Not a very well thought out product at all! If Apple thinks this will replace the Mini they are effectively nuts.
I suspect the primary goal here is to have a machine that the discounted can move and promote to the uninformed. Sad really.
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.
New Low-Cost iMac Nearly 50% Slower in Multi-Core, 10% Slower in Single-Core Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not a very well thought out product at all! If Apple thinks this will replace the Mini they are effectively nuts.
I suspect the primary goal here is to have a machine that the discounted can move and promote to the uninformed. Sad really.
Very sad, indeed. All those years Steve spent to make Apple the best of the best. Now this.
Embarrassing. At least I stopped recommending Apple before now.
Actually yes, even though they might not understand what dual core or quad core means. What they understand is performance and responsiveness.
The problem here is that people seldom do just one thing with their computers at a time. It is very very easy for a dual core machine to get bogged down by the normal users. Think about it, a user walks up to his machine plugs in his iPhone and opens up Safari and E-Mail at the same time, a dual core machine, especially one with a slow disk, will come to a crawl!
Then don't buy one! Everyone is different and has a different definition of "over priced." As I said in my example, my FIL wanted an iMac for some very basic stuff and had to spend $1300. This would have saved him $200. So for him, this wouldn't have been "over priced" and instead would have SAVED him money.
Thank You for making this post for me. The extra RAM in the iMac is worth $50 alone.(I'm actually quite impressed. When Apple wants to make something cheaper, the RAM is always the first to go) The 13" display on the MBA is also TN vs the much larger 21.5" IPS panel, which can easily run $200-$250.
I would never buy this, as to me, getting a used 2011 iMac or refurb 2012 would be a much better buy for the performance, but to call it overpriced would be incorrect.
Well Apple have been doing this for years on all their iMacs.
The same weak point with all iMacs, which is graphics.
They refuse to fit a desktop quality graphics card in their desktop machines as, due to Mr I've's amazing form over function design, if they did it would simply overheat, so they stick in a notebook graphics chip, and iMac's run plenty hot enough with just that.
That's why I always disliked Steve Job's lies telling people Apple make THE BEST computer, when they never fitted anything like the best, by miles GPU's.
Shame Apple were never interested in that market as that's what drove PC development so fast.
All-in-one market is meant to be sleek and beautiful, not gaming quality. If you want gaming quality graphics, you most likely will be looking at a desktop.
I don't know what you guys want! Is there another all-in-one out there with better graphics or something?
You're buying the wrong product if you're looking at apple to give two cents about gaming quality graphics chips.
That's nonsense, sorry. A web browser, an email app, and a phone sync won't bring a dual core machine like this to its knees. I do all of that, plus a virtual machine doing many more things and my dual core is a pleasure to use.
If you don't need portability then why not get a Mac Mini.
Cheaper
upgradeable ram and hardrives
dual hard drive
faster CPU
more versatile
upgradeable display
Just making a comparison with the macbook air would mean that some portability is required. For the $300 saved with a base air you can get an external display and external hard drive. Even if you upgrade the Ram on the air for $100 you could still get the external hard drive and display for around $200 and the air would run circles around the iMac because of the SSD.
So for about the same money you now have
Dual display
Winner mac book air
Storage
Winner macbook air
Portability
Winner macbook
Pixel density
Winner macbook air
can be use during a power failure
Winner macbook air
Passmark scores for single-threaded performance aren't much different than the 2.7 GHz CPU of the $1299 model (1573 vs 1674):
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2238&cmp[]=1811
Now, multithreaded performance, yeah, it's about 65% the speed.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2238&cmp[]=1811
Now, multithreaded performance, yeah, it's about 65% the speed.
Can someone explain this to me?
I thought the other iMacs were using Iris Pro 5200's, not 4600's
Ya, Apple wanted a cheap CPU with HD5000 and there are no CPUs other than the notebook one that has it
This will be fine for the majority of households. I can run AutoCAD and play Starcraft on the same processor in the MacBook Air. It really is good enough computing which is great for most users who will only use Safari and iTunes.
Most consumers will not notice the difference between this and the higher spec models plus they get OSX with free updates and iWork and iLife. And Apple retains it's margins while appealing to more users.
It's a win-win. Smart move.
----------
Mac mini requires buying a screen and a keyboard and a mouse. And most consumers are not comfortable upgrading the components of a Mac mini themselves. Additionally most users only use basic single threaded programs on their desktops and there is minimal performance difference. As a result, for them, the iMac is a much neater solution with less wires that offers good enough computing. Plus it's an IPS display.
----------
No it's not true.
----------
Macs have never been the go to computer for gamers. And for casual gamers HD5000 is enough.
I can easily play Starcraft II on my Air on low-mid settings and that's good enough for me.
Most consumers will not notice the difference between this and the higher spec models plus they get OSX with free updates and iWork and iLife. And Apple retains it's margins while appealing to more users.
It's a win-win. Smart move.
----------
MacBook Air doesn't appeal to families that want a desktop.
Mac mini requires buying a screen and a keyboard and a mouse. And most consumers are not comfortable upgrading the components of a Mac mini themselves. Additionally most users only use basic single threaded programs on their desktops and there is minimal performance difference. As a result, for them, the iMac is a much neater solution with less wires that offers good enough computing. Plus it's an IPS display.
----------
No it's not true.
----------
What you want and what most people need are two very different things.
Macs have never been the go to computer for gamers. And for casual gamers HD5000 is enough.
I can easily play Starcraft II on my Air on low-mid settings and that's good enough for me.
That is why there is no point in comparing it to the air unless portability is required.
This is meant for people on a budget and want a mac. The Mac mini thats is 2 years old provides way better value. If the mini ever gets updated would provide even greater value.
I would hate to be in a school IT department and have to change hard drive from an out of warranty iMac. I think it's a disservice for a school to run these as upgrade and service cost will be very high.
They are not all using 5200's.
21.5"
i5 4570R ( Iris Pro 5200 )
i5 4570S HD 4600 discrete GT 750M
i7 4770S HD 4600 <see above >
27"
i5 4570 HD 4600 + discrete GPU
i5 4670 HD 4600 + discrete GPU
i7 4771 HD 4600 + discrete GPU
This comment about "only HD5000 or above " implicitly is only the subset of Macs without discrete GPUs. ( and not non updated configs from over a year a ago Mac Mini and regular MBP 13" )
I'm sorry but I have to call you out on this because it's feeding completely false information. Dual core machines do not come to a crawl when you open safari and mail let alone most of the applications that most people will use.
Most users will not notice any performance difference between this model and the higher priced model due to the near equivalent single threaded performance of the processors.
No thank you! Go Buy a Mac mini which is much faster for a lot less.
1.4ghz? I'm still selling eMacs that are 1.42 ghz for $99 a pop that have 2gb ram usb 2 and SuperDrive built in! Apple's trying to move into my low end mac market. ;-)
----------
Steve Jobs is dead and this is what happens. He'd be screaming for the 4ghz chips by now but they are DOA. Time for the A7 iMac. At this speed the A7 will be faster.
1.4ghz? I'm still selling eMacs that are 1.42 ghz for $99 a pop that have 2gb ram usb 2 and SuperDrive built in! Apple's trying to move into my low end mac market. ;-)
----------
Steve Jobs is dead and this is what happens. He'd be screaming for the 4ghz chips by now but they are DOA. Time for the A7 iMac. At this speed the A7 will be faster.
You missed the part where I wrote that the iMac is a much neater solution. Most families want a clean desktop without any wires and external displays and the Mac mini does not solve this issue. Additionally, most external screens look ugly on a desk.
Plus they are not going to replace the hard drive themselves on an out of warranty iMac they will take it to the Genius Bar. So your point about repair ability is not relevant to the average family, which this machine is intended to target.
----------
I highly doubt you eve recommended Apple to anyone.
If you cannot see that this will appeal to families who only need a basic all in one computer then you are either naive or trolling.
More like pragmatically sub $200 these days.
http://www.amazon.com/HP-Pavilion-22bw-21-5-Monitor/dp/B00BQ2BYPG
http://www.amazon.com/Dell-CFGKT-IPS-LED-21-5-Inch-LED-lit-Monitor/dp/B009H0XQPU/
Unless have to be an all Apple set up, a Mac Mini + $200 IPS monitor budget makes some sense. Would make even more if Mini was simply updated to 4600 status (or better) at same price points.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.