Apple updates iMac with Core i7 and huge displays Discussion - PC Forums

J.R. Nelson · 10-20-2009, 12:49 PM

Today the popular Cupertino PC maker unveiled a new suite of desktops, including an updated iMac line. Setting the standard in just about every imaginable way, the new all-in-ones feature 21.5- and 27-inch IPS panel options, Core 2 Duo, Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs, NVIDIA and ATI graphics as well as wireless...everything. Almost.

Read the full content of this Article: Apple updates iMac with Core i7 and huge displays

stubborn_child · 10-20-2009, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.R. Nelson

The new iMacs are available starting today in both Apple retail stores and online at store.apple.com. 21.5-inch units start at $1199, while the larger 27-inch desktops start at $1699. Expensive, yes, but still fair, especially considering the quality and expensive of a high-resolution external IPS display.

Really? The cheapest quad-core model (i5) starts at $1999. Apart from the flat panel and two or three goodies (such as a bluetooth keyboard), it is not a high-end system at all. A 27" IPS panel would sell for around $600-$700. The rest of the components is worth nowhere near $1300-$1400. Cheapest Clarksdale, cheap GPU, etc.

J.R. Nelson · 10-20-2009, 07:46 PM

Comparing it to a 30-inch Apple Cinema Display, yeah, it's fair.

While we're at it, find me a nice 27-inch 2560x1440 IPS display. The closest we have are 30-inch IPS displays. Apple's is $1799 (which is a bit much). Dell's own is $1399. Their 27-inch display, which is only 1920x1200 and VA, not IPS, is $999. An IPS panel would be more. So you're paying less than $700 for the 'all-in-one' part of computer. A little bit extra, considering the specifications, but the build quality is high and the style factor is up there, too. Add in some pretty snazzy peripherals, such as an aluminum wireless keyboard and multitouch wireless mouse, and it starts to look better. There are other intangibles, such as the OS X operating system and the fact that you can take your computer into a local store to have warranty work. $1699 for the 27-inch iMac is not at all a bad price. Adding options rapidly takes it into the realm of the stupidly overpriced but the starter isn't a bad deal at all.

stubborn_child · 10-20-2009, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.R. Nelson

Comparing it to a 30-inch Apple Cinema Display, yeah, it's fair.
While we're at it, find me a nice 27-inch 2560x1440 IPS display. The closest we have are 30-inch IPS displays.

The closest we have are 24" display. A 27" 16x9 screen is much closer to a 24" 16x9 screen than to a 30" 16x9 screen (in terms of screen area which is what's central to production costs). And 24" IPS 16x9 panels start at $500-$600.

Dell sells a 27" VA panel for $900 but it's 16x10 (so it's larger than a 27" 16x9).

And by the way, I see the fact that it comes with a panel as a disadvantage since it severely limits your options.

J.R. Nelson · 10-20-2009, 09:14 PM

You're neglecting pixel density. A 27-inch 1920*1200 or 1920*1080 display has a much lower pixel density than a 24-inch 1080p or 1200p display or a 27-inch 2560*1440 display. Obviously my opinion doesn't mesh with everyone's, but I'd rather have a slightly smaller physical panel with a higher resolution than a larger panel with a low resolution.

Your comment about it coming with a panel as a disadvantage is lessened by the fact that you can use it as a standalone monitor.

David_In_Seattle · 10-22-2009, 10:36 PM

As a Graphic Designer and Website Developer I think the new iMacs are a great and much needed update.

The IPS displays on these new iMacs (also available on the 24" iMac) are of much better image quality (better viewing angles, less color shifting, and better color accuracy) than what you'll find in any other All-In-One. Since IPS displays are geared more for graphic designers or video editors I wouldn't recommend them for gamers due to their slower refresh rates compared to TN panels.

I wish the $1,699 model had the i5 processor and the $1,999 model had the i7 processor as a standard instead of an option. I assume we will see this in a 2010 updated.

The ATI graphics processors in these iMacs (now dated by the 5k series ATI chips) are more than enough for these types of displays; remember this isn't a gaming computer.

I like the bump up in available RAM (16GB max), but their upgrade options cost a ridiculous amount of money...as they always do (better off buying RAM from NewEgg)

I have the first version of the 24" Aluminum iMacs and it's been the most reliable computer I've had (currently own this, a Quad Core HP Black Bird, Sony Vaio SZ660 & MacBook Pro). I'll probably upgrade to the 27" in their 2010 update...that is unless they come out with a 32" model.

J.R. Nelson · 10-22-2009, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David_In_Seattle

As a Graphic Designer and Website Developer I think the new iMacs are a great and much needed update.

The IPS displays on these new iMacs (also available on the 24" iMac) are of much better image quality (better viewing angles, less color shifting, and better color accuracy) than what you'll find in any other All-In-One. Since IPS displays are geared more for graphic designers or video editors I wouldn't recommend them for gamers due to their slower refresh rates compared to TN panels.

I wish the $1,699 model had the i5 processor and the $1,999 model had the i7 processor as a standard instead of an option. I assume we will see this in a 2010 updated.

The ATI graphics processors in these iMacs (now dated by the 5k series ATI chips) are more than enough for these types of displays; remember this isn't a gaming computer.

I like the bump up in available RAM (16GB max), but their upgrade options cost a ridiculous amount of money...as they always do (better off buying RAM from NewEgg)

I have the first version of the 24" Aluminum iMacs and it's been the most reliable computer I've had (currently own this, a Quad Core HP Black Bird, Sony Vaio SZ660 & MacBook Pro). I'll probably upgrade to the 27" in their 2010 update...that is unless they come out with a 32" model.

Hi David, welcome to DTR. You know, I think even the 2010 update, assuming one comes next fall, is even chances as to if they stick a quad-core in the entry level model. Apple is iffy when it comes to this. I definitely don't see them doing a 32-inch model - the resolution on these new 27-inch panels is 90% that of their 30-inch panel, so I don't think they'd bother.

gslow · 10-23-2009, 02:46 PM

Can you compare processors between mac and pc? In other words can you say a PC desktop with an Core i5 or i7 is better/faster than an iMac with a core 2 duo 3.06 Ghz (given even RAM, etc). Can they be compared at face value?

Thanks.

J.R. Nelson · 10-29-2009, 05:50 PM

Hi gslow, welcome to DTR. The processors used in the two platforms these days are identical - a Core 2 Duo in the Mac is like a Core 2 Duo in a traditional PC. If you're doing tasks that require a quad-core CPU like a/v encoding, 3d modeling and rendering, etc, then a cheaper PC with a quad-core chip is probably going to be your better bet. If you just need a dual-core CPU, then one of these Macs is fine (they do offer quad-core processors, but it's pretty spendy).

Meemat · 11-07-2009, 12:15 AM

The new Mac looks cool, though I feel like their OS prevents me from getting it...I'm so used to Windows

Anyway, I was just gonna let you guys know that gaming with an IPS is perfectly fine, I play TF2 without any problems (ghosting or input lag).

However, it was very silly of me to have gotten an IPS, I could've bought 2 TN panels for the price ($550), probably. However, it's rather nice to watch movies on since it's got good angles...still...extreme overkill for my needs