Sidebar Sidebar
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

People are clearly missing the market for this.
The new iMac is more then capable of editing documents, sending email, and browsing Facebook. Perfect for home or school use.


What difference does it make what some benchmarking app designed to push CPU performance to 100% when 99.9% of the time the target demographic doesn't push past 10% CPU utilization?


Are iPads useless?
 
So you pay 83% of the cost of the higher spec'd machine and get 60% of the performance. Makes sense.
 
OneMike said:
Still doesn't make sense. If so as in the past this device couldn't been made available only for educational purchases.
Click to expand...

Past != Present

Also, this way, it would be avaliable globally, as oposed as only in the USA.

And in case you forgot (Globally - USA) > USA ;)
 
Still too expensive!
Apple always brags about home many visitors they get in Apple stores. They need cheaper machines for people to go home with a Mac in the bag.
This is a bad deal. The 599 Mac mini has better CPU performance. You could get a 899 MacBook Air with a very nice monitor instead.
Why did they do this? Less of a hassle buying a different chip I suppose?

Also Apple doesn't budge on educational pricing. Chromebooks are really hot in education right now. Apple is dropping the ball here....
 
ThisIsNotMe said:
People are clearly missing the market for this.
The new iMac is more then capable of editing documents, sending email, and browsing Facebook. Perfect for home or school use.


What difference does it make what some benchmarking app designed to push CPU performance to 100% when 99.9% of the time the target demographic doesn't push past 10% CPU utilization?


Are iPads useless?
Click to expand...

I think the point here is that it is a DESKTOP, where power/performance should be at the top. Sure it is supposed to be "low-cost" but everyone did not expect performance to tank that low.
 
Piggie said:
$200 dollars less.

1: Slower CPU (computer generally)
2: Slower GPU (slower graphics generally)
3: Half the HDD Storage space 500GB instead of 1TB

Errrrr. Why?

One of the "Exciting New Products" for 2014 eh Tim?

In the UK the price difference between a 500GB and 1TB HDD is about £10 (that's $16 US Dollars)

So for a machine still over a Thousand Dollars, (plus sales tax) you are going to cut the HDD drive size in half for the sake of $16 (or less to Apple) difference.

Pretty sad to do that (and the CPU/GPU thing) on a machine with this total cost :(
Click to expand...

For $50 you can upgrade this iMac to 1TB.
 
tylersdad said:
So you pay 83% of the cost of the higher spec'd machine and get 60% of the performance. Makes sense.
Click to expand...

If you only need 60% of the performance then you just saved some money. Many goods are like this.

littyboy said:
I think the point here is that it is a DESKTOP, where power/performance should be at the top. Sure it is supposed to be "low-cost" but everyone did not expect performance to tank that low.
Click to expand...

Show us where we can find these rules, like 'sits on a desk, therefore power/performance should be at the top'.
 
monaarts said:
I don't understand why people are getting grumpy about this. My father-in-law just bought a mac because he was tired of having so many issues with Windows PC's and he wanted the cheapest thing because all he does is email, internet, and MS Office. This would have been more than enough for him.

Think of that logic for elementary schools. They get a bunch of Mac's for cheaper that have more power than they need for basic stuff. This works out for a lot of people. Just because you don't want a Mac this slow doesn't mean it isn't a great alternative to many others.
Click to expand...

Plus if you're outfitting a school district you're not trolling about the refurb store hoping to pick up 500 - 2,000 identical computers
 
monaarts said:
I don't understand why people are getting grumpy about this. My father-in-law just bought a mac because he was tired of having so many issues with Windows PC's and he wanted the cheapest thing because all he does is email, internet, and MS Office. This would have been more than enough for him.

Think of that logic for elementary schools. They get a bunch of Mac's for cheaper that have more power than they need for basic stuff. This works out for a lot of people. Just because you don't want a Mac this slow doesn't mean it isn't a great alternative to many others.
Click to expand...

Because it's extremely over priced for what you get. Not a hard concept
 
Magrathea said:
Yet again those complaining about the speed have no idea that the vast majority of buyers at this price point won't give a monkey's arse about speed and no SSD for the light emailing and internetting that they do.

Is it a bargain price, no, if you want a bargain get a PC and the all in ones from Dell and Co. are quite pricey too. Sure it should be cheaper but it's not so move on.
Click to expand...

You can get an Acer all-in-one with a 23 inch touchscreen monitor, 1TB drive, 2.5 GHz cpu for nearly $200 less that will run circles around this new iMac. They are extravagantly overpriced.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/acer-aspire-u-series-23-touch-screen-all-in-one-computer-intel-core-i5-8gb-memory-1tb-hard-drive/3289007.p?id=1219090033877&skuId=3289007&st=categoryid$abcat0501005&cp=1&lp=3
 
… No

This thing can't sell well... Right?
If anyone buys this instead of the 2.7 GHz proper iMac model, I no longer want to be part of humanity... Unless they do it for the environment or electricity bill.
 
Odd - my Steve Jobs quote of the day calendar - the one for June 16, was "We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk."

junk.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back