Slashdot Mirror
Apple 27-inch iMac With Intel's Haswell Inside Tested
MojoKid writes "Apple's late 2013 edition iMacs are largely unchanged in external form, though they're upgraded in function with a revamped foundation that now pairs Intel's Haswell 4th Generation Core processors with NVIDIA's GeForce 700 Series graphics. The Cupertino company also outfitted these latest models with faster flash storage options, including support for PCI-E based storage, and 802.11ac Wi-Fi technology, all wrapped in a 21.5-inch (1920x1080) or 27-inch IPS displays with a 2560x1440 resolution. As configured, the 27-inch iMac reviewed here bolted through benchmarks with relative ease and posted especially solid figures in gaming tests, including a 3DMark 11 score of 3,068 in Windows 7 (via Boot Camp). Running Cinebench 11.5 in Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks also helped showcase the CPU and GPU combination. Storage benchmarks weren't nearly as impressive though, for iMacs based on standard spinning media. For real IO throughput, it's advisable to go with Apple's Flash storage options."
It *is* pretty though. And that's what counts for many people... I'm currently sitting in front of three relatively cheap FullHD monitors hooked up to a monster PC with wired peripherals, a laptop, a pair of studio monitors, a small mixer, a mic preamp and a USB audio interface - lots of bang for my buck and it does a ton of shit that an iMac couldn't, but damn does it look cluttered. Some people just prefer a sleek all-in-one with brushed metal (no glossy fucking plastic like you'll find on many other all-in-ones) and wireless input devices...
I've left my ikea days long behind. Nowadays, when I buy something I want it to be good AND beautiful in my house. Yes it costs more than generic products, but I am happy with my previous gen iMac. And when whiners think that it costs too much, I won't lose sleep over it. My life quality is worth something.
Similarly two years ago I bought my non techy parents a Macbook Pro. Since then I've had to do almost no interventions, what a change compared to their previous Windows on HP experience. Their life is better and I sacrifice less time. IT's worth something for me.
You know, bourgeoisie capitalism and all that shit.
Don't quote me on this.
Cool! So you were using linux in 1998! It's good to see somebody that gave it a go way back then but it's changed somewhat over the last decade and a bit.
Now it's only MS Windows where you have to hunt around the net for drivers if you've lost your install CD.
yes, but monitor quality is a huge difference. I have a cheaper 25**x 1440 display and a 27 inch mac display, and without the doubt, while the apple display cost about 300 dollars more, the quality of the is far superior (and the cheaper display is being driven by a much more powerful machine).
And if you work in a world where super high quality displays are in high demand, you pay up. there are other sellers of equivalent quality, but it turns out they price to within 5% of the apple display. I'm never certain where the talk of the apple tax comes from. For phones, mp3 players, monitors, and laptops I found them very competitively priced.
I bought one - 27 inch, with all available upgrades except for the max memory. Memory is user replaceable, and it's cheaper to buy it elsewhere. Here are my impressions
As someone who has bought a real DEC Alpha workstation for serious work, and who was given a high-end Mac, and has used so-called high-end pee-cees (branded HP and Dell boxes), but who has mostly owned cheap-arse no-name budget pee-cees, I can assure you that build quality was always directly related to the price. The Alpha was a bomb-proof brick, with beatiful damping that made it not even hum or whirr at all. The Mac was specced with enough cooling for worst-case and partitioned internally such that the components that were temperature sensitive got the lions share of the airflow, a very clever design. The HPs had the cooling, but sounded like a helicopter the whole time - they had over-specced cooling, but with braindead internal sensors, shitty bearings, and no damping. Dell was just an overpriced but lame HP-wannabee. And we all know how shitty shitty PCs are. Look at the benchmarks, and they were all pretty similar (the Alpha clearly blew any intel machines out of the water at the time for floating point stuff, but that didn't last for more than a few years), but there was an entire order of magnitude, between the most expensive and the cheapest. However, the build quality - which is not just the components, but has a purely mechanical aspect - was just as broad in range. People like you keep saying "but it's the same RAM, the same HDD, the same optical drive, the same processor, ...", but you completely overlook build quality. I'm no Apple fan-boi - I run linux on the Mac that Apple gave me (I was sworn into not insulting them as part of the agreement, which did mean I had to bite my lip a few times, as I hate OSX) - but I did, and still do, like their build quality. I also liked their choice of CPU - the POWER architecture - sigh.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Exactly. Build quality != component spec. Anyone who has opened up a Mac or other high end hardware and compared to home built PC from newegg knows this.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
3 years ago I got my non-techy ex-GF to buy an MBA (2010 spec). About 12 months ago she ran out of SSD and needed help to relocate a few things to an external drive (60GB of raw photos on a 128GB SSD will do that). That is the sum total of maintenance that has been required, outside of automatic updates.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
The "Apple Tax" is totally outdated. Usually stated by people who haven't looked at Macs in more than a decade. If you build a machine spec for spec against a Mac prices are competitive. TCO for Windows is higher when you add in cost of antivirus, OS updates, and other software that just comes on the Mac. Why OS X? Unix under the hood and a nice OS. I have an imac with extra displays, mixer, studio monitors, all the goodies. The imac can do anything another PC can and then some. Some people just feel the need to be haters.
Let's let that dominate the discussion.
There's always some Apple fanboys (jo_ham, where you at?), who insist the machines are higher quality etc etc, but this is mainly nonsense.
They use almost the exact same components for PC's, and are ridiculous overpriced.
Not to mention the barriers to self-repair, amping up the cost over the lifetime of the machine.
The only value they have is in the aesthetics, or if you need OS X for some reason. Generally not worth the cost except to people who like to burn money.
The same people who buy a $100 burger in a restaurant that costs $12 to make, cause it costs $100.
Wow. Full of yourself much? You just called tens of millions of people retards for daring to buy a computer brand you don't approve of.
It is an oversimplification to simply state that Apple uses many of the same components as PCs. They do, but they also have a lot of custom engineering that goes into their products, good quality control, and their demonstrably lower incidence of returns and repairs puts the lie to your idea that there is no measureable difference between Macs and PCs just because they contain some of the same components. Apple has not been at the top of all the consumer satisfaction and quality surveys for the last decade merely because people like the company logo.
You are welcome to your own opinion about the relative worth of any particular brand of computers, but get your facts straight or you just make yourself look silly and hateful. Just because other people have different criteria for buying computers does not make them all idiots buying $100 burgers. Apple's machines are more like the $18 burger from a local restaurant with great ambiance versus a $8 burger from a national chain restaurant with fluorescent lighting and plastic bench seating. Priced higher, perhaps even overpriced, but it all depends on your criteria and what you're looking for. But pretending there is no value in paying a bit more for nice ambiance is idiocy. The burger and the dining experience are both part of the price.
http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/imac-vesa
Apple got that covered.
agreed, but that is the exact same situation as any vendor. If I go to dell and try to buy a ram upgrade from them, it's super expensive. It's not a unique apple experience (at least for me). Anyways, I get my components from amazon for 1/4 the price and apple has never complained about non-apple sold parts in my computer when it goes in for work. So it hasn't caused me an issue yet.
OS updates cost money with Windows? News to me.
An OS update is free with Windows, but an OS upgrade will cost you. On Mac, both kinds are free now.
However it's a bit hard to get an Apple laptop for £400, that's why I got my Dell.
Indeed. Apple competes well in the segments they are, but they don't cover every segment. Cheap laptops, servers, gaming machines are just three of the segments they just aren't targeting.
It was a bigger issue 7-10 years ago when keeping a computer for longer than 3-4 years was, quite frankly, stupid. Build quality mattered less, and it was silly to pay extra for good looks because if you didn't replace your computer by year 3 and definitely by year 5, it was too slow to run any modern software. Heck, I occasionally run across a person using a computer from back then, and I implore them to upgrade because the extra electricity they burn in 2-3 years will be enough to pay for the new computer.
Now that even low-end CPUs are "fast enough" for most people, keeping a computer for 5-7 years is a real possibility. That means paying an extra $500 for good looks or better build quality is cheaper because it'll be amortized over 6 years instead of 3 years.
At least that's the viewpoint of the casual user. The hard core computer geek who insists on state of the art is probably still on a 3 year upgrade cycle. So for him, dropping an extra $500 for good looks or better build quality is still an extravagance.
5 years ago I bought my non-techy dad a Lenovo Thinkpad. Since then I've had to do almost no interventions. Anecdotes are a dime a dozen.
And incidentally, Apple doesn't make the Macbooks. They're made by Quanta - they're the ODM (original design manufacturer) that Apple uses. Normally the ODM also designs the laptop while the vendor just provides the specs and requirements, so I'm not even sure if Apple even designs the Macbooks.
Quanta also makes most of HP's laptops.
That's the dirty little secret about the laptop industry - the vast majority of laptops aren't made by the brand they're sold under. So it's pointless arguing build quality or reliability based on brand name. To figure out some sort of correlation, you have to know which ODM made which particular model.
With crappy resolution considering it's a 27" display.
Amazing how this gets modded up as "insightful" when there isn't actually anyone selling a 27" display at higher resolution, at least not at a price exceeding the price of the complete iMac.
Is "insightful" nowadays the same as "conforms to my baseless prejudices"?
It's the best way to get a unix OS that can run commercial software. I need to use Lightroom and Photoshop. I prefer to use unix. I like a very high res screen. So the 27" iMac is perfect for my needs. YMMV.
Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
"Is "insightful" nowadays the same as "conforms to my baseless prejudices"?"
Not just nowadays.
Democratic moderation, in all its forms, only furthers tribalism. It exists due to laziness and the desire to play to people's egos. It is rarely used as "intended".
Well they skimp out on discrete GPUs because an Intel GPU is more than adequate for the average consumer. Your use case of Macs for the internet and word processing only reinforces their strategy.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Let's let that dominate the discussion.
There's always some Apple fanboys (jo_ham, where you at?), who insist the machines are higher quality etc etc, but this is mainly nonsense.
They use almost the exact same components for PC's, and are ridiculous overpriced.
Not to mention the barriers to self-repair, amping up the cost over the lifetime of the machine.
The only value they have is in the aesthetics, or if you need OS X for some reason. Generally not worth the cost except to people who like to burn money.
The same people who buy a $100 burger in a restaurant that costs $12 to make, cause it costs $100.
- Vincit qui patitur.
It's more a piece of furniture than a functional system. Not much better than a tablet really since it's using a mobile graphics processor as well (GT775M). This isn't a powerhouse system but you're paying a premium for it, especially in the 27" model (MSRP $2000) for a system that's great for doing spreadsheets or word docs. You may as well spend your money on an HP 20" Rove for half the cost and you get it to go with a touchscreen.
That system that you recommend is a joke compared to the 21" iMac. It's a bit cheaper in price, and a lot cheaper in everything else. Comparing it to the 27" is plain ridiculous.
You say "it's not a powerhouse". One has 3.2 GHz quad core i5, the other a cheap 1.7 GHz dual core i3. Apple doesn't even put those into their cheapest laptops.
I spend a lot of time at the computer. Well over 80 hours a week. So I did a lot of measurements with different configurations of HW/SW. And I found out that I spend at average two more hours a week doing non-productive stuff on PC/Win than on Mac/OSX. Those two hours a week are 150 hours over the amortized lifetime (3 years) of the computer. I don't know what is your hourly rate, but I cannot afford to use PC/Win even if they paid me $5000 to take it, I would not. It is just too expensive for me. So yeah, I need OSX for "some reason".
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
"Normally the ODM also designs the laptop while the vendor just provides the specs and requirements, so I'm not even sure if Apple even designs the Macbooks."
You may not be sure, but the rest of us are. Like all Macs the Macbook carries the typical "Designed in California by Apple" tag. For all the faults of Apple, having "generic/beige box" design is not one of them. Also, I disagree that it is "pointless" arguing build quality based on brand name. Different brands spec different quality components to the ODMs and the spec is really quite detailed. Obviously some problems and merits are inherit in each ODM and clearly have a large impact on the outcome, but the Brand clearly has a say in quality.
For any model of macbook, you can get something almost twice as powerful for the same price.
Find me a laptop twice as powerful as my quad core 2.3 GHz i7. For any money. Find something twice as powerful as a MacBook Air, with comparable battery life. For any money.
It's always interesting to hear of novel (to me) industrial processes Apple uses to make its product. Case in point: the article mentions Apple has switch to friction-stir welding.
I'm not sure how Dell would charge $200 for going from 8 GB of RAM to 32 GB of RAM. Just doing some quick browsing on TigerDirect shows that 8 GB goes for about $65 while 32 GB goes for about $400. So that's a $335 upgrade. $600 doesn't even seem like that much of a stretch. A little padding added on for them doing the installation, but it's not that far out there. Just browsing around the Dell site for a price on speccing out a machine with 32 GB of RAM and I just gave up. XPS 8700 (which is supposed to be their performance machines, didn't even come with a RAM upgrade option. 12 GB is the only choice. Looked around on their business section a bit too. Optiplex and Precision work stations both had no memory upgrade options, and both were at 8 GB.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
With crappy resolution considering it's a 27" display.
Bullshit. Find a 27" monitor with higher resolution and post a link.
I did just as you suggested searching newegg & tried searching pricewatch (though I hope never to use pricewatch again their search and interface is simply awful - can't even search by specific product features? no thanks.) There are a few monitors a marginally bigger resolution (2560x1600), however that extra 160 pixels is pretty insignificant. There are some generics I wouldn't touch with a 10' pole for under $1000. The cheapest name brand one is a Dell coming in at $1050 (on closeout from $1500), and its reviews are lackluster at best. The next step up in resolution I found was 2560 x 2048, fairly significant, however there's only one NEC display and it's a medical display priced at a cool $12000. The next step up is an impressive 3840 x 2160, very significant, only a single monitor with this resolution from ASUS, will run you a cool $3500.