Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple iMac 2010 - What would you like to see changed?

Hellhammer said:
Actually, because iMacs can now house desktop CPUs, I doubt we'll even see Arrandale in iMacs. I think  will use Clarkdale instead. It's hotter but faster and cheaper
Click to expand...

i said i took the link from "Arrandale" thread and the link is about Clarkdale (and Arrandale) and Yes the next version of iMac also will be desktop based Core i5 Clarkdale.
 
Dont Hurt Me said:
The GPU! Same old story..... car salesman tactics. You want a half decent GPU? well we will make sure you dont have that option unless you want to buy more memory,bigger hard drive and faster CPU. Only then will we even option a half decent GPU.

God I hate that crap apple has played for so long. You want even the option for the superior 4850? You must buy everything else first.

Integrated graphics are still just crippling the whole sytem in a effort to get you to buy more. Crippling sucks! All Buyers beware of the integrated graphics period. How long must we play this game?

edit : writing this on the 2.4 imac with 2600pro. Apple got rid of that one quick. 2 years later the 20" is handicapped with a.......9400M...here we go again.
Click to expand...

I could just cut and paste my earlier thread, but I will just try to keep it to a comparison of just the two cards.

Well, the whole 9400M G is useless debate is just that, useless. And overblown. Need a better card, get a better computer with a better card. Problem solved.

More power brings more heat. Until the nM process dips well below .4nM you will have heat issues. The 9400M G has a relatively low heat profile, compared to a discrete solution. The 4670 in the 21.5 imacs are having heat issues, the 9400M G is not. Having said that yes I would like a better card too. But the 9400M G not as bad as people make it out to be. Such as yourself.

Depending on what you are using your computer for, gaming, video, etc. will dictate what GPU you are going to pick as well as financial issues.

If you're editing video, and watching video, the 9400M G is more than enough for your needs. A Blu-Ray player cannot come close to the processing power of the 9400M G, not even close and they play Blu-Ray fine.
Having more graphical processing power does not equate to better video performance, better video processing does. And the 9400M G excels at video with a dedicated video processor. Most intergrated solutions do not have this feature as well as some discrete cards. If you need video, the 9400M G will do just fine.

High end gaming no. If you do high end gaming, pick another computer or another card.

The 2600Pro HD is maybe slightly better graphically, actually the 9400 is almost on par with the 2600 graphically.The 9400M G supports Open CL, which is a advantage over the 2600. Cinebench scores are better as well, can you say better "video processing". Notice the 2600Pro HD does better on the older 3D mark tests, while the 9400M G does better in Cinebench, which in my opinion is a better mark of the processing power of the GPU.

The ATI card is listed 78 and the 9400 is listed at 108.
Check both of them.
And check these settings at the top of the page:

F.E.A.R. avg.(fps) | Doom 3 avg. (fps) | Cinebench R10 OpenGL | 3DMark Vantage ( GPU Score) | Crysis (fps)

Than Choose the :restrict: button.

What you will end up with is just the two cards compared with the various settings above.



Notice the Cinebench scores. As well as Game frame rates in various settings. Interesting.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-G.11949.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-2600.3771.0.html
 
shanmugam said:
surely it will be Core i5 in the base config also, but dual core ($143) or the quad cores ($196) is the question.

heat and apple will play big decision on whether dual or quad core.
Click to expand...

How will the dual-core i5s compare to the current dual-core processors in the iMacs? Are we talking about a significant difference?
 
stonemann said:
How will the dual-core i5s compare to the current dual-core processors in the iMacs? Are we talking about a significant difference?
Click to expand...

clock wise it will be similar, apple might even put exact 3.06Ghz Core i5, but turbo boost, DMI will make the big difference. 32nm will make big difference with heat.

Surely it will be faster than Core 2 Duo currently in iMac (going by how good Core i5 750 Quad Core performs)
 
I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere yet but how about adding the 'target display mode' on the 21.5" iMac? For some people the 27" version is just too big!

I love the idea of using the iMac as a display for a pc to play games (I don't use a pc for anything else)

Either that or give the 21.5" iMac a decent graphics card so we can play games using bootcamp. The 4670 just won't cut it with modern games, come on apple you can do better.

Another thought would be an hdmi port to allow consoles to connect to it, with the regular hi-def resolution of the 21.5" iMac there would be no need to rescale the output from a ps3.
 
Vertical Monitor Height Adjustment
Ice-Cube said:
I think adjusting your chair would be an easier option.
Click to expand...

There's a couple of issues with that response. First, the "one size fits all" concept defies everything we've learned about workplace ergonomics; Second, the furniture that the computer sits on isn't uniform throughout the world; and Third, many home computers need to serve the needs of family members of all vertical size persuasions, from kids to seniors with bifocals.

Having some leeway with the vertical adjustment would also make aligning a second monitor a bit easier.
 
newimac.jpg
 
I want a bit better resolution than 1080p. The 27" 2560x1440 is ideal to me for a larger monitor.

Blu-ray. I have one hooked up to my 32" which will be replaced by a 50" next year so I don't really see a need for it in my computer. The sooner I can remove components that move the sooner the reliability increases.
 
nuckinfutz said:
I want a bit better resolution than 1080p. The 27" 2560x1440 is ideal to me for a larger monitor.

Blu-ray. I have one hooked up to my 32" which will be replaced by a 50" next year so I don't really see a need for it in my computer. The sooner I can remove components that move the sooner the reliability increases.
Click to expand...

Apple can't stay with DVD forever, the next generation of digital media discs are here, and it's Blu-ray.
 
nuckinfutz said:
I want a bit better resolution than 1080p. The 27" 2560x1440 is ideal to me for a larger monitor.
Click to expand...
There's 2048x1152 (I think) and I'd expect that for 24" given the 21.5" and 27". Agreed with the 2560x1440 too.

Don't need Blu-ray so I hope it's an option.
 
Blu-ray may be next generation but it's rather superfluous on a 24 or 27" display hence my desire to replace my 32" HDTV with a 50".

I think I'd love to have an external recording options since the 25/50GB discs would come in handy for storage.

Ok as cheesy as I thought this was in the beginning but hell make the screen touch or make a specific iMac model Touch (iMac Touch)
 
nuckinfutz said:
Blu-ray may be next generation but it's rather superfluous on a 24 or 27" display hence my desire to replace my 32" HDTV with a 50".

I think I'd love to have an external recording options since the 25/50GB discs would come in handy for storage.

Ok as cheesy as I thought this was in the beginning but hell make the screen touch or make a specific iMac model Touch (iMac Touch)
Click to expand...

I'd hate a touch screen computer. I don't want to hold my arm out to the screen every time I want to use it. But honestly, I can see Apple making an iMac Touch sometime in the future.
 
EliteF50 said:
I'd hate a touch screen computer. I don't want to hold my arm out to the screen every time I want to use it. But honestly, I can see Apple making an iMac Touch sometime in the future.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's an ergonomic nightmare but eventually Apple will likely have to make a model. Just like they may have to support Blu-ray if people voice that they want it.
 
iMacmatician said:
There's 2048x1152 (I think) and I'd expect that for 24" given the 21.5" and 27". Agreed with the 2560x1440 too.

Don't need Blu-ray so I hope it's an option.
Click to expand...

Yea there's 2048x1152 and it's 16:9. I seriously doubt that Apple will change the size of the iMacs' displays anytime soon because they just did it. Laptops are another thing though, they need better resolutions IMO
 
Hellhammer said:
Yea there's 2048x1152 and it's 16:9. I seriously doubt that Apple will change the size of the iMacs' displays anytime soon because they just did it. Laptops are another thing though, they need better resolutions IMO
Click to expand...
That was in reply to the 24" mockup a few posts ago. If the laptops go 16:9 I hope the 17" gets 2048x1152, especially if it goes 18".
 
iMacmatician said:
That was in reply to the 24" mockup a few posts ago. If the laptops go 16:9 I hope the 17" gets 2048x1152, especially if it goes 18".
Click to expand...

Me too. 13" and 15" definitely NEEDS better resolution as the gap between 15" and 17" is 43.75% (in pixels) which is HUGE. 2048x1152 isn't that much bigger so IMO it's possible, or even likely.
 
Hellhammer said:
Me too. 13" and 15" definitely NEEDS better resolution as the gap between 15" and 17" is 43.75% (in pixels) which is HUGE. 2048x1152 isn't that much bigger so IMO it's possible, or even likely.
Click to expand...
Given the 17", the 13" should be 1440x900 and the 15" should be 1680x1050. If they go 16:9 we'll probably see 1366x768 and 1600x900. 1600x900 and 1920x1080 is actually closer if we base it on pixel density for 2048x1152 but I doubt Apple will make that big of a step. That's pretty much the only reason why I think 1920x1080 might end up in the 17", at least as the default resolution.
 
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