Apple iMac Goes Core i5, i7; Mac Mini Updated

[Spanky Deluxe]

What exactly is "POS" about the internals of the iMacs? They use the newest chips available from Intel, ATI etc. The same ones Dell etc are using. The dell ultrasharps are IPS displays yet but they do not have LED backlights. That adds considerable cost to a display. It certainly makes a difference too.
I'm not using a single component to compare computers. You claim you can spec up a computer better in every single way but choose to ignore the most valuable part in these computers. That's not exactly a fair comparison. Of course you could build an i7 system that could run circles around the iMac in every CPU/GPU/Memory benchmark. You couldn't build one for $2200 that could compete with the display in a benchmark based on display quality. How exactly do you claim that it's not being utilised either? You don't even know what people will be using these for. The only way to use a screen is not to play games on it. The majority of computer owners don't play games on their computers.
Of course I would be able to enjoy the quality of the screen. I've been using professional class screens for a while now and with good reason.

 

[Guest]

Hi. Please don/t yell at me- I am asking this list because you'all seem to be topic/ opinion specific on the i5 and the i7. Would anybody be able to help me with a comparison of the two? I am looking at configuring a new iMac (my previous models were desktop G4 (mirror doors), and a (employer-owned) Mac Book Pro w/ the 7200 ATA). For the last 6 months I have been working on an iMac, "iMac8,1" w/2.8GHz, 2G RAM. Now, I realize that the RAM is an issue to be sure, and while I understand why the video compression is SLOW, the interface is just not as snappy as the Pro's. But this one does get the job done... eventually, and it is in my price range.
My primary uses are video editing, image/graphic creation and flash, etc- oh and I want to run (on occasion) Windows for live event video streaming (no I dont mind hauling it around once a month, or so).

So, here is my question- and what you might know that I don't:

The price is basically the same for:
iMac 27" Intel dual core 3.33GHz, w/ 8GB RAM, ATI Radion HD 4670/ 256MB GDDR3
OR
iMac 27" Intel i5 Quad core 2.66GHz, w/ 8GB RAM, ATI Radion HD 4850/ 512MB GDDR3

Apple lists a comparison between the 2.8 GHz i7 and "3.06 Core 2 duo (previous generation)" showing a speed increase of 2.4x. I have to ask-- is this last years model or the "new iMac," and what if I can only get the 2.66Ghz?
also...
If I upgrade the dual core's graphic card from the 4670/ 256 to 4850/ 512, I would be paying even more than the current difference of $50 ( the configuration I list for the Dual core is $50 more than my listed configuration for the i5 Quad core).
I really need some input! I dont just want to ask the Apple people ( i love Mac- just not the fact that there are likely 1 or 2 people who really know stuff at the store.) You know ?
So what do you'all think? Which is better for my current usage, and likely to be usable/ upgradeable in 3 years?
I did look at the Quad core i7, and at this point it's merely $180 more... not that $ grows on trees, but I need the investment to last, I need something that will keep up for as long as possible. And, I am unfamiliar with the quad core, single chip technology. Do you'all see this as the future for small machines- like not just the big 'ol Mac Pro's ?
oh and I realize that I will need to upgrade RAM with time, but are there motherboard issue too or is that just a PC thing? And lastly, since this is the first generation i5 and i7, is it wise to just soup-up the dual core model and hope it lasts?
Thanks so much to any who might have info for me!

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Hi Cristianne,

The difference between the iMac you've been using (a first generation aluminium iMac) and the MacBook Pro is likely due to different graphics chips. I don't know what's in each particular system you're using but I'm guessing the iMac has an HD 2600 Pro. I have no idea what's in the MacBook Pro but if its from the last year or two then it will have either a 8600 GT M or a 9600 GT M, both of which are a fair chunk better than the one in the iMac.

The comparisons Apple list are comparing the current Core i7 to the previous iMac 24" 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo model. The biggest difference in the performance is due to the Core i5/i7 chips having four CPU cores as opposed to the Core 2 Duo's two cores. The i5/i7 chips also provide more performance per GHz than Core 2 Duos. These two factors explain the 2.4x speed up.

Clock-for-clock the Core i5 chips is pretty much the same as the Core i7 chip. The biggest difference between the two is that Core i7 supports hyperthreading, which makes the chip act as a "virtual 8 core". In practice, this can sometimes give benefits, sometimes not. In heavily threaded programs this can give a fair boost but it is not the be all and end all. I would estimate that if Apple did a comparison between the 2.66GHz Core i5 and the 3.33GHz Core 2 Duo then the i5 would be advertised as having a 2.1x speed up.

The future in computer processing is definitely multi-core. In layman terms, CPU manufacturers are finding it harder and harder to rack up the speed of their CPUs. In order to continue giving us performance increases they are now starting to rely on shoving more CPUs into their packages.
If you're building a house then you can get it built quicker by a skilled workman than an unskilled one. At some point, however, the workman can't really become more skilled. The only way to increase building speed then is to get more than one workman.

When you upgrade the RAM just use a site like www.crucial.com. You can put in the details for your machine and it'll spit out your upgrade options, compatibility guaranteed.

My advice to you would be to get the 27" i5 iMac. If you can afford it then by all means go for the 27" i7 machine. Pretty much the only thing you can easily upgrade in these iMacs after market is the RAM. Apple charges $200 to upgrade from 4GB to 8GB. You may want to consider adding the RAM yourself since Crucial currently list a 4GB (2GBx2) kit at $95.99. $100 saved on RAM might mean it'd be easier for you to stretch to the i7.

If you want more advice you can probably get a far quicker response by heading over to a mac dedicated forum such as www.macrumors.com. They'll probably say the same as I have though.

 

[njalterio]

[citation][nom]cristianne[/nom]Hi. Please don/t yell at me- I am asking this list because you'all seem to be topic/ opinion specific on the i5 and the i7. Would anybody be able to help me with a comparison of the two? I am looking at configuring a new iMac (my previous models were desktop G4 (mirror doors), and a (employer-owned) Mac Book Pro w/ the 7200 ATA). For the last 6 months I have been working on an iMac, "iMac8,1" w/2.8GHz, 2G RAM. Now, I realize that the RAM is an issue to be sure, and while I understand why the video compression is SLOW, the interface is just not as snappy as the Pro's. But this one does get the job done... eventually, and it is in my price range.My primary uses are video editing, image/graphic creation and flash, etc- oh and I want to run (on occasion) Windows for live event video streaming (no I dont mind hauling it around once a month, or so).So, here is my question- and what you might know that I don't: The price is basically the same for: iMac 27" Intel dual core 3.33GHz, w/ 8GB RAM, ATI Radion HD 4670/ 256MB GDDR3OR iMac 27" Intel i5 Quad core 2.66GHz, w/ 8GB RAM, ATI Radion HD 4850/ 512MB GDDR3 Apple lists a comparison between the 2.8 GHz i7 and "3.06 Core 2 duo (previous generation)" showing a speed increase of 2.4x. I have to ask-- is this last years model or the "new iMac," and what if I can only get the 2.66Ghz? also...If I upgrade the dual core's graphic card from the 4670/ 256 to 4850/ 512, I would be paying even more than the current difference of $50 ( the configuration I list for the Dual core is $50 more than my listed configuration for the i5 Quad core). I really need some input! I dont just want to ask the Apple people ( i love Mac- just not the fact that there are likely 1 or 2 people who really know stuff at the store.) You know ?So what do you'all think? Which is better for my current usage, and likely to be usable/ upgradeable in 3 years?I did look at the Quad core i7, and at this point it's merely $180 more... not that $ grows on trees, but I need the investment to last, I need something that will keep up for as long as possible. And, I am unfamiliar with the quad core, single chip technology. Do you'all see this as the future for small machines- like not just the big 'ol Mac Pro's ?oh and I realize that I will need to upgrade RAM with time, but are there motherboard issue too or is that just a PC thing? And lastly, since this is the first generation i5 and i7, is it wise to just soup-up the dual core model and hope it lasts? Thanks so much to any who might have info for me![/citation]


Go to Lenovo and order the IdeaCentre K230 - 53594KU
For $750 it has:

Processor: Intel Core2Quad 2.5 GHz
RAM: 8 GB
Graphics: Nvidia GeForce 9300GE
Hard Drive: 640 GB
OS: Windows 7
Blu Ray drive

Add in the Lenovo 21.5" monitor with integrated card reader, webcam, etc. for $200. It has 1920 x 1080p resolution. CNET says it is a great monitor: http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/lenovo-l215p/4505-3174_7-33544770.html


This hardware configuration is more than what you will need, and it is much less expensive than the Apple stuff.

 

[njalterio]

For a quick comparison:

The $1200 iMac has:

Processor: Intel Core2Duo 3 GHz
RAM: 4 GB
Graphics: Nvidia GeForce 9400M (slightly less powerful than the 9300GE, the 9400M is mobile.
Hard Drive: 500 GB
OS: Mac OSX
DVD drive

a 21.5" 1920 x 1080p monitor is obviously included in the price.
There is absolutely no doubt about it, the $950 Lenovo desktop & monitor is absolutely a better deal than the $1200 iMac.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Not necessarily. Christianne says she primarily works on video and image creation work. For stuff like that the far higher quality panel and backlight in the iMacs would probably be worth it.

Besides which, it sounds like she wants OS X so the Lenovo may not be an option to her. Just because things like Photoshop and competitor software to iMovie or Final Cut Pro exist on Windows doesn't mean that a Mac user would feel happy switching to Windows. As unlikely as it is for a Mac user to get a PC user to switch, it is far more unlikely for a PC user to get a Mac user to switch.

 

[njalterio]

[citation][nom]Spanky Deluxe[/nom]Not necessarily. Christianne says she primarily works on video and image creation work. For stuff like that the far higher quality panel and backlight in the iMacs would probably be worth it.
[/citation]

The LCD panel in the $1200 iMac is nothing special. It is a standard LCD screen. The LEDs are just backlights (not an actual LED screen). The only reason they use LEDs is for less space; not actual better screens. Check Cnet...all the Apple monitors are the same old TFT Active Matrix screens. Enough of this misleading marketing nonsense already. Besides, I don't see why you need some gratuitous monitor for video compression (which is processor intensive, not graphics intensive). I create images too, and I do it on my supposedly inferior Acer LCD. It's not like the monitor is in black and white! Regardless...the LCD in the $1200 iMac is not better than the $200 Lenovo monitor. The "good" monitor is in those $1700 iMacs.

[citation][nom]Spanky Deluxe[/nom]
Besides which, it sounds like she wants OS X so the Lenovo may not be an option to her. Just because things like Photoshop and competitor software to iMovie or Final Cut Pro exist on Windows doesn't mean that a Mac user would feel happy switching to Windows. As unlikely as it is for a Mac user to get a PC user to switch, it is far more unlikely for a PC user to get a Mac user to switch.
[/citation]

Actually, she mentioned needing Windows for Live Meeting, and never mentioned needing OSX. I'm not trying to get anyone to switch. I could careless what she ends up using. Based on what she said she needed her computer to do; I think it would be utterly foolish to purchase an iMac considering the considerably better deal with Lenovo (and I am sure other PC vendors as well). The Lenovo configuration has the same or better hardware in all aspects considerable than the iMac (yes, the monitor too!), and is $250 cheaper.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

The Lenovo 21.5" screen has a TN based panel, which is inferior (and a lot cheaper) than the iMac's IPS based panel. The Lenovo 21.5" screen has cold cathode backlight as opposed to the iMac's LED backlight. Generally speaking, LED backlights are considered superior (and thus cost more) due to having "blacker blacks", i.e. improved dynamic constrast ratios, improved color gamut and lower power consumption.

I said it sounds like she wants OS X since her current machine is a Mac, those used at her work are Macs and the options she's looking into are Macs. The Lenovo setup you mentioned is certainly better in some aspects yet is not better in others, i.e. the display, power efficiency, aesthetics. Chances are it will also lose its value faster than the iMac. Horses for courses of course, I'm sure she'll chose the best solution for her and depending on her yardstick.

 

[njalterio]

[citation][nom]Spanky Deluxe[/nom]The Lenovo 21.5" screen has a TN based panel, which is inferior (and a lot cheaper) than the iMac's IPS based panel. The Lenovo 21.5" screen has cold cathode backlight as opposed to the iMac's LED backlight. Generally speaking, LED backlights are considered superior (and thus cost more) due to having "blacker blacks", i.e. improved dynamic constrast ratios, improved color gamut and lower power consumption.[/citation]

No. TN panels are not always inferior to IPS panels. TN panels have much better response times, and for certain tasks are preferable.

I would think if you are dealing with video editing, a good response time would be extremely important! Sure having all the colors is nice, but it's not as if just because you cannot see them they are not there, just not rendered by the graphics card.

And...you are confusing LED backlights with LED screens. LED screens have the benefits you mentioned. The backlighting just helps cut down on power consumption and heat - not improve visuals.

So is it worth paying $250 more AND taking lesser hardware to have an IPS monitor (that has disadvantages as well as advantages)? You would be a fool.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

I'm not confusing LED backlights with LED screens. LED screens aren't even available anywhere in the consumer market - they're pretty much only used for giant displays used at things like football stadiums.

TN panels have smaller viewing angles. TN panels only display 6 bit colour (262,000 colours) and rely on dithering to achieve 16.2 million colours. They do not have as good colour accuracy as IPS panels. Response times may have been an issue to some in the past but these days its really not. Over Driving Circuitry in newer IPS panels can drive response times down. Besides which, response times under 16.7ms don't really show all that much benefit since most LCDs only display at 60Hz.
There's a reason TN panels are cheap. TN panels are the bottom end of display technology. At the top end you have H-IPS panels coupled with RGB LED backlights. I'm not sure what type of IPS panel is used in the new iMac other than it being an IPS type panel.
For any kind of serious video, photography, design, computer artwork type stuff an IPS panel is highly recommendable. LED backlights are of course a plus too but don't make as much of a difference as the panel. TN panels are perfectly fine for things like word use, office use and gaming use if its a smaller display.

 

[nukemaster]

If you can not notice the difference from 16.7ms to lets say 5ms and under, i would say good for you, but I sure can. Its why i still have a CRT TV for any SD watching.

Please remember over driving IPS and PVA panels can also resort in motion artifacts. Nasty ones sometimes. I do agree IPS is better(to me) then TN by allot, but too many macs have TN screens now. Was a shame to be honest.

 

[Guest]

I want to use one of these 27'' iMac's as my television. I dont have cable... I just download and stream all my content off the internet. Is this computer capable of playing 1080p dvd rips at full resolution without any hiccups?

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

[citation][nom]D@RWIN[/nom]I want to use one of these 27'' iMac's as my television. I dont have cable... I just download and stream all my content off the internet. Is this computer capable of playing 1080p dvd rips at full resolution without any hiccups?[/citation]

Indubitably. I can play such videos with my Core 2 Duo 2.0GHz Mac Mini so any of these iMacs will be able to do so without breaking a sweat.

 

[nukemaster]

Is this computer capable of playing 1080p dvd rips at full resolution without any hiccups?

1080P DVD's(not HDDVD, that is dead) where? Yeah, for real, it will play anything you through at it for now.

 

[Guest]

This discussion is really funny.

A. The iMac 27" doesn't use "laptop CPUs". It uses full-fledged desktop Core i5/7s. The only part inside a Mac that is mobile right now, is the graphics card, which is the 4850. Even then, the 4850 mobility performs about the same as a Radeon 4830, which is slightly faster than an overclocked nVidia 9800 GT.

What this means, is that for most tasks, the iMac is as fast as any system you're going to put together, save gaming. For those individuals that argue that the system "sucks" for gaming, you're wrong. It doesn't "suck" for gaming at all. It's a midrange game-enthusiast machine. It is not, a home-built or gamer-marketed hotrod or godbox rig. However, the 4830/9800 GT can still run any game, save for crysis, at max settings, 4AA, 1280x720 at over 50 fps. While this may be "lulz lollercopter u mad" to some very immature posters, for me, that's pretty much more than enough.

It's also superior quality to any console on the market today. In fact, if you knock the settings down to "High" instead of max or highest and remove the AA, you can game at 1900x1080, with good framerates.

The 4830 is not a gaming card but you can game with it and do so at a respectible and attractive quality. While it would be nice to have a 5970 in there, it's unrealistic to wish that because the thermal envelope would cook the entire system. One of the benefits of the iMac 27" is that it is a large, but thin, sleek, and simple system. Unboxing it, there are no mouse/keyboard cables. There is only one power cable(not two or three like most other systems). There is no VGA or graphics cable to a tower. It's just a large 2" think panel, a power cable, and a line to your router, modem or switch. That's it.

It's a remarkably attractive layout.

B. People don't seem to understand that of the 2100 price you pay, when you purchase a Core i7 iMac 27", half the price is really getting shunted directly to the monitor. The LG monitor in the iMac is a 27" 2560x1440, LED backlit IPS monitor. Despite its fantastic resolution, ridiculous color reproduction and great light emission ratio, it's also got a respectable refresh 5-6ms as well. It's simply a professional-grade monitor. When you compare the monitor of that nature to a 300 dollar el-Cheapo 24" TN LCD special, you come off as those nubs that post in forums comparing...well...comparing a 4830 to a 5970.

Yes, the difference is that huge.

One is a professional grade monitor with over 15-20% resolution and over 50% better color reproduction at a 25% better realestate quantity. There's simply no comparison.

So while many of you may think that a 1000 dollar LED backlit IPS monitor is a "waste" of money, to most graphic designers that may want to game at 1680x720, it's actually a pretty good deal. What you're left with, is a system, running a multi-partition capable install setup of Snow Leopard and any Windows flavor, with a Core i7, built in wireless, 4 GB of DDR 3 RAM, a 1 TB Toshiba drive, 4850 mobility, Seasonic(Corsair) 350-400 Watt PSU, and the magic mouse(which is insanely badass) for about 1100. Yes, you can probably build a system for less, but not for much less, especially when you factor in that the iMac is in a unibody stainless steel framed/aluminum case enclosure(good luck finding that at Newegg).

It comes assembled, ready to go, with no per-part RMA shennanigans and no 2-4 hours of installing updating your OS.

I've built gaming rigs in the past. It's great fun and for hardcore gamers, that's really the only way to go. But for a casual gamer that wants good visual fidelity but doesn't doesn't need to game at 1900x1200 AA 8x at 120 fps, the iMac does a really great job while still also allowing itself to double as a media computer(photos look fantastic on this system), a solid movie platform and an unbeatable setup for DTP and web design.(No self-respecting graphic designer refuses to use TN screens. Color reproduction is too sketchy).

The entire "OMG lulz, failsauce gpu!" comments at the Mac just showcase people that don't understand the difference that "Lamborhini vs F-350" isn't a simple, cut and dried answer. People need different things. And anyone that thinks so, obviously doesn't know much about computers.

Madan.