What difference does it make. Ninety percent of you don't need all that horsepower anyway.
How do you know he is not in the rest 10% of people?
What difference does it make. Ninety percent of you don't need all that horsepower anyway.
Nice analogy.
Meanwhile, my old, fat, 2010 Mac Pro still runs circles around these new anorexic iMacs, when and where it matters.
Here this means that the mid-range Mac mini is faster than the mid-range iMac that's almost twice the price. True, you do get a display and a discrete GPU with the iMac, but these Geekbench results show how powerful the new Mac mini is despite its size.
is that all?
What difference does it make. Ninety percent of you don't need all that horsepower anyway.
Not true at all, unless you are running video editing or the like. My sig MP computer should be in the same neighborhood as the top 27" BTO, only the new 27" will have better video, usb 3, faster drive throughput and better cpu performance, albeit less cores.
The geek bench number is nice, but not a qualifier when comparing dual to single core Macs. That said, these speed bumps are dismal. Buy a mini--save a dollar or two.
The iMac will also have less expandability, no drive bays to add drives, it must be bought with the monitor, and you cannot upgrade the processor or change the video card.
The iMac is a locked box...the Mac Pro is an expandable power machine.
Almost all of the time, the benchmarks only compare the new to the old. What about switchers? I have a 2008 Mac Pro that's growing a little long in the tooth. I'd love to wait for the "new" Mac Pro, but who knows what it's going to be or how much it is. I don't know if I can spend another $3000 on a Mac.
I'm seriously considering switching to a 27" iMac. But I'd like to know on what order of magnitude it'll smoke my 4 year old Mac Pro. I played around with the last gen iMac at the Apple Store for 15 minutes months ago and I wasn't at all impressed with its shoddy multitasking and window/app switching with multiple pro apps open. I had Aperture, Logic and some other stuff open and it really started to bog down. And that was without actually "doing anything". I guess there's something to be said for that $300 ATI card in my Mac Pro.
But if I can get a new iMac for $1000 less that's faster, I might just consider it. I mean, I'd never buy the high end 12-core Mac Pro option anyway. It's just way too expensive.
The benchmarks on the site pretty much show the new iMac as being on-par with the entry-level 2010 Mac Pro. So you guys think it's safe to assume that the new iMac will be the same as my slightly upgraded 2008 Mac Pro with the upgraded ATI card and 8G of RAM?
...
In short, the new iMac joins the Macbook Air and the retina Macbook Pro as a disposable computer.
Apple, in my view, needs to get over its obsession with thinness.
So in exchange for more money, we get slightly faster performance which will be invisible to almost EVERY user of an iMac, no optical drive, a non-user upgradable machine, and a new design that values form over function.
In short, the new iMac joins the Macbook Air and the retina Macbook Pro as a disposable computer.
Apple, in my view, needs to get over its obsession with thinness.
And why, given the weight reduction and the elimination of the optical drive, does it cost MORE?
except the mini uses integrated grafx
Not true at all, unless you are running video editing or the like. My sig MP computer should be in the same neighborhood as the top 27" BTO, only the new 27" will have better video, usb 3, faster drive throughput and better cpu performance, albeit less cores.
Im always curious what people who say this do with their computers. I look at people like Louis C.K. who edited the first two seasons his show on a 13" MacBook Pro and then come here and see people moaning about benchmarks so Im curious what do you actually do that you need such power?
I have a 2010 27" i7 with 16GB ram.
I use it for email, interenet, music and a LOT of photos.
Also have a mid 2007 20" 2.0 dual core 2 with 3GB ram that we use for email, internet, our household music library and some photos. (Mountain Lion installed)
Day to day use I see little difference in these two machines other than screen size. (love my 27")
I know I am not a power user, but when people say such and such model is 15% faster....faster at doing what? You can't read emails faster, surf faster or play music faster. I'll grant you, that the person who works in the studio who makes videos or perhaps some engineer with a souped up Cad Cam program might notice a difference, I just think the normal person would see little to no difference and the difference comes at a high cost.
(I have an iPad 3 and they say the iPad 4 is twice as fast and I have the same questions)
AMEN!! Thinness alone is NOT innovation. I am waiting to find out the temperature of the back of this thing. My 2011 iMac is scalding hot on just normal usage.
The iMac will also have less expandability, no drive bays to add drives, it must be bought with the monitor, and you cannot upgrade the processor or change the video card.
The iMac is a locked box...the Mac Pro is an expandable power machine.