While I think MacBooks are great and contains a very streamlined computer in a terrific small and efficient package, I do not have the same kind of feeling for desktop Macs.
A Mac Mini is good, but Apple squeezed a lot in a small package which came out overpriced. The iMac is great but also not upgraded recently, and not upgradeable. The Mac Pro has become some sort of joke as it is far outdated now. And the iMac Pro is too expensive and out of my reach. And I do not really need a unified form factor for my desk. I am building an alternative, running Windows instead of macOS, of course.
But it is hard to build a PC from zero. An iMac at least is a balaced piece of hardware, and a PC is not necessarily, depeding on how we build it. I am not trying to replicate an iMac, but rather understand why Apple took some decisions on its design.
I thought of a Core i7-8700 or a Ryzen 2700, as I do multitask. A lower performance computer might do it, such as a Core i5-8400, for instance. A Core i9-9900K might be great, but I am afraid it may heat so much. Is there any reason the desktop Macs use Core processors instead of Ryzen apart from a deal with Intel? Aren’t Ryzen processors more suitable for multitasking, which should be the main purpose of the iMac? Clock speed or heat perhaps would be reasons for adopting Intel?
As for motherboards, should I go for high end or not? I have no idea on what Apple uses and why, nor if a good motherboard would make any difference.
I noticed that Intel current processors support up to 2666 MHz memory. However, I also notice that iMacs use 2400 MHz RAM (and the Mac Mini uses 2666 MHz). Would there be a reason for Apple not using faster memory in the iMacs? Does Apple think it does not make much of a difference, perhaps?
In terms of video cards, Apple uses AMD for the iMac. From what I heard and read, Nvidia’s offerings are faster, heat less and are more energy-efficient. Those could make a better fit for the iMac, especially coupled with a retina screen. Am I losing something? Should there be any reason to opt for AMD?
Storage is something that really puzzles me in Mac computers. First, I wonder how Fusion drives are built and configured, and whether it would be possible to replicate such a thing in the PC world. Perhaps some RAID configuration could do it?
Second, I notice that Apple uses fast and expensive PCI-E NVMe SSDs accross its line-up. It sort of puzzles me because those SSDs are far more expensive than SATA III ones (and it seems kind of inconsistent that at the same time Apple chooses only slightly cheaper 2400 MHz RAM). I came accross some tests in YouTube and, despite the massive difference in benchmarks, NVMe SSDs seem to be only marginally faster than SATA III SSDs in booting and loading software. So why does Apple include such large-size expensive SSDs in its Macs, which push prices up? Are they so much faster that it makes a huge difference for users? Or is Apple only thinking about those power users who deal with large size files every day such as video editors (and therefore need amazingly fast transfer speeds)?
I was thinking of a SATA III SSD coupled with a large HDD for storage, but Apple’s choices made me have a second thought.
Thanks for any help you can give.
A Mac Mini is good, but Apple squeezed a lot in a small package which came out overpriced. The iMac is great but also not upgraded recently, and not upgradeable. The Mac Pro has become some sort of joke as it is far outdated now. And the iMac Pro is too expensive and out of my reach. And I do not really need a unified form factor for my desk. I am building an alternative, running Windows instead of macOS, of course.
But it is hard to build a PC from zero. An iMac at least is a balaced piece of hardware, and a PC is not necessarily, depeding on how we build it. I am not trying to replicate an iMac, but rather understand why Apple took some decisions on its design.
I thought of a Core i7-8700 or a Ryzen 2700, as I do multitask. A lower performance computer might do it, such as a Core i5-8400, for instance. A Core i9-9900K might be great, but I am afraid it may heat so much. Is there any reason the desktop Macs use Core processors instead of Ryzen apart from a deal with Intel? Aren’t Ryzen processors more suitable for multitasking, which should be the main purpose of the iMac? Clock speed or heat perhaps would be reasons for adopting Intel?
As for motherboards, should I go for high end or not? I have no idea on what Apple uses and why, nor if a good motherboard would make any difference.
I noticed that Intel current processors support up to 2666 MHz memory. However, I also notice that iMacs use 2400 MHz RAM (and the Mac Mini uses 2666 MHz). Would there be a reason for Apple not using faster memory in the iMacs? Does Apple think it does not make much of a difference, perhaps?
In terms of video cards, Apple uses AMD for the iMac. From what I heard and read, Nvidia’s offerings are faster, heat less and are more energy-efficient. Those could make a better fit for the iMac, especially coupled with a retina screen. Am I losing something? Should there be any reason to opt for AMD?
Storage is something that really puzzles me in Mac computers. First, I wonder how Fusion drives are built and configured, and whether it would be possible to replicate such a thing in the PC world. Perhaps some RAID configuration could do it?
Second, I notice that Apple uses fast and expensive PCI-E NVMe SSDs accross its line-up. It sort of puzzles me because those SSDs are far more expensive than SATA III ones (and it seems kind of inconsistent that at the same time Apple chooses only slightly cheaper 2400 MHz RAM). I came accross some tests in YouTube and, despite the massive difference in benchmarks, NVMe SSDs seem to be only marginally faster than SATA III SSDs in booting and loading software. So why does Apple include such large-size expensive SSDs in its Macs, which push prices up? Are they so much faster that it makes a huge difference for users? Or is Apple only thinking about those power users who deal with large size files every day such as video editors (and therefore need amazingly fast transfer speeds)?
I was thinking of a SATA III SSD coupled with a large HDD for storage, but Apple’s choices made me have a second thought.
Thanks for any help you can give.
