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.
My 27" iMac Review After A Week Of Use
- Thread starter lasuther
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No heat issue that will affect the use/performance of the computer. Some claim the back is warm to the touch, but that is how it is designed to be.
Some complain of HDD issues with the 1TB and 2TB drives. Depends on which one and what make you get. Others seem to think it is fine. Depends on what your threshold level is.
I'm having the same issue. Haven't spent any time trying to fix it. I think my problem might be I didn't select enough faces. I'll work on it this weekend.
In 2 years I'll probably get a quad-core (or whatever is hot then) but for now the C2D is more than enough. I don't use any applications that take advantage of multi-core, so while I wouldn't mind having an i5 or i7, there is just no tangible benefit to me now.
True. But rather than get a new computer in 2yrs you could get the quad core and have a good system for 4-5yrs. Throw in a SSD and 16GB when prices drop and you could extend that out a few more years. Just depends if you want to get a "lower" model every few years, or just the top of the line and wait a bit longer before upgrading. Depends on your preference.
But the quad core would not do anything faster for me right how. Did you read the Gizmodo article comparing the C2D to the i7, especially the Reality Tests? Performance is the same.
Keep a system for 4-5 years? Seriously? Isn't a 2004 iMac hopelessly outdated now, even one that is fully tricked out? Thanks but no thanks. If the software that I uses evolves to a point where it is 64-bit and uses multi-threading, then I could see getting a quad-core.
Besides, in two years I'll be getting the all-new Octo-Core iMac
Bottom line - would I prefer an i7 over the C2D? Of course! But until I can justify the purchase, the C2D will do us just fine.
-Doug
From a cost perspective, I can see why you would pass on the i7. However, I don't see picking the C2D over the i5 based on cost. That $300 gives you the better graphics card which can be a big deal when driving the 2560x1440 monitor. You also get to move from a 3.06GHz C2D to a i5 which boosts up to 3.2GHz. Both of those made the $300 upgrade well worth it. The 21.5" iMac at $1199 makes a lot more sense when trying to save money with a C2D iMac.
If you are talking about reality tests you might as well buy a MacMini at that point. If all you are going to do is surf the internet, use MS Word, send a few emails then yes the C2D would be fine. But if you do any photo/video editing, or plan to do anything of that sorts in the future, the quad core is the obvious choice. To spend an extra $300 to go from the 27in C2D to the i5 with better graphics is the obvious choice. $300 over 3-4 years comes out to an extra ~$.25 a day. That is nothing for 2009/2010 technology vs. "saving" $300 by getting 2006/2007 technology. Your pick; you seem happy with the C2D and have told yourself you don't need the quad core. That might be the best decision for you. However imho the extra $300 is an obvious no brainer if you are spending this kind of money on a computer. The i5 represents the best bang for the buck by far.
I live in California so factoring in sales tax & rebates the best price that I could find for an i7 was at B&H for a 27" i7 for $2199.00 - $43.98 (BING rebate) = $2155.02.
I qualify for the Apple .edu prices, but the total for the i7 from Apple came to $2297.21.
Originally, I ordered an i5 from Amazon for $1972.98. I usually prefer Amazon (great return policy and I have prime shipping), but for $150 more I can get an i7 from B&H (good experiences based on camera purchases).
I figure if I have to do an exchange (screen or hard drive), I'll work with Apple rather than B&H.
I qualify for the Apple .edu prices, but the total for the i7 from Apple came to $2297.21.
Originally, I ordered an i5 from Amazon for $1972.98. I usually prefer Amazon (great return policy and I have prime shipping), but for $150 more I can get an i7 from B&H (good experiences based on camera purchases).
I figure if I have to do an exchange (screen or hard drive), I'll work with Apple rather than B&H.
Do you happen to know what B&H's return policy is? I would definitely make sure that you know what it is and are comfortable with it. While the chance of something being wrong with are small, there are issues as you know with the screen, hard drive noise, dust under the screen, vibration, DOA...etc. While you might pay more at Apple.com, you have the benefit of being able to send it back for a new one within the first 14 days and keep doing that until you are happy with everything. Just make sure that B&H or Amazon have a return policy that you are happy with and where they wont try to stick it to you if there is something wrong with your system.
Agreed, but I don't plan on doing anything of this sort. Also, keep in mind the $300 price difference is for someone who hasn't bought a new iMac yet. For me to return the C2D would incur a 10% restocking fee ($170) + $300, for a total increase of $470. Too much
Agreed, but I don't plan on doing anything of this sort. Also, keep in mind the $300 price difference is for someone who hasn't bought a new iMac yet. For me to return the C2D would incur a 10% restocking fee ($170) + $300, for a total increase of $470. Too much
I completely agree. For the general family computer the C2D is fine. But if someone in the family does any photo/video work then it is worth the extra bit to put the computer over the top.
True..true..I have only had good experiences with B&H in the past, which is mainly because I have never needed to return anything
. The problem with returns to a company like B&H is that it could take weeks to process the return and ship a replacement. If need be, I will contact Apple to do an exchange. Based on past experiences, Apple doesn't seem to care where you buy the machine, as long as it is new and recently purchased, if they need to do an exchange they'll do it.Agreed, but I don't plan on doing anything of this sort. Also, keep in mind the $300 price difference is for someone who hasn't bought a new iMac yet. For me to return the C2D would incur a 10% restocking fee ($170) + $300, for a total increase of $470. Too much
Those restocking fees, at least at the Apple stores, are pretty flexible. If you explain your situation to the manager and you upgrade to a more expensive machine, I think they would waive that fee.
I talked with them and they said that they would possibly waive the fee if the HDD in my C2D was excessively noisy, even if I bought an i5. It's just not worth it to disconnect everything, package it up, drive up to the Apple Store and carry it in by hand only to find that I'll have to pay the restocking fee.
There's no such thing as future proofing in the computer world in my experience.
An i5 or i7 isn't really any faster in most things except something like video encoding. Even then it might not matter if its faster if you only encode a videos now and then.
Video encoding is still such a resource intensive task that you're likely to run it overnight even with an i5/i7 so as not to bog down your machine while you're using it for other tasks. And then it doesn't matter how much time you save.
With that said, in this case & in my situation, I'd probably blow another $300 on the i5/4850. But honestly I know for 95% of what I do I'd notice no difference between the $1699/$1999 machines.
An i5 or i7 isn't really any faster in most things except something like video encoding. Even then it might not matter if its faster if you only encode a videos now and then.
Video encoding is still such a resource intensive task that you're likely to run it overnight even with an i5/i7 so as not to bog down your machine while you're using it for other tasks. And then it doesn't matter how much time you save.
With that said, in this case & in my situation, I'd probably blow another $300 on the i5/4850. But honestly I know for 95% of what I do I'd notice no difference between the $1699/$1999 machines.
I picked up my i7 from a local place yesterday and after 2.5 hours of transfer had it up and running. The whole thing is definitely snappier than my 24" iMac C2D. Running WoW while also running VMWare with 3GB and two processors dedicated to it is really, really nice.
As for World of Warcraft, I was (and pardon the pun) truly wowed by it. Running the thing full screen, native resolution, it performed better than my 24", which had the same graphics card. WoW is more CPU dependent than a lot of games, but I was still surprised. I don't run with high settings, but WoW looks good even without all the AA and the texture resolutions turned up. I was even able to to increase view distance to close to max and still get notably better performance. All of this while also powering a 24" LED Cinema Display as a second monitor.
I was getting 60 FPS running around all of the old world, 30-40 in Dalaran, and sometimes higher, and 40+ in the rest of Northrend perhaps 50+. The instance I did last night was smooth.
I was hoping for a faster machine with comparable WoW, but I got a very nice surprise. I had buyers remorse driving home from the store, but that disappeared by the time I went to bed. The VMWare Fusion performance was notably better, and hopefully installing version 3.0 tonight will improve that even further.
As for World of Warcraft, I was (and pardon the pun) truly wowed by it. Running the thing full screen, native resolution, it performed better than my 24", which had the same graphics card. WoW is more CPU dependent than a lot of games, but I was still surprised. I don't run with high settings, but WoW looks good even without all the AA and the texture resolutions turned up. I was even able to to increase view distance to close to max and still get notably better performance. All of this while also powering a 24" LED Cinema Display as a second monitor.
I was getting 60 FPS running around all of the old world, 30-40 in Dalaran, and sometimes higher, and 40+ in the rest of Northrend perhaps 50+. The instance I did last night was smooth.
I was hoping for a faster machine with comparable WoW, but I got a very nice surprise. I had buyers remorse driving home from the store, but that disappeared by the time I went to bed. The VMWare Fusion performance was notably better, and hopefully installing version 3.0 tonight will improve that even further.
You really don't think the i5/i7 is faster than the C2D? Ok.
of course the quad core will last longer and be able to run newer programs in the future compared to the C2D. To think anything else is idiotic. What's with everyone trying to persuade others that the C2D 27 inch just won't cut it? Some of us do not encode video, or do this, or do that.
I Photoshop occasionally, browse the internet, listen to music, upload photos. My wife would use it for even less purposes.
I fail to recognize where I'm going to need quad-cores. 2 or 3 years from now? I'd rather have the updated iMac by then.
I Photoshop occasionally, browse the internet, listen to music, upload photos. My wife would use it for even less purposes.
I fail to recognize where I'm going to need quad-cores. 2 or 3 years from now? I'd rather have the updated iMac by then.
Well Macrumors doesn't do benchmarks.
Also I doubt you read the rest of my post.
Anyway the fact is the i5/i7s are really only dramatically faster in video encoding. Even then it takes an hour to encode a movie with an i5 compared to 2 hours with a C2D. The question is does it matter? When I do encode something I usually let it run overnight unattended so while it is nice encoding is getting faster it still takes too long even with an i5 to wait for it. I'd probably still do encoding over night. I probably wouldn't tie up my system running encoding during the day.
Now if I was getting paid to encode video then I would get an i5/i7 in a heartbeat because I could encode twice as much video per day.
Anyway, in general, system responsiveness with an i5 isn't going to be any faster than a 3.06 c2D.
Sure in a few more benchmarks an i5 wins. But those are benchmarks. How many folks unzip 2gig files ? Does it matter if an i5 unzips one in 60 seconds and the 3.06 C2D unzips it in 72 seconds? The answer is no unless you need to unzip 60 of those sized files per hour 24 hours a day and get paid per file.
Fast on paper doesn't translate to real-world fast.
LIke I said though I would probably still pay the $300 for an i5/4850 if I was already blowing $1700 on a 27" iMac. But I doubt it would be any faster than the $1699 model for 95% of my computer usage.
My bad -- I meant to say Macworld.
Perhaps you're missing the point: with an i7, you don't have to tie up your system while encoding. The i7 can handle encoding and a number of other tasks at the same time and with ease.
I'm not trying to be rude, but you are wrong. Try one out with a program like Aperture or Photoshop, and you will see.
The i5, and especially the i7, are smoking fast. They are absolutely faster then the C2D in the real world.
Programs open faster, the occasional processor heavy program is definitely quicker and smoother, unarchiving is faster, etc. - the sum experience is simply faster. Whether you care about that or not is your call. But it is faster (I've owned both computers).