Then you state non Sandy Bridge for your price comparisons.
It's not like Apple is using high end Sandy Bridge processors. Apple generally uses the lowest end versions of the CPUs Intel offers and marks them way up.
How in the heck do you expect to upgrade your motherboard/CPU/memory/video card every 3 to 4 years for $300 to $400 max and be comparable to what's inside an iMac.
Every 3 to 4 years? That long you can just buy a whole new system for half the cost of the iMac and still get better.
Yea you can buy a motherboard CPU combo for under $100... With an Atom processor.
Actually you can get Phenom II X4s with motherboards for around $100.
Want a less expensive Mac ? One without keyboard, monitor, and mouse ? Get a Mini
rofl. $700 for a Core 2 Duo, 2GB of RAM, and GeForce 320M? No thanks. That same amount of money in a PC can get you 4-8GB of RAM, Sandy Bridge Core i5 or Core i7 or Phenom II X6 if you like AMD, a GeForce GTX 460 1GB or 560ti.
Price out an Acer or Asus all in one, or even a Dell (no cheap AMD please) and then tell me an iMac is over priced.
The thing Apple fans can't seem to grasp is the fact that the iMac is only popular because there are no other options in that price range. Apple doesn't offer a truly configurable tower, nor do they offer one at a reasonable price. So theres no way of knowing if the iMac would even be popular now if there was a reasonably priced and truly configurable tower.
mosx it's amazing how much time you spend trying to shoot down Macs. Your time must not be worth much, no wonder you don't mind spending time tinkering on home built PCs
Yeah, spending 5 minutes typing out a long post really takes up my day!
Some people just want their **** to work. And they'll pay extra for that. You won't. Before I was gainfully employed, I had a hard time doing that as well.
My desktop PC DOES just work. So does every other PC I have ever built for every other person who has contracted me to build one for them.
Some people also don't want loud, inefficient, cheap looking plastic crap laying around their houses either. And they'll pay extra not to have that. You won't.
Plastic? My PC case is plastic? Wow I didn't know that. Knocking on it right now sure sounds like metal! All black metal, doesn't look cheap at all, and only cost $50. Loud? It has a slight hum to it. But it also runs significantly cooler than any Mac does. The Core 2 Duo in my MacBook runs at 80c under full load. Twice that of my desktops CPU.
Inefficient? Apple claims 310w maximum power load for the 27" iMac. My PC runs around 350 watts or so playing Battlefield Bad Company 2 or DiRT 2 (both games tax the GPU fully and use more CPU threads than Crysis 2). My display uses 40 watts. So about an extra 80 watts of power or so give or take? Not bad considering how much more GPU power I have, my expandability options, and the fact that electricity is cheap enough to the point where I could leave this system on 24/7 and never be able to make up the difference in cost throughout the entire life time of the system.
iMac may not be able to decode HD audio, I have separated home entertainment for that. Oh yeah, people out there like to use their computer for work and entertainment, right ... so for people who cares about HD audio for purity, why would you using regular PC .. I´d use bluray player, projector, separated speaker and HD receiver, or dedicated HTPC
What? People don't want to work and play on their PC? Why not? CPU and GPU power wouldn't be where it is today if not for people doing that. You can thank gamers for the rapid advancement in computer technology.
See, the beautiful thing about a PC is the fact that you can make it all of those things and still be a work machine. You can have it be a high end gaming machine that puts out audiophile quality sound while being something you "work" on too.
Man, why do you use 1080p monitor for your holy God-almighty CPU? Wouldn´t that be shameful?
Why don´t you buy Dell 1440p monitor and come back to us to brag about your 3digit FPS? That sure toast iMac to shame
Because it'd be stupid to spend that much money on such a small display. You seem to forget I have a GTX 460 1GB. I'll get better frame-rates at 1440p than your iMac will.
However, again, it'd be stupid to spend that much money on a 27" display. If I'm going to spend that much money on a display, I'll get a nice large HDTV to connect my system to.
Oh wait, I do. I have a nice HDTV and surround system. The best part? When I hook my PC up to it, the GeForce GTX 460 outputs 8 channel LPCM over the HDMI cable, so I get full surround sound from my games or whatever other media I'm playing. Awesome, eh? Better sound than the PS3, better graphics than the Xbox 360. All I have to do is shut the system down, unplug a couple of cables, and move the box. Thanks to modern PC technology, I only have to connect a power cable, HDMI cable, and USB dongle for a keyboard and mouse when I hook up in the living room. No lugging cables around or anything.
Like you said, ain´t half reason of playing on PC is to have insanely extreme detail, texture and resolution? Your 1080p monitor won´t be enough I bet
Someone jealous that my $700 PC gets better frame-rates at both 1080p and 1440p than your $2,000 iMac?
So why bother buying modern vehicle, even a cheapo Toyota would take you places? For some people, everything gotta be good AND beautifull.
Except the iMac isn't good. At least, not for the price. If the current "high end" model was say.. $700 cheaper, then we could say it was "good".
Oh, and the car analogy doesn't work. People always like to try to say "PCs are like Toyotas/some other regular car brand and Macs are like BMWs". The problem is that BMW does use higher quality parts than Toyota. While Macs use the EXACT SAME parts as PCs. Again, you'll find the same brand of HDD, ODD, same CPU, same GPU, same brand of RAM, same display panel manufacturer, etc. as you'd find in a prebuilt PC or in a PC you built yourself. I remember one time owning a PC and a Mac. Both had Intel chipsets, Intel CPU, LG display, LG optical drive, and Hitachi HDDs. The only difference? The PC was 15.4" and the Mac was 13.3". Oh and the PC had dedicated graphics while the Mac had Intel graphics and cost $500 more.
I will admit, I missed that. I looked at the tech specs page which does NOT state that.
I also ask out of curiosity, have you used the 27" LED backlit display?
I've used both extensively, as I'm forced to support Macs. I don't like the Apple Cinema Display. I hate the gloss and it just doesn't look as good overall as the Dell display.
You say anti-glare screens are better, but that is a part of the design. Now, I disagree with you that matte is better in every situation, I'm sure matte displays are important for many people, but some prefer glossy, myself included. I've got a matte 30" ACD sitting across from me, so I can compare the two, while it looks great, I like the glossy. The colours pop, and it's incredibly bright, to say the least.
Well, I have a matte display in front of me right now and its most certainly brighter than Apple displays I've used. So...........
As far as colors go, again, this display and the Dell display are no less colorful than Apple displays. The colors most certainly "pop", just with no annoying glare.
Thinness, power savings, brightness (which is needed for the gloss), gloss, etc.
Well, power savings is questionable. Apple's Cinema Display page says that it uses a maximum of 250 watts while charging a MacBook Pro. Subtract 85 watts (MacBook Pros ship with 85w power adapters) and you have 165 watts. If you want to nitpick, take out the 49 watts for the built-in speakers. You end up with 116 watts used. Dell is 113 watts without audio or USB being used.
Brightness? Very little difference between the Dell and ACD. Very little difference between the ACD and other monitors that aren't $99 Walmart specials.
Thinness? Depth with stand is 7.87 for the Dell and 8.15 for the ACD. However, one thing to consider is that the Dell has considerably more video inputs. ACD only has DisplayPorts, 3 USB ports, and a power cable out. The Dell has 2 DVI, HDMI, VGA, Component, Composite, DisplayPort, 5 USB ports, and an 8 in 1 card reader. So the Dell has quite a bit more required hardware internally.
I'll post the break down at the bottom of the thread.
Will go over that now.
27" 2560x1440 IPS display: $840
Why do I need that screen?
Intel Core i5 2400 3.1GHz: $190
Why not a different processor? I do have a choice after all.
Radeon HD 6970M 1GB (HD 6850): $170
Again, choice. Why that one? There are GTX 460 1GBs out there for $150 or less after rebates. Mine was $150 after rebates 3 months ago.
Again, choice. Why do I have to go with that specific drive?
Which motherboard? Why do I need one that expensive? Newegg has motherboards starting as low as $70 that are Sandy Bridge compatible. The beauty of building a PC yourself is that you can choose what you want for your budget and "needs".
Why a $50 power supply? Again, you can pick whatever power supply you want or need. IT can be cheaper, it can be more expensive, or it can even be the one included with the case.
Bluetooth+Wireless+DVD drive
Whoa, why do I need Bluetooth? I've owned computers with Bluetooth connectivity for over 5 years now and I have NEVER used it. Even the iPhone can't use Bluetooth to sync, so whats the point?
Wireless? You mean wifi? We're talking a desktop here. 1Gbps ethernet is standard these days, why do I want to subject myself to wifi when I don't need to?
Explain. Speakers? You can get speakers better than the iMac built-in speakers for 1/3 of that.
Wireless keyboard & mouse: $50
Again, why so expensive? You can get a good Logitech set off newegg cheaper than that. $27 in fact. Wired is better if you care about accuracy and response in games.
Why do I need an $80 case?
Total comes to $1815. Apple charges $1999.
Spec for spec, it's a good deal. That's not to say, as I said earlier, you can't build yourself something better and more suited for not too much more. You could also get a smaller screen, etc., if you don't want the larger one.
It's not really a good deal. You don't need that display. You can get a good 23" IPS display for around $200, so take $640 off that price. You can get a better GPU for $20 cheaper, so take that off. You can get cheaper motherboards, power supplies, and cases. You could combine the cost of the motherboard, case, and power supply, then realistically take $50 off that and still end up with something just as good. You threw in useless stuff like $60 for "peripherals" and $20 for Bluetooth and wireless. In the end you'd spend around $1,100 for virtually the same thing with a faster GPU, a slightly smaller but likely better anti-glare display with better color reproduction and response time.
And, again, the beauty of the PC is CHOICE. If you want, you can go with an AMD Phenom II X4 at 3.2GHz WITH high end motherboard for less than just the cost of the Core i5 you listed. Or for the cost of that Core i5, you can bump up to the "Black Edition" Phenom II X4 at 3.2GHz which people overclock on stock cooling to 4GHz+. Again, beauty of choice.
I also want to finish with emphasizing again, that the 6970M is a 6850 desktop with ~12% lower clock speeds. Bump those clock speeds up to the same as the 6850 and it should perform exactly the same, that's why it's the best card to compare it against.
But again, its not the card thats actually in the iMac. The card that IS in the iMac IS slower than the 6850, both of which are slower than the GeForce GTX 460. The card in the iMac even more so. Again, saying the 6970m is "roughly the equivalent" of a GTX 460 is simply not true. There is a very large difference in performance between the two.
You're kidding right? The 6970M can play at native resolution on most games in high settings with a good frame rate. You can run modern games on high w/ 512MB VRAM at 1080p and get good performance, I'm using a 4850M 512MB at 1440p and can play many games on medium or high at native. Obviously my GPU won't get that in games like Crysis, or Metro 2033, the latter I can get ~40 FPS on lowest settings at native.
I guess your definition of "playing" and "good performance" is different than mine. I didn't spend several hundred dollars to play games on low settings. I spent that money so I could play games at the highest settings at high frame-rates at 1080p. I didn't spend so much money so I could say "Oh I get 40 frames per second on the lowest settings.." I also specifically bought what I did so that way when games aren't poorly optimized console ports like Crysis 2 and they do start to legitimately run at less than 45 frames per second or so at highest settings at 1080p, then I could just swap out the one component and dramatically increase performance.
Spending $2,000 on a machine, even $1,000 or more, and not being able to set highest on everything is just ridiculous. Having to set a game to lowest settings? On a machine that cost more than $1,000 in the last two years? No way. Unacceptable. Completely. Anything that cost $1,000 or more 2 years ago should still be able to run modern games at 1080p at 40+ frames per second at highest settings. Anything $600 or more today should be able to do the same.
Not a 27" at 2560x1440. You want nice big screen that looks good, you pay for it.
Like I said before, if you're going to drop that much money on a display, you're better off going with a bigger HDTV. Especially when you consider the fact that no iMac GPU can push any modern game at 60 frames per second, everything set to max, at 2560x1440. In fact, there isn't an add-in card for the Mac Pro that would run in OS X that would be able to push that kind of resolution at 60 frames per second with full details. In fact, the Mac Pro wouldn't even be able to support high end GPUs in Windows, like the GTX 590. From what I'm reading now (googling), the Mac Pro's power supply won't support a GTX 590. The Mac Pro's motherboard obviously doesn't support SLI or Crossfire. Even a single GTX 580 in Windows would be pushing it, with its 244 watt power draw and requirement for an 8-pin connector.
So there really isn't a way for ANY Mac to be able to push 60 frames per second at 2560x1440 with highest detail settings in modern games.
You can still play on lower settings and it looks good. 50 FPS at 1080p on the highest settings with 8xAF and 4xAA is good. Turn off AA for a much higher frame rate. The BFBC2 video I linked to was ~40 FPS and was 1440p on near highest settings with 4xAF and 2xAA. I tested my iMac with those settings and got 8-15 FPS. Turned off AA and got ~30 FPS instantly.
As I said, any system that cost more than $1,000 two years ago should be able to run modern games at 1080p with highest settings, no exceptions.
Once you start turning down detail settings, you're basically playing the console version of the game. So whats the point?
40 fps at 1440p with detail settings equal to the console versions doesn't impress me at all, especially for a $2,000 machine. A $2,000 PC would eat BFBC2 for lunch. Thats something that would have an SLI or Crossfire setup or a GTX 590 or 6990 with a 6 core Core i7.
Again, going back to the notebookcheck tests, that $2,000 system is getting 47.7 frames per second in DiRT 2 on "Ultra" settings with 4xMSAA at 1080p. My less than $700 system gets 70.5 frames per second. For Crysis they averaged 25fps. I averaged 37 using the same settings. BFBC2 they averaged 49, I averaged 68. Thats everything maxed, HBAO on, 4xMSAA, etc. Now, let's say I do what you did. I use the same settings as that video you linked to, but disable AA and use the same AF setting you did. My frame-rate peaked at 169 frames per second. It averaged 105. During that same shoot out sequence from that video. I mean, come on. This is on a sub $700 machine.
BFBC2 in that video was close to highest settings. So, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The only difference was HBAO was off, effects was on medium, and it had 2x MSAA and 4xAF.
Keep in mind the BFBC2 scores from notebookcheck are with a mobile CPU. An FPS increase should be expected with a significantly better CPU.
The notebook check link I posted has the same GPU used in the iMac. In fact, I got that link because others here tried to use that link as proof that the GPU in the iMac is "roughly equivalent" to a GTX 460 desktop GPU.
Again, the iMac GPU IS a mobile GPU, it IS the 6970m and it performs WORSE than a GTX 460 desktop.
Sure it would, but it wouldn't have a $1000 screen. The iMac is a $1000 PC and a $1000 screen put together in a nice all-in-one form factor. Would you expect 12GB RAM to come standard in a $1000 computer?
Yes, I would actually. Because a $1,000 PC you build yourself without throwing in useless components or choosing needlessly expensive parts would have more than 4GB of RAM. Again, mine was less than $700 after all was said and done and I have 8GB of RAM.
What licensing? Blu-ray licensing is all in one place now. It's not a "bag of hurt" and was in the process of being changed when Jobs made that comment years ago. Licensing for blu-ray is one stop shop now. On top of that, Apple already pays for H.264 licensing, MPEG-2 licensing, HCDP licensing.... I don't see how blu-ray licensing was a "bag of hurt" when DVD licensing was very similar in the 90s and Apple jumped on that.
as thats all i need for what i do on my iMac and yes i use Final Cut and even AVID on my core duo in the signature , and i dont' feel it is to slow
Wow. Really? Hows that even possible? It takes far too long for the 2GHz Core 2 Duo in my MacBook to edit 720p video shot on my iPhone 4. I can't imagine how bad it'd be on an even slower Core Duo. I don't even bother with video on my MacBook now that I have my desktop. It's literally 6-10x faster depending on the task at hand.
maybe some should come down from their cloud and come back to earth with their expectations ,the iMac is not a desktop , it is and ever was a ALL in ONE computer ,for the money they spend they get a really good computer with the new iMac , sure compromises need to be made .
Considering the cost and the fact that Apple tries to claim the iMac is the ultimate computer, NO compromise should be made.
the best computer a movie cutter or designer or photographer ....might ever wish for "
as they have that already, get the MacPro
The Mac Pro isn't even that. It can't handle high end GPUs for gaming or other tasks, it can't handle multiple GPUs, and it costs far too much for what you get.
hater, he showed numbers and statistics about how $2000 PC should be, but he owns apple product too, wow I really confused here what he really is 
