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

Is the maxed out new imac a contender?

xgman

xgman

macrumors 603
Original poster
Aug 6, 2007
5,701
1,430
What do you guys think after reading the spec sheet and config options of the top 27 incher? I guess the single most limiting factor is the 4 cores limit. Even maxed out it represents a big savings over any mac pro. But compared to what we have now, how much of a performance dip and in what areas?
 
Depends on your uses, if you asking the question in the context of how it compares to a Mac Pro, then the limitations go beyond the number of course, but overall upgradeability. Certainly there are likely many people using older Mac Pro's that could suffice with an iMac, but personally, I need the expandability and upgradeability that the Pro offers.
 
For many uses....

Yes, the new iMac, maxed out is a contender. But if you run software optimized for multiple cores, the most, the better. Also, in the iMac, you lost the upgrade/expand options of the Mac Pro.:):apple:
 
The more I think about it the more it really boils down to the cores. TB could potentially substitute for drive bays. The highest end graphics card is adequate. 32 gb ram is certainly doable and user upgradeable. The 3.4 to Turbo 3.9 quad cpu is fast enough albeit only 4 cores. The improved "ivy bridge" platform specs and usb 3 should help. Then there is that nice 27" screen with less glare than before as a bonus. Just keep getting back to having those 2 extra cores on Logic etc that gives me pause.

Still it might be a nice holdover while waiting for a "later in" 2013 Mac Pro which there is really no guaranty about.
 
xgman said:
Even maxed out it represents a big savings over any mac pro. But compared to what we have now, how much of a performance dip and in what areas?
Click to expand...
Once maxed out it will easily cost as much as the 6 core. I can't build them at the store. How do you know much the bto options cost?
 
xgman said:
What do you guys think after reading the spec sheet and config options of the top 27 incher? I guess the single most limiting factor is the 4 cores limit. Even maxed out it represents a big savings over any mac pro. But compared to what we have now, how much of a performance dip and in what areas?
Click to expand...

For me the might of most i7s is good enough but I hate the idea of buying a computer that is very difficult to repair or upgrade is a no buy for me.
 
The high end GPU on the iMac is still slow, even compared the 5870.
 
Yeah. The 3.4GHz i7 + GTX 680mx + anything else they offer will cost an arm and a leg. The base builds are not very impressive to say the least. But I am just happy we'll have more kepler drivers to reverse engineer for PC cards. Not sure if the 675mx is kepler based as the 675m is not and scores close to a 6870. Still sub par for 2560x1600. Whatever the fastest kepler option is is the one to go with. No fermi rebrands. The 680m should be kepler. The GTX 680m looks to be between a 560ti and a GTX 660. And as usual a desktop named variant is still 50% faster.
 
theSeb said:
Once maxed out it will easily cost as much as the 6 core. I can't build them at the store. How do you know much the bto options cost?
Click to expand...

No possible way. I could spend approaching $5k for a 3.33 6 core with 24-32 gb ram etc... I can imagine from the max base price if the new imac at $2k, plus extra ram, drives cpu bump etc still way less. Especially if buy the ram from owc.
 
goMac said:
The high end GPU on the iMac is still slow, even compared the 5870.
Click to expand...

The GTX 680m? It appears to be faster than 5870 desktop. It appears to be faster than 6970 and GTX 470/ 560ti.
Passmark has 680m at 3880.
5870 at 2543.
Of course they could be heavily DX11 or something. And that is only one bench and probably not the best indicator as I have personally slammed it in the past. But easy chart reads.
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

3D Mark has the 680m faster than a GTX 570 desktop. Kinda impressive. Cost will be high as well as heat.
http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/NVIDIA+GeForce+GTX+680M/compare
 
derbothaus said:
Yeah. The 3.4GHz i7 + GTX 680mx + anything else they offer will cost an arm and a leg. The base builds are not very impressive to say the least. But I am just happy we'll have more kepler drivers to reverse engineer for PC cards. Not sure if the 675mx is kepler based as the 675m is not and scores close to a 6870. Still sub par for 2560x1600. Whatever the fastest kepler option is is the one to go with. No fermi rebrands. The 680m should be kepler. The GTX 680m looks to be between a 560ti and a GTX 660. And as usual a desktop named variant is still 50% faster.
Click to expand...

Which seems plenty adequate for what I do most. (Logic & Photoshop)
You get the ram from OWC and yes the 3.4 and 680 and then ssd. Another downside is having to go with Apple's spec;ed drives rather than faster 3rd party ones. Then again, they can go in TB containers. (not quite the same, I know)

----------
derbothaus said:
The GTX 680m? It appears to be faster than 5870 desktop. It appears to be faster than 6970 and GTX 470/ 560ti.
Passmark has 680m at 3880.
5870 at 2543.
Of course they could be heavily DX11 or something. And that is only one bench and probably not the best indicator as I have personally slammed it in the past. But easy chart reads.
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
Click to expand...

Seems right. I'm not even sure the 675 isn't as fast or capable as the 5870.
 
derbothaus said:
The GTX 680m? It appears to be faster than 5870 desktop. It appears to be faster than 6970 and GTX 470/ 560ti.
Passmark has 680m at 3880.
5870 at 2543.
Of course they could be heavily DX11 or something. And that is only one bench and probably not the best indicator as I have personally slammed it in the past. But easy chart reads.
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

3D Mark has the 680m faster than a GTX 570 desktop. Kinda impressive. Cost will be high as well as heat.
http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/NVIDIA+GeForce+GTX+680M/compare
Click to expand...

Didn't see the 680m! I just assumed the 675 was the max.

D'oh.
 
I'm not even remotely an iMac fan, but if that hybrid SSD/HDD works as advertised in the event, it would be really slick.

Would like something like it for the Mac Pro, although I suppose the right Automator setup could do the same with a SSD+HDD setup.
 
I know there is a TB adapter, but it should have had a firewire plug on the case.

I wish we knew when and what may be ahead for the Mac Pro.
 
Not at all, very little ability to upgrade. The Mac Pro was never aimed at an everyday type user, iMacs are fine to them. If you're seriously thinking that the new iMacs are a contender against a Mac Pro, then you're not the kind of customer that the whole concept of the Pro is for.
 
xgman said:
What do you guys think after reading the spec sheet and config options of the top 27 incher? I guess the single most limiting factor is the 4 cores limit. Even maxed out it represents a big savings over any mac pro. But compared to what we have now, how much of a performance dip and in what areas?
Click to expand...

Nothing has really changed from last time - or in the past 3 years. The gap gets slightly further apart in terms of value for money, but the iMac becomes more and more limited at the same time because of what desktop PCs can do in terms of raw performance.

The 2009 Mac Pro pricing made a big difference to Mac pro value, but the move to Core i5 and i7 processors later that year created the bigger gap. Intel switching to consumer processors coming first in 2011 lengthened it further.

It is not anything special if your ability to earn is linked to your workstation performance though, because then it is just a limited tool.

If Apple have obscene memory and storage pricing still it may not be as great value beyond the base models.
 
goMac said:
Ars already decided it likely was not anything like Smart Response but was likely an extension of Apple's own CoreStorage, especially because the OS and apps lives on the SSD only. Most driver or chipset side technologies wouldn't be able to make that distinction.

http://arstechnica.com/information-...le-fusion-drive-wait-what-how-does-this-work/
Click to expand...

While that may be...I dunno it sounds like SRT.

Apple may have an algorithm on what ends up on the mSATA it still sounds like SRT..

I'm not sure enough to make a proclamation..we shall see as it progresses...
 
GermanyChris said:
While that may be...I dunno it sounds like SRT.

Apple may have an algorithm on what ends up on the mSATA it still sounds like SRT..

I'm not sure enough to make a proclamation..we shall see as it progresses...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why they'd need SRT or any hardware feature when Core Storage already does everything they need with finer grain control. SRT also wouldn't let them preload data onto the SSD. I don't think SRT is actually capable of what Apple is promising from what I'm seeing in Intel's tech docs.
 
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