” display. A mini with a dGPU would solve this. As it is, if you want a desktop Mac with a dGPU, your only option is really the iMac unless you want to spend a ton on a Mac Pro or iMac Pro. The iMac display is gorgeous, but I would like the option to choose something more affordable so I can spend my budget on other components.

Which is the single biggest problem about Apple. Not that their systems don’t have great value but that they don’t give enough flexible options for every user. I agree that we should have the option of the top 27” guys in the 21” screen if we ar perfectly ok with a 4k monitor. I personally prefer a pair of 24” 4k monitors to a single 5k monitor. This is precisely why the Mac Mini is such a beloved Mac for many users. It’s the only Mac that allows flexibility besides the trash can Mac Pro. Thanks to TB3 even the GPU is not a big deal anymore and users can select whatever they want. If money is no object then just get the best but sometimes people need to compromise in certain areas to boost the stuff that matters to th m th most. SSD storage is another such topic. On the iMac you basically get a HDD or insanely fast flash storage as an option. I’m willing to bet most users would be perfectly fine with a 500 MB/S SSD vs a 2000 MB/S flash storage.

 

[Jamers99]

The value is the iMac itself. It has value with a lot of profit but in.

 

[Bayshun]

Razer can get manage to get a desktop GPU in their laptops, but Apple can't get a desktop GPU in their desktops.

Mind blown.

 

[nihil0]

try selling AIO PC or custom built PC after 4-5 years and try selling the iMac and you will see, where the poor value really is

 

[TheyCallMeBT]

try selling AIO PC or custom built PC after 4-5 years and try selling the iMac and you will see, where the poor value really is

I'm getting $490 on Apple store trade in for my 2013 27" iMac. I don't sell things like this on eBay, but I could get a little more there. Pretty good to me. I've paid about $510 per year for the computer, so I'm getting about a year's worth back.

 

[cynics]

Razer can get manage to get a desktop GPU in their laptops, but Apple can't get a desktop GPU in their desktops.

Mind blown.

I might be looking at the wrong laptop but many (most?) use the Max-Q variant which isn't a desktop GPU.

RTX 20 Series with Max-Q design. The specs of the unit gets vague and leave this out.

I'm not saying its bad, might even be better than a lot of iMac options however you shouldn't expect desktop performance.

Above RTX 2060 performance is impressive out of a thin laptop no doubt and would likely be even better out of an iMac.

 

[Bayshun]

I might be looking at the wrong laptop but many (most?) use the Max-Q variant which isn't a desktop GPU.

This is the one to which I was referring:

https://www.razer.com/gaming-laptops/razer-blade-pro/shop

It uses a desktop GTX 1080. It hasn’t yet been refreshed for this year.

 

[cynics]

This is the one to which I was referring:

https://www.razer.com/gaming-laptops/razer-blade-pro/shop

It uses a desktop GTX 1080. It hasn’t yet been refreshed for this year.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Razer-Blade-Pro-2017-i7-7820HK-GTX-1080-4K-Laptop-Review.253308.0.html

Its "inferior performance" is still very respectable. And we all know Macs can thermal throttle which would limit performance too but I wouldn't consider it all that amazing to stick a 1080 into a machine and reduce its power so it works.

To me Razor is the Apple of PC's. Thats a laptop that's slightly old, with slightly older hardware (7th gen intel, Geforce 10 series) with very good design, high build quality with high quality materials and has some nice little touches (RAID 0) for a big price (4k $3500 dollars start).

 

[Bayshun]

And we all know Macs can thermal throttle which would limit performance too but I wouldn't consider it all that amazing to stick a 1080 into a machine and reduce its power so it works.

Yeah but it’s a laptop running a desktop GPU. Apple can’t find a way to make their much physically larger desktop, with all the additional room for cooling, run a desktop GPU?

 

[smetvid]

Razer can get manage to get a desktop GPU in their laptops, but Apple can't get a desktop GPU in their desktops.

Mind blown.

Because most Mac users prefer a system that balances performance with noise and power usage. Laptop GPUs are designed to use much less power and generate less noise and heat. Apple just feels that even on a desktop keeping the energy bill lower is a good thing.

There is gaming and then there is obsession gaming where the game can only be enjoyed at ultra settings at 5k resolution. I think a lot of general game players are ok dropping the quality slightly to still play an enjoyable game but not have a 1200 watt power supply and jet engine fan in a huge tower cas just to do so. It’s not even a form over function thing. Sometimes form can be function to some users.

I have said this a thousand times in the past but not every computer user needs a 1080 it level of computer to enjoy games. If that were the case then no other GPUs would exist.

 

[Bayshun]

Because most Mac users prefer a system that balances performance with noise and power usage. Laptop GPUs are designed to use much less power and generate less noise and heat. Apple just feels that even on a desktop keeping the energy bill lower is a good thing.

There is gaming and then there is obsession gaming where the game can only be enjoyed at ultra settings at 5k resolution. I think a lot of general game players are ok dropping the quality slightly to still play an enjoyable game but not have a 1200 watt power supply and jet engine fan in a huge tower cas just to do so. It’s not even a form over function thing. Sometimes form can be function to some users.

I have said this a thousand times in the past but not every computer user needs a 1080 it level of computer to enjoy games. If that were the case then no other GPUs would exist.

I'm not arguing form versus function. People can base their purchase on whatever they want. But the fact that Razer can get a desktop 1080 in their 17-inch laptop, but Apple uses a laptop GPU in their 27-inch desktop suggests to me that this is either a cost-saving measure, or they just aren't trying. There's no way a company as large and wealthy as Apple can't figure that out. A laptop which, by the way, is similar in form factor to a MacBook Pro, and thus doesn't need a huge tower case or giant jet engine fan to keep it cool.

I also highly doubt that anyone who is paying nearly $2000 for a desktop PC is too concerned about keeping their energy costs slightly lower.