its hideous. come on people. you can better design that. I mean look at the keyboard. its looks like its straight out of 2001
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Dell's All-in-One Hits U.S. at $699
- Thread starter joeshell383
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, but the extra plastic on the bottom may be for ergonomics. It should work as a wrist rest to try and prevent carpal tunnel. So in Dell's defense, its a good thing; especially if they are trying to market it to anyone who will be typing for an extended period of time.
Although, apple's current keyboard (WITH KEYPAD) serves me just fine
Yeah, but the extra plastic on the bottom may be for ergonomics. It should work as a wrist rest to try and prevent carpal tunnel. So in Dell's defense, its a good thing; especially if they are trying to market it to anyone who will be typing for an extended period of time.
Although, apple's current keyboard (WITH KEYPAD) serves me just fine
The nice thing about stuff like that is its user replaceable. I sure as hell am not using the Apple Mighty Mouse that came with this iMac, I bought a Logitech mouse the same time I bought the iMac. The Keyboard (with Num Pad for sure) is worth keeping around though.
I was Very disappointed the new iMac didn't have quad core procs... At least the higher end version should of had the option available. It would of been perfect. Dell's all in one have had quad core cpus (even though, lower speed) for a long time now.. The XPS One was a bit pricey, but this new Studio model is quite a bit more affordable, and yes, comes with quad core for under $1000.
If the latest iMac had quad cores would of been perfect, I would of ordered one already. I do use apps that takes advantage of multi core, and even if I didn't it does help when you have many apps open. Plus with the new Snow Leopard and openCL supposedly more multithreaded, it would of just made sense to use the quad core. I do think they can put it in the imac. Especially with the newer batch of quad cores that are lower voltage. Now I would really expect the next update they should put iCore7 cpus in there or at least lower voltage versions of the same cpus..
I think if they don't use quad core in the next update on the iMac, Apple is going to become less competitive as everyone else is starting to or will use quad core cpus.
If the latest iMac had quad cores would of been perfect, I would of ordered one already. I do use apps that takes advantage of multi core, and even if I didn't it does help when you have many apps open. Plus with the new Snow Leopard and openCL supposedly more multithreaded, it would of just made sense to use the quad core. I do think they can put it in the imac. Especially with the newer batch of quad cores that are lower voltage. Now I would really expect the next update they should put iCore7 cpus in there or at least lower voltage versions of the same cpus..
I think if they don't use quad core in the next update on the iMac, Apple is going to become less competitive as everyone else is starting to or will use quad core cpus.
What's really strange is that CNET shows what almost looks like the stock $699 model for $1,000. I think that's where the biggest complaint comes from. It's not $1,000 though.
You get the 9400M quad core for that much.
Wow, check this out.
Not the same ram speed as the iMac 2.93Ghz setup, and among many other things.. but still...
Intel® Core 2 Duo Processor E7500 (2.93GHz, 3MB, 1066MHz FSB)
Integrated 18.5 W LCD , 16:9 Aspect Ratio, WXGA (1366x768)
3GB1 Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz- 2DIMMs
..... etc.
$899
http://www.dell.com/content/product...9&~oid=us~en~29~desktop-studio-one-19_cto_3~~
For a setup with this speed core 2 duo cpu, its a pretty good price. An iMac with that cpu starts around $1800.... I am not saying this Dell is the same as the iMac, Not at all.. this is not apples to apples, but still, Apple is charging quite a bit for a 2.93ghz core 2 duo setup.... If they charge what they did but with something a bit better, like at least a quad core or at the highend, a iCore7 cpu.. I think it would justify their prices more. To me there is a difference between having good profit margins on your products (which I think Apple do deserve), and over charging a bit on old technology. I do think they can provide more performance for this same price. The technology already exist, they just choose not to use it. Which boggles me a little bit.
Not the same ram speed as the iMac 2.93Ghz setup, and among many other things.. but still...
Intel® Core 2 Duo Processor E7500 (2.93GHz, 3MB, 1066MHz FSB)
Integrated 18.5 W LCD , 16:9 Aspect Ratio, WXGA (1366x768)
3GB1 Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz- 2DIMMs
..... etc.
$899
http://www.dell.com/content/product...9&~oid=us~en~29~desktop-studio-one-19_cto_3~~
For a setup with this speed core 2 duo cpu, its a pretty good price. An iMac with that cpu starts around $1800.... I am not saying this Dell is the same as the iMac, Not at all.. this is not apples to apples, but still, Apple is charging quite a bit for a 2.93ghz core 2 duo setup.... If they charge what they did but with something a bit better, like at least a quad core or at the highend, a iCore7 cpu.. I think it would justify their prices more. To me there is a difference between having good profit margins on your products (which I think Apple do deserve), and over charging a bit on old technology. I do think they can provide more performance for this same price. The technology already exist, they just choose not to use it. Which boggles me a little bit.
I was Very disappointed the new iMac didn't have quad core procs... At least the higher end version should of had the option available. It would of been perfect. Dell's all in one have had quad core cpus (even though, lower speed) for a long time now.. The XPS One was a bit pricey, but this new Studio model is quite a bit more affordable, and yes, comes with quad core for under $1000.
If the latest iMac had quad cores would of been perfect, I would of ordered one already. I do use apps that takes advantage of multi core, and even if I didn't it does help when you have many apps open. Plus with the new Snow Leopard and openCL supposedly more multithreaded, it would of just made sense to use the quad core. I do think they can put it in the imac. Especially with the newer batch of quad cores that are lower voltage. Now I would really expect the next update they should put iCore7 cpus in there or at least lower voltage versions of the same cpus..
I think if they don't use quad core in the next update on the iMac, Apple is going to become less competitive as everyone else is starting to or will use quad core cpus.
Apple never seems to do things until they are really needed. Sometimes that sucks because many of us (Including myself) want to have a computer that lasts a couple years at least if we spend that kind of money.
But you mentioned the thing that makes the whole argument kind of less important, OpenCL. OpenCL will not be better with a quad core CPU, its a system to help with certain programs that can use it that makes the GPU do some of the work for the CPU, because a GPU is A LOT better at number crunching than a CPU which is better at handling threading. (Speaking in terms of x86 architecture, PowerPC's were awesome because they were more like GPU's, but were slower in a lot of other apps that people used more, much like a GPU). All other things being equal, video card, etc, an app that uses OpenCL will not run any significant amount better on a quad core than a dual core. If you are planning to render another Dreamworks movie all on your Dell, then maybe it will help a bit, but I doubt you are.
If OpenCL works as well as they say, and if our 4850's help out, then even a lowly dual core will make some of the fastest quad cores look like they are standing still, thats of course assuming they aren't also running 4850's or better.
There are often better options, just pick what you like and use it. My guess is Apple didn't see a reason to use a Quad Core in the iMac when they could just wait for the i7, and I kind of agree. I know you say you use multithreaded apps, but I have seen a lot of benchmark sites where the faster dual core stomps the slower quad core. I know that seems obvious, but you have to remember even the fastest quad core isn't as fast as the fastest dual core, and the fastest dual core usually overclocks better. If you are really pushing 100% CPU usage on all 4 core's regularly, than you my friend are in the minority and need a Mac Pro or a high end Dell, or ya know, build one yourself.
That is NOT the same CPU. That is a 3MB cache vs. the iMac's 6MB cache. You also have to take a lot of other things into account. If you are talking about an $1800 iMac, then its probably the 24" which has an IPS display, which is already a lot better than what they are using in the Dell. Also factor in Wireless (Not sure what the Dell you built had in it), also factor in anything else, even the small stuff, when comparing.
Not saying the Dell won't be cheaper still, but you are talking about two largely different computers. If you want something small and an 19" screen, get a Mac Mini and a monitor and end up at about $700 with 4GB of DDR3 ram, a 9400m, a 120GB HD (which you can swap if you need 500 or so), and so on.
Or just buy the damn Dell, hell I dunno. You guys keep looking at specs as if thats the answer but its not. If it were, we would all be driving whatever was the fastest car out there every year. But you need to factor in Customer Service, Reliability, Fit and Finish, and so on. A lot of these things we can't answer yet about the Studio One, and the 4850's in the iMac's sure seem to have their share of problems (although mine is running just fine).
So whoever wants to buy it, get it and let us know how it really is, because specs are meaningless if the damn thing doesn't work.
Apple never seems to do things until they are really needed. Sometimes that sucks because many of us (Including myself) want to have a computer that lasts a couple years at least if we spend that kind of money.
But you mentioned the thing that makes the whole argument kind of less important, OpenCL. OpenCL will not be better with a quad core CPU, its a system to help with certain programs that can use it that makes the GPU do some of the work for the CPU, because a GPU is A LOT better at number crunching than a CPU which is better at handling threading. (Speaking in terms of x86 architecture, PowerPC's were awesome because they were more like GPU's, but were slower in a lot of other apps that people used more, much like a GPU). All other things being equal, video card, etc, an app that uses OpenCL will not run any significant amount better on a quad core than a dual core. If you are planning to render another Dreamworks movie all on your Dell, then maybe it will help a bit, but I doubt you are.
If OpenCL works as well as they say, and if our 4850's help out, then even a lowly dual core will make some of the fastest quad cores look like they are standing still, thats of course assuming they aren't also running 4850's or better.
There are often better options, just pick what you like and use it. My guess is Apple didn't see a reason to use a Quad Core in the iMac when they could just wait for the i7, and I kind of agree. I know you say you use multithreaded apps, but I have seen a lot of benchmark sites where the faster dual core stomps the slower quad core. I know that seems obvious, but you have to remember even the fastest quad core isn't as fast as the fastest dual core, and the fastest dual core usually overclocks better. If you are really pushing 100% CPU usage on all 4 core's regularly, than you my friend are in the minority and need a Mac Pro or a high end Dell, or ya know, build one yourself.
ooops, my bad.. you are right about OpenCL, I was meaning to say the new Grand Central stuff in Snow Leopard. The new technology in the Snow Leopard that supposedly takes a lot more advantage of multicore cpus.
And yes. if I want to spend 2k on a computer, I would like to keep it for a while. And yes, I am probably in the minority on this as probably most people don't use heavily multithreaded apps, but apps like photoshop or premiere do take a pretty big advantage of multicore these days and many mac users do use a imac for stuff like that. A quad core 2.66 ghz vs a dual core 3.0ghz can make a big difference in rendering times on those apps. Most non threaded apps probably aren't that intensive anyway so either quad or dual can handle it with no problem. But the stuff you have to wait for, rendering a movie or 3d images does matter quite a bit. Even an app like imovie (which I don't know if its multithreaded, can take a huge advantage if it was). So in the long run, the more the core / threads we have, the more the benefit. And I don't know of many people overclock on the imac anyway, maybe I am wrong, are there a lot of people overclock the imac?
I am tired of big old workstation machines these days, dell or mac pro. If I can get the stuff done in a small elegant package, I would, less hassle and less space. And with the current technologies, I think we could.
I think my original post did say its not an apples to apples comparison. Its obvious both are different machines and I have clearly stated that. But I am saying for a 2.93ghz dual core setup, Apple is charging quite a bit for it. There are a lot of other factors that is not part of the spec, (which is why many people are moving to the mac in the first place), but in my opinion, they are still charging quite a bit for a 2.93ghz setup. How much each person is willing to pay for the other things you get from an imac is up to the person to decide. In my opinion, comparing the competition, I feel they are charging a bit much for the performance they are providing on the iMac... Cpu is one, and video card option is the other.
Well the cpu in the imac is also a crippled mobile chip while this a desktop chip and rarely is that full 6mb cache used. Also for All we know this could be a PVA or IPS screen. There are tons of 19 inch PVA's in the tv indutry and they almost universally use that same 1366x768 resolution. Also this has a multi touch screen for dirt cheap.
I have never seen it mentioned that the iMac's processor is a mobile version, but even if it is like that matters since the Core 2 Duo architecture would still be there, its still pushing 1066 on the FSB, and still has more cache... your evidence that the Dell's isn't an even harder hit mobile is...?
Oh, and there is no reason you can't fill a 6MB cache on a dual core processor. It parses out to 3MB per core, which is filled by even the most mediocre tasks. Where you start to see diminishing returns in a processor is with 12MB cache's and up, which benchmarks have shown little improvement in when using 4 cores or less.
And I really, REALLY, don't see Dell putting an IPS screen in a computer at this price. You can be all fire and anger thinking Apple overprices their stuff, but you still have to live in this universe where putting all that and an IPS panel which can be a couple hundred more than TN would still be profitable for Dell.
It's not even sold as a high end workstation PC, so they would just be shooting themselves in the foot putting an IPS panel in a computer they seem to market as being for your kids to draw on using the touchscreen.
Edit: I see someone said the iMac's use Mobile processors, but beyond that I don't see why that matters. Mobile processors are usually the exact same as their Desktop daddy's, just lower watt so they use less power, generate less heat. These aren't the Mobile Centrino vs. Pentium 4 days.
Umm, they are desktop chips. The model numbers for the cpu are the same as those used in other desktops. Its an E series not a T or a P series which indicate mobile processors. The Pentium dual core are core 2 cpus. They are not based on the netburst architecture that pentum d was based on.
Yeah I found them, Apple does not make that stuff easy to find.
Well if its the T9800 in the iMac and the E7500 in the Dell, according to the benchmark site I found, the T9800 hits 2,049 while the E7500 2,157. So not really worth it. The kicker is with the Q8200 they offer in the Dell, 3,181. This of course takes into consideration you are pushing all four cores with whatever app you are using, which is pretty rare (currently).
Whatever, the Dell is a fine machine, I just don't have any use for that small a screen size. I can understand a 24" iMac or Sony or Dell because then you have a good all in one PC, even if it isn't the fastest kid on the block. With this though, I feel like I would have a rocket CPU, pretty lame GPU, and small Monitor.
I just dont see the appeal, but to each their own. When OpenCL is out and we need to put some processor work, I would like to see what the Dell does against an iMac with a 4850 or even GT120.
My problem isn't with the price or anything, I just can't see what hole this computer fills. If its for the kitchen, why do you need a Q8200. If its for gaming, the 9400 is OK, I have one in my Mini, but its pretty much low-setting WoW or Counter-Strike for you. Design work the Monitor is pushing the small side.
I dunno, I would get the 2nd build option and just save the money and let kids play on it, seems like it would be good for that.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7211890/
55W TDP, Socket P mobile processors. Not that there's much of a difference in performance between mobile and desktop at the same clocks.
yes, but those aren't the same as the new studio version. Intel graphics on all but the top of the line. no thanks...
Cheers,
...hopefully win7 will fix Vista's problems, then this would be fairly competitive if they gave it a 20"+ screen...