My PC cost me approx. $2350 1.5 years ago and it's called 2011 BTO 27" iMac. I love everything about it except when I paid extra $200 for i7 and $100 for 2GB VRAM options. What an exorbitant upgrades.
Yet I paid $50 for cheap 2x4GB 3rd party RAM.
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.
Opinion on iMac Huff Post review.
- Thread starter DelMac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My PC cost me approx. $2350 1.5 years ago and it's called 2011 BTO 27" iMac. I love everything about it except when I paid extra $200 for i7 and $100 for 2GB VRAM options. What an exorbitant upgrades.
Yet I paid $50 for cheap 2x4GB 3rd party RAM.
How dare non-synchophantic proles write less than orgasmic reviews of the Precious.
Burn the blasphemers at the stake.
Shoot the messenger.
Works every time.
Well, maybe for simple sheeple.
So you were saying:
Intel Core i7 3770 on BTO 2012 iMac vs. Xeon W3565 on quad MacPro?
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+W3565+@+3.20GHz&id=1270
GTX 680MX iMac vs. Radeon 5770 / 5870 on MacPro?
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
Yep .. the new iMac blows, or should I repeat again .. crush .. an outdated MacPro, spec wise. And for so called professional workstation worth $2500, I would expect more. Otherwise my logic would go with that disposable computer you were talking about, just because it's actually easier and cheaper to maintain both in short and long run. You know .. dispose and buy a new one
Your references do not apply here as they do not compare the iMac to the Mac Pro.
Remove the radiator from your car, run it full throttle and let me know how far you get.
Geekbench shows the Mac Pro as a shade faster than the iMac. So telling me to check my facts and that the iMac "crushes" the Mac Pro = you are wrong.
Fastest Single CPU Mac Pro you can get:
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1526987
Fastest iMac I do not recommend you get:
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1532374
If you opted for a dual CPU Mac Pro, then it is significantly faster then iMac.
iMac is perhaps a better value if you like the screen you are stuck with...I will give you that. But it does not "crush" the Mac Pro.
B
Absurd because it's true or absurd because it makes you question the apple mantra of "we're never wrong"?
Thus, if you read again my post, I always referred to QUAD MacPro which cost you $2500, again without the display, no more and no less. Quad core vs. quad core, fair and square. Your MacPro Geekbench score showed hexcore CPU cost $3000. Yep sure it's tad faster than i7 iMac, yet for having 2 more cores, it only scores averagely 10% more. Obviously CPU-wise, a hex, dual quad, or dual hex MP has more resources assuming the software can utilize all the cores.
But you also need to remember GTX680MX on iMac is already faster than 5770/5870 on MacPro. It's a slap on the face for MacPro users from Apple.
MacPro 2010 quad core Xeon W3565 I was referring to:
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1533324
And based on my experience, my 2011 iMac could run hours of encoding without being overheated or emergency shutdown. It's safe to say unless you're being abusive, iMac could withstand virtually any computing activities just fine.
Yea right .. so you would pay $600 and get 32GB RAM kit directly from
with your 27" iMac order?If iMac has user-accesible and replaceable CPU and GPU, would you get i7 and nVidia upgrades right from Apple?
Yea right ..
Yea right .. so you would pay $600 and get 32GB RAM kit directly from
If iMac has user-accesible and replaceable CPU and GPU, would you get i7 and nVidia upgrades right from Apple?
Yea right ..
I meant build your own windows/linux machine, not mac
I meant build your own windows/linux machine, not mac
I am capable enough to build my own PC box. There's no such thing as "build my own Mac" unless it's a Hackintosh.
Was only checking the logic from someone who thought every single price tag Apple put on their products is perfectly spot on and .. just right ... and .. not expensive at all ..
Hanging out at Huff too long -
in the end will become a mush bucket of delusional dribble.
Or there again there's the old but true saying "there's none as blind as those who will not see".
This is really easy arguement to resolve. Can folks with the new 21.5 inch machine please post some HD benchmark results. It all comes down to actual performance.
In my case, I installed a 2.5 WD Scorpio Blue in a 2009 Mac mini and was getting 99Mbps on the Blackmagic speed test. Even for a contemporary 3.5 7200 rpm drive (rotations per minute FTW) those would be good numbers, which typically benchmark in the 75 to 120Mbps depending on price and grade.
In my case, I installed a 2.5 WD Scorpio Blue in a 2009 Mac mini and was getting 99Mbps on the Blackmagic speed test. Even for a contemporary 3.5 7200 rpm drive (rotations per minute FTW) those would be good numbers, which typically benchmark in the 75 to 120Mbps depending on price and grade.
Question about upgrading the 21.5" iMac
I was wondering if anyone has actually upgraded one. One lesson I learned on my 2006 MBP was that the reassemble process is critical. Getting the seal on the unit even slightly loose resulted in air "leaks" that degraded cooling efficiency, resulting in temperature rise.
If it really takes breaking a seal on the iMac, does it go back together properly so that you don't end up with a thermally degraded less reliable computer.
I've upgraded virtually every Mac I've ever owned with more RAM and a bigger faster HDD to extend it's useable life. So I'd like to know if it really can be done at home
I was wondering if anyone has actually upgraded one. One lesson I learned on my 2006 MBP was that the reassemble process is critical. Getting the seal on the unit even slightly loose resulted in air "leaks" that degraded cooling efficiency, resulting in temperature rise.
If it really takes breaking a seal on the iMac, does it go back together properly so that you don't end up with a thermally degraded less reliable computer.
I've upgraded virtually every Mac I've ever owned with more RAM and a bigger faster HDD to extend it's useable life. So I'd like to know if it really can be done at home
and I am telling you that if the price of macs matters so much and affects you so badly why do you go and buy them? I have actually forgotten what we were originally discussing so lets just drop it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0M6pv9qAH4 @ 2:10 ~
Plus the fact that 2.5" 1TB 7200rpm drives aren't readily available and cost much more than their slower spinning brethren makes me think Apple made the right decision. 99% of users probably wouldn't even notice the difference between 5400 and 7200rpm in real world use.
7200 vs 5400 rpm
I put a 500 GB 2.5 in 7200 rpm in my 2006 MBP (replacing the 5400 rpm drive) and the whole machine was significantly snappier doing almost everything...copying and backups, opening apps, editing music and video files was much improved. The drive wasn't very expensive, not much more than a 5400 rpm one. You have to shop around because prices are all over the place.
An interesting note-if you look at Seagate's website and look for specs on their external drives, they don't tell you much any more. I asked their tech support about it and they said their externals now mostly have 5400 rpm drives in them because their performance is limited by USB bandwidth. Not reall on topic here, but though you might be interested. I told them I wasn't really interested in buying a drive without specs. All they showed were dimensions basically. Jaheezus.
----------
You can't compare the costs of simply adding an SSD to a computer versus opting for Apple's fusion drive. It not the same. The fusion drive is much more than just another mountable disk. It uses intelligence to manage often-used versus rarely-used data. That difference is worth some $. I'm not sure it's worth the whopping surcharge unless you are doing very intensive work like video editing where huge files are being processed much of the time, saved, un-saved etc.
And for gamers, going to an SSD won't make your game run any faster at all if the machine already has an HDD that is fast enough to supply data at the rate required to support the frames/sec that it already runs. It might help way out in the future some, but it's likely that the processor and graphics card design would be the limiting factor then.
I put a 500 GB 2.5 in 7200 rpm in my 2006 MBP (replacing the 5400 rpm drive) and the whole machine was significantly snappier doing almost everything...copying and backups, opening apps, editing music and video files was much improved. The drive wasn't very expensive, not much more than a 5400 rpm one. You have to shop around because prices are all over the place.
An interesting note-if you look at Seagate's website and look for specs on their external drives, they don't tell you much any more. I asked their tech support about it and they said their externals now mostly have 5400 rpm drives in them because their performance is limited by USB bandwidth. Not reall on topic here, but though you might be interested. I told them I wasn't really interested in buying a drive without specs. All they showed were dimensions basically. Jaheezus.
----------
You can't compare the costs of simply adding an SSD to a computer versus opting for Apple's fusion drive. It not the same. The fusion drive is much more than just another mountable disk. It uses intelligence to manage often-used versus rarely-used data. That difference is worth some $. I'm not sure it's worth the whopping surcharge unless you are doing very intensive work like video editing where huge files are being processed much of the time, saved, un-saved etc.
And for gamers, going to an SSD won't make your game run any faster at all if the machine already has an HDD that is fast enough to supply data at the rate required to support the frames/sec that it already runs. It might help way out in the future some, but it's likely that the processor and graphics card design would be the limiting factor then.
That would make no sense at all. At the very least a 7.2k drive paired with a 64GB SSD. The added cost is negligible, even if you look at the 1TB 7.2k drives that are out now.
My point was that a 500gb 5400rpm drive paired with a 64gb SSD would have been roughly the same cost to Apple as a 1TB 5400rpm drive. So Apple could have kept the same price point and margins. Also would have satisfied any concerned they may had about any extra heat and noise a 7200rpm drive may create.
See how I used the word 'probably'? That sort of assertion doesn't require a source because it is by it's nature my opinion from using various Windows and Apple PCs over the past decade.
Not that it matters, the simple fact remains that a 1TB 2.5" 7200rpm drive costs $250-300 versus $80-100 for a 5400rpm drive. That is why the 21.5" model uses a slower drive.
So we go full circle then and agree that the latest 21.5" iMac is a retrograde step when viewed against the outgoing models? In essence it's now a Laptop wearing Desktop clothes.
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. How is it a retrograde? It has a faster CPU, better graphics and more ram than the previous model. The only difference is a 5400rpm drive vs a 7200rpm drive due to space and cost. The speed difference isn't that great and a 5400rpm drive is quieter. Both new models have been shown to be much faster than the previous models. I don't quite get your point about it being a laptop either. Macs all the way back to the first Intel polycarbonate model have used a varying mixture of desktop and laptop parts. As the gap between laptop and desktop parts diminishes, what manufacturer in their right mind would choose desktop ones which require more space and more power? The logical conclusion for an all in one machine where the hardware sits behind the screen is to use laptop parts that take up as little space as possible. The entire supply chain benefits.
Last edited:
Yea well keep telling yourself that and in time I'm sure you will convince yourself. Are you familiar with the story of "the Emperor's new clothes"?
mikeorchard
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make.
How is it a retrograde? It has a faster CPU-
Just what MBP is it faster of - is the question.
The only way I'd have one - carve out the freezer door to mount it flush.
A Jesse James Mod in flames. I have plasma cutter.
One guy came close to the idea - http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=108549295871331
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make.
How is it a retrograde? It has a faster CPU-
I never understood the appeal of iMac - and now no screws - the Huff unchallenge perhaps.
Just what MBP is it faster of - is the question.
The only way I'd have one - carve out the freezer door to mount it flush.
A Jesse James Mod in flames. I have plasma cutter.
One guy came close to the idea - http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=108549295871331
Last edited:
What? I'm not telling or trying to convince myself of anything. My 2012 21.5" iMac is a great machine and looks sexy as hell. It's a massive improvement over my old DIY Windows 7 PC. If it annoys you that much, stop posting in threads about the new model and get on with your life?