New Low-Cost iMac Nearly 50% Slower in Multi-Core, 10% Slower in Single-Core Benchmarks

[coldjeanzzz]

This is the same **** Apple did with the SSD in the MacBook Air.

They made the MacBook Air cheaper but cut the SSD speed dramatically!

I really don't like this trend.

Instead of people waiting for new products to be faster for the same price or cheaper, they make it slower and cheaper?!

What about the power users!! The ones who waited to get a beast machine! They got to upgrade this low end version and end up paying more!

And to all you blind people defending Apple, you are very stupid!

Imagine you have a iPhone 5s waiting for the iPhone 6... Then they announce a $100 cheaper phone that looks just like the iPhone 5s but has a A6, and kept the normal iPhone 5s still $200... That's what there doing in the computer categorie.

So in other words, what if Apple released the iPhone 5c and no 5s. Just a cheaper 5c and still full priced $200 iphone 5.

Do you understand now why we're mad!!
We want faster machines not lower priced weaker ones!!!

.

Don't forget when they dropped the price of the 13" rMBP last year, but then also dropped the RAM from 8 GB to 4 GB.

This is how Apple operates now it seems. Fool the masses who know very little about specs into thinking they are paying less for a Mac but at the same time providing less. It's a joke

 

[scottsjack]

Quit griping. I bet this thing sounds great playing compressed-to-death, steaming music through Apples new ghettophones.

 

[paulsdenton]

You get what you pay for. Ancient proverb.

 

[omgwut]

This is what happens when some people cry hoarse for cheaper things with better performance. Just not gonna happen.

Even my 2011 iMac 21.5" performs better than this. What I didnt do was cry that I want it cheaper. When I want a better thing, I would rather pay its worth.

The irony is that almost no one of the crybabies is ever gonna use even this iMac to its full potential. They just crave the pseudo-satisfaction of knowing that they got something with great potential, forget the eventual disuse.

I can agree with that.

I guess it just seems daft to me, purely with the limitations on performance and storage in mind and already knowing about other avenues like official refurbs that this would be a model with a price point that people will gravitate to. But that's part of the market test I guess. If the savings are lukewarm for what the offering is we'll find out eventually.

 

[PocketSand11]

This is what happens when some people cry hoarse for cheaper things with better performance. Just not gonna happen.

Even my 2011 iMac 21.5" performs better than this. What I didnt do was cry that I want it cheaper. When I want a better thing, I would rather pay its worth.

The irony is that almost no one of the crybabies is ever gonna use even this iMac to its full potential. They just crave the pseudo-satisfaction of knowing that they got something with great potential, forget the eventual disuse.

If you're ever using your computer, and it needs to load something for a noticeable amount of time, it could use more power.

This iMac has the worst power-to-price (for the time) ratio I've ever seen on a desktop Mac. We all know why, elastic supply and inelastic demand. The price is determined much more by how much people want it than by how much it costs Apple to make it. Plus it would cannibalize higher-end Mac sales more if it were a better deal. This computer is for whoever wants a new desktop Mac cheap no matter what. A refurbished one for the same price is way better.

We MacRumors users are really disappointed that the low-end iMac was hyped up for so long then turned out to be useless for most of us.

 

[octothorpe8]

Yuck. If you need to save $200, better idea to get a refurb.

Yep. Like this:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FE086LL/A/refurbished-215-inch-imac-27ghz-quad-core-Intel-Core-i5

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

These just look like bean-counter moves.

Agreed. This does look like a bean-counter move. Apple needs to reverse that trend.

 

[Alumeenium]

so much disappoint

 

[Orlandoech]

People say the same thing about Kia & Hyundai.

Now that, is... funny.

 

[Thares]

Is it that hard to understand?

Education market!

If it was just for the education market, they'd use their special education market page - instead of putting it in the window of their 5th Avenue Apple Store.

 

[Jeff750]

This is for non-power users

This is really good for Apple's bottom line. The cost saving of the reduced content relative to the next higher model is much, much more than $200 - so Apple pockets a much higher margin on this than on other iMacs.

This machine is for people who primarily surf the web and send e-mail. It's perfect for them. A new machine, new warranty, the ability to claim "new" iMac to their friends. Many people out there - not us, certainly - are the target customer for this machine. I have no issue with it.

 

[Orlandoech]

its beautifully and magically SLOW

God, so many good posts today lol. Makes me

 

[zonk44]

This machine is for people who primarily surf the web and send e-mail.

The iPad Air costs $499

 

[brentsg]

This is really good for Apple's bottom line. The cost saving of the reduced content relative to the next higher model is much, much more than $200 - so Apple pockets a much higher margin on this than on other iMacs.

How so? The 500GB vs 1TB spinner HD is going to save Apple a sliver of cost, but the CPU in the cheaper model is actually more expensive than the quad in the next model up. We can all speculate about Apple's deals with Intel, but we really don't know.

 

[ronm99]

All of the negative comments miss the point of the device. While I would never personally buy it, the speed of the computer is perfectly acceptable for browsing the web, editing documents, etc. There are lots of businesses and schools that do little else with their computers, and for them, saving almost 20% is a big deal.

The "40%" slower is also very misleading. These geekbench scores unfortunately put way too much emphasis on multi-core performance. Having two cores is a big deal vs a single core since it allows one core to focus on one task while the other handles various OS related activities in the background. However, other than geekbench benchmark runs, not many activities really take advantage of many threads (ripping DVDs or CDs will speed up a lot, maybe some games, but not much else).

 

[Anitramane]

Wow... This mac is a total piece of that new fancy thrash can when it comes to price/performance with the other macs...

----------

Huh? This is the same CPU that's in the current MacBook Air.

Much, much faster than the "old core2duo's".

This makes me feel like this has happaned:

Apple had a ****load of Macbook air boards they had no use for so they made a new Imac that’s a turtle.

 

[iSee]

Oh come on guys, it's not that bad.

The big difference in speed is between 4 cores and 2.

Open up activity monitor on your iMac and watch how often you actually go past 2 cores. Yeah, this machine is not going to be a champ at video transcoding or compiling large C++ projects or a few other things. But day-to-day it's fine.

New low-end options don't bother me... as long as they don't get in the way of new high-end options.

 

[charlieroberts]

How so? The 500GB vs 1TB spinner HD is going to save Apple a sliver of cost, but the CPU in the cheaper model is actually more expensive than the quad in the next model up. We can all speculate about Apple's deals with Intel, but we really don't know.

Exactly the point i was trying to make!

Apple saves very little money on the new iMac compared to the previous entry level. I would seriously doubt they save 150$, yet people scream overpriced.
I'd argue that margins are slimmer for the new imac, and as such would make it more fairly priced...

 

[G4DP]

All of the negative comments miss the point of the device. While I would never personally buy it, the speed of the computer is perfectly acceptable for browsing the web, editing documents, etc. There are lots of businesses and schools that do little else with their computers, and for them, saving almost 20% is a big deal.

The "40%" slower is also very misleading. These geekbench scores unfortunately put way too much emphasis on multi-core performance. Having two cores is a big deal vs a single core since it allows one core to focus on one task while the other handles various OS related activities in the background. However, other than geekbench benchmark runs, not many activities really take advantage of many threads (ripping DVDs or CDs will speed up a lot, maybe some games, but not much else).

Schools and large business' do not waste money on Mac's, they buy computers in 1000's strike major deals with Dell or HP. Small science labs may have a few macs, but they want power not this half baked waste of plastic.

All major software is written or currently be re-written to take full advantage of multiple cores. Apple are just being tight.

If this is the idea of the most exciting product line in 25 years, they are smoking some very strong stuff at Apple HQ.

 

[Destroysall]

*****!

It should be $799

Agreed. Definitely not worth $1099.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Hopefully this leads to an increase in profits for Apple. After all, that is what is most important.


Disclaimer: This post is intended to be humorous. Any resemblance to actual MacRumors posts is purely intentional.

 

[brentsg]

Exactly the point i was trying to make!

Apple saves very little money on the new iMac compared to the previous entry level. I would seriously doubt they save 150$, yet people scream overpriced.
I'd argue that margins are slimmer for the new imac, and as such would make it more fairly priced...

If it's even a dollar cheaper to produce, then it's in a complicated supply chain way that none of us are privy to.

 

[twigman08]

Guess I'm one of the few who doesn't view this as horrible.

Judging based off the specs of this computer and what I remembered what my grandmother wanted when she just bought a new computer that I was helping her pick out this would had been the perfect choice for her. She did not want a mobile device or a laptop (don't ask me, she just wanted a desktop so I'm not going to argue with my grandmother about it). If this was around this would had been excellent for her. A great OS that she would hardly ever have to do any work on, just turn it on, sit down, check her email, have her photos of her husband/my grandfather that passed away couple months ago on an excellent screen, play her little online card game, keep up with her grand kids, great grand kinds, then move on.

Guess I will be one of the few who like this. But computers are getting too hard for the normal people who don't understand what the heck any of the specs are talking about to buy. They don't care what the heck a core is, difference between an i3, i5, i7 are. That is absolutely gibberish to them. Guess I'll be one the one who doesn't complain about it.

 

[brentsg]

Schools and large business' do not waste money on Mac's, they buy computers in 1000's strike major deals with Dell or HP.

Ehh, I still see many schools packed full of Macs. These types of models will be great in a lot of environments. The daycare my kids attend for summer camp has a couple of iMacs in every room. Sure, we aren't talking about thousands, but they have maybe a hundred of them. So that's $20,000 saved if they're buying. Sadly, that might be the difference in being able to add another kindergarten teacher to the payroll.

 

[mrnoglue]

Wow... lot of negativity here.

Everyone is missing the bigger picture. This is clearly a move to open up Apple's pricing in order to fit in a new (retina) line.

My money is on a crowded macintosh line for end of 2014-mid 2015:

• Mac mini priced at 499, 699
• Macbook Air (non-retina) two sizes (11 & 13 inch) priced at 799 and 899
• Macbook Air (retina) two sizes (11 & 13 inch) priced at 999 and 1199
• Macbook Pro (retina) one size (15 inch) priced at 1399
• iMac (non-retina) two sizes (21 & 27) priced at 1099 and 1399
• iMac (retina) two sizes (21 & 27) priced at 1499 and 1999
• Mac Pro at 2999

Apple is making room to hit every price point between $500 - $3k, phasing in retina displays over the course of the next year.

Then, end of 2015 - mid 2016 =

• Mac mini at 499, 699
• Macbook Air (retina) two sizes (11 & 13) priced at 899, 1099
• Macbook Pro (retina) priced at 1399
• iMac (retina) two sizes (21 &27) priced at 1299, 1499
• Mac Pro at 2999

Phase in the cost of the new technology over the course of the year and end with a streamlined offering. Sounds like a Tim Cook plan.

Edit: timing and price might be a bit off but you get the general idea.