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

Really sad to see notebook class chips go into a desktop machine.

I get that the $200 savings is a lot for many people and this lower price point is friendlier and more enticing for people who want to get a Mac but I personally think that anyone considering a tech purchase should eat the $200 and get a better machine, one that isn't 40% slower.
 
Don't get all the negativity. This is a good machine for schools or office. Hell, I'm tempted to order some for our student lab, the performance is more than adequate and the price savings are significant. For an average user who uses the machine for browsing, office, mail and media playback, this will perform just as good as the next tier one. If you want a faster desktop, Apple already offers one.

I agree that this model should have been cheaper, but hey, its Apple we are talking about.
 
pearvsapple said:
Only $200 cheaper with Macbook Air specs... on a desktop. GTFO.
Click to expand...

But it is the same price as a MBA. This performs slightly better in Geekbench, has twice as much RAM and 5 times the storage as well as a much bigger, and better screen. The only downside is that it is a HDD vs SSD.
 
Gudi said:
9x! Apple advertises its PCIe SSD as 9 times faster than a 5400rpm HDD. The MacBook Air runs circles around this iMac. Not only price-wise also performance-wise, this isn't a 2014 entry-level desktop. If only it had a Fusion Drive.
Click to expand...

The PCIe based Flash for the 13" MBA w/ 128Gb of flash storage is 3X faster write, and 7 times faster read. It is only the 512 model will gain you the 9X faster speeds.

This iMac is priced almost spot on with the entry 13" Macbook Air. Let's compare them then:

Screen
iMac = 21.5" 1920x1080
MBA= 13.3 "1440x900
winner = easily the iMac

Processor
They have the same processor, but the iMac performs around 10-15% faster multicore wise.
winner = iMac

GPU
They both have the same GPU (Intel HD 5000)
winner = draw

RAM
iMac = 8Gb
MBA = 4Gb
winner = easily the iMac

Storage Capacity
iMac = 500Gb
MBA = 128Gb
winner = easily the iMac

Storage Speed
iMac = 100Mbps read and write
MBA = 700Mbps read and 300Mbps write
winner = easily the MBA

This really isn't overpriced when compared to the MBA. I'd say it is a very tough chose for anyone that is looking to spend roughly £900 on a Mac (or £700 on a refurb version) and doesn't need it to be portable.
 
Lancetx said:
It's not at all uncommon to see the current $1,299 model on sale at retailers for $100-150 off, not to even mention that refurbs are only $1,099 direct from Apple right now.
Click to expand...


What is unknown is if retailers will still discount the "old" entry model down to $1,099 when they actually have a $1,099 model to offer. Part of the screw up here is that Apple raised the base entry price when they introduced these new iMacs over the last 2 years. $1,199 used to be where things were at (and often discounted close to $1,099 ). What has happend over last almost 2 years is that Apple moved in price and many customers did NOT. That is primarily why the retailers are dumping the entry iMacs at thinner ( or no ? ) margins.
 
Really surprised with this, I would not have expected it to be this underpowered at that price point. Make it more competitive on power or else cheaper! And why put a low voltage processor in a desktop? I know this will appeal to some customers looking for a low-cost option where performance isn't a top priority, but I won't be one of them...
 
SoAnyway said:
I get that the $200 savings is a lot for many people and this lower price point is friendlier and more enticing for people who want to get a Mac but I personally think that anyone considering a tech purchase should eat the $200 and get a better machine, one that isn't 40% slower.
Click to expand...

It's only 40% slower for certain workflows. The target market for this isn't going to experience that.

I can't believe that people are taking this performance piece as news. Yes, dual core CPUs are roughly half as fast as quad core CPUs at workflows that benefit from parallelism. With CPUs generally being sub $300 on these types of machines, there's only so much price shaving that can be done by utilizing slower CPUs.

(though that last bit REALLY doesn't apply here)
 
Last edited:
No SSD, no fusion, slow CPU, no change in design and this cost? I mean really? It's iPhone 5C all over again...
 
ChrisA said:
This new iMac is fast enough for many uses, like running a work processor or web browser, playing videos. Not great for editing video but for occasional editing it would woe.

But I agree for $200 savings is trivial. It is not a different enough price. This iMac should have sold for $800. I think they need to address the expensive parts. Perhaps loose the aluminum case and go back to white plastic. Loose the Thunderbolt ports too. The person who is looking for low price is never going to buy a TB disk drive so just having USB3 is good enough. They could $300 more in cuts.
Click to expand...

I know people who done lots of heavy work (Photoshop, Illustrator, Cinema 4D, Premiere Pro...) on a 13" MBP 2012 without retina. That has half as much RAM as this, a slower graphics card, and the CPU performance is pretty much exactly the same. It is quite amazing what can be done (I'm not saying work never got finished as quick as it could have done on a Mac Pro, but it never ever felt slow).
 
twigman08 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you. It's amazing how many people have no ability to put themselves in the shoes of someone that doesn't care if their computer is some percentage slower than another computer on the market. Many people have no desire to try and keep up with new technology, they just want something that suits their needs and will last a while in the process. This iMac will do just that.
 
Cheaper iMac has a more expensive CPU?

The new low-end iMac carries a Core i5-4260U, which is priced at $315, while the second-tier one has a Core i5-4570R which is $255... how does it make sense to put a more expensive processor with lesser graphics (HD Graphics 5000 vs. Iris Pro Graphics 5200), which is geared towards an ultraportable like the MacBook Air.

It would make better business sense (to me) to put the 4570R into the new low-end iMac and upgrade de second-tier one with a 4670R (which costs $276, only $20 more); unless they really have a huge surplus of 4260Us hanging around, that is.
 
Naimfan said:
Yep, obscenely overpriced for what it offers . . .

Back to the bad old days!
Click to expand...

Agreed. I wonder what miracle Yosemite will have to do for providing a barely decent performance with these specs. RAM and processor are ok, but it should default to a cheaper fusion drive at least... like 64GB SSD + 500GB HDD.
 
twigman08 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's why google might win this with the chromebase and chromebooks!

Apple is really known for the iPhone and iPad. The apple store sees a lot of foot traffic. I'm sure only 5% of people who walk in the apple store wanting a Mac walkout with one....
Apple has the demand but just not the prices.
It would be nice to see consumers be able to complete the ecosystem with the iPhone, iPad and Mac.
 
Still loving my 2011 iMac!
Quad core processor
Dedicated Video Card
User upgradeable memory
DVD/CD Drive (yes I use this every day!)
Thunderbolt and Firewire ports (I also still use Firewire accessories).
 
patohi said:
That's why google might win this with the chromebase and chromebooks!

Apple is really known for the iPhone and iPad. The apple store sees a lot of foot traffic. I'm sure only 5% of people who walk in the apple store wanting a Mac walkout with one....
Apple has the demand but just not the prices.
It would be nice to see consumers be able to complete the ecosystem with the iPhone, iPad and Mac.
Click to expand...

The PC industry has been toiling for years. It's not a profit center. Apple is doing the smart thing by catering to the niche market they have. No other computer manufacturer really competes with Apple effectively.
 
ThisIsNotMe said:
Performance relative to what?

A Honda Civic is still a car but nobody thinks it is going to compare to an Acura let a long a Porsche.

Sometimes people just need a car and a Civic works fine of their needs.
Click to expand...

The Civic is priced a few dollars less than the Porche? Where is your Porche dealer? Thanks :)
 
omgwut said:
Yikes. Who would opt for this instead of a refurbished model? For a savings of a couple hundred a drop in performance that profound doesn't seem like a good tradeoff.
Click to expand...

It's not a good trade off. Apple will take advantage of unsophisticated new business. People heard us praise Apple for years. Apple is cashing in now. Unfortunate.
 
Tim:"Okay team. Here's what I want. At least as good of specs as the current lowest price model, if not better, and we will sell it for $899 !!!"
Jony:"Uh...Tim. We still want to be able to sell the more expensive models."
Tim:"Oh. Yeah. You're right about that one. So let's do what we can to knock off $200 and bring even more people into our happy family!!!"
 
markfc said:
Apple. Premium prices for mediocre hardware...
Click to expand...

Be funny if they designed a 6 core 27" iMac for 2014 with TB2 and the newer USB3 spec w/PCIe Flash... then you'd be salivating... I am praying for one! This is a good AIO for a net and office user tho.
 
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