My 27" iMac Review After A Week Of Use

[Bryan Bowler]

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.

Hi Jajo. I'm not trying to convince anyone that the C2D won't cut it. I think the C2D is a great computer that can serve the majority of people well for years. I'm just countering folks that say "in the real world, the i5 and i7 aren't any faster than the C2D." I feel like that is a false statement and bad advice, especially for new users that are trying to learn.

Bryan

 

[trip1ex]

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.

YOu missed the point though. The i5/i7 aren't noticeably faster for browsing, itunes, iPhoto, mail, Office, loading files from camera to computer or computer to ipod, etc.

See the dirty secret of the i5/i7 is it really only speeds up a few tasks that many folks never even do. The video encoding. Photoshop. Aperture.

And actually the Photoshop benchmark was the same for the i5/i7 as the 3.06 C2D iMac.

While I would pay the $300 for the upgrade. I'm pretty doubtful whether 95% of my computing experience would be improved. Surfing won't be. Neither will Mail or iTunes or iPhoto or OFfice or ....

I'd know notice more of a difference if Apple put dual hard drive in their system. An SSD for the main drive and a regular hard drive for a data drive. That would be noticeable.

 

[zerolight]

YOu missed the point though. The i5/i7 aren't noticeably faster for browsing, itunes, iPhoto, mail, Office, loading files from camera to computer or computer to ipod, etc.

See the dirty secret of the i5/i7 is it really only speeds up a few tasks that many folks never even do. The video encoding. Photoshop. Aperture.

And actually the Photoshop benchmark was the same for the i5/i7 as the 3.06 C2D iMac.

While I would pay the $300 for the upgrade. I'm pretty doubtful whether 95% of my computing experience would be improved. Surfing won't be. Neither will Mail or iTunes or iPhoto or OFfice or ....

I'd know notice more of a difference if Apple put dual hard drive in their system. An SSD for the main drive and a regular hard drive for a data drive. That would be noticeable.

It's hardly a dirty little secret. More like blatantly obvious. If all you are ever going to do is "browsing, itunes, iPhoto, mail, Office, loading files from camera to computer or computer to ipod, etc." then even the 3Ghz C2D is overkill... my 2Ghz iMac could do that in its sleep and it's 3 years old. A bottom end Macbook or Mini would be more appropriate for that sort of thing - aside from having a nice big ass screen.

For the rest of us, it's about doing more at the same time. If I'm unzipping a large file on my C2D (which I do quite a lot of) then it tends to hog resources, slowing things down when I want to be surfing, or whatever. My wife and I remain logged in all the time, so my login could be unpacking some files whilst my wife is logged in trying to surf. It's just a bit slow.

With a Quad, I can get SABNZBD+ to use no more than 2 cores for unpacking or repairing with par files, and that still leaves a 2 full cores with hyperthreading free for surfing, listening to itunes, or whatever. It's like having that intensive task stuck away on another PC out of the way.

You really don't need to be a power user to make the most of it. If you routinely run more than one task at a time, then you'll feel the benefits. I noticed it going from a single core cpu to a dual core cpu. Jumping to a quad core just increases the available resources meaning less chance of overloading the resources.

You say that the Photoshop benchmarks were similar. They probably were. Would they have been if the guy had been unpacking some files, or encoding a movie, or something, at the same time? Even just pulling in a large RAW image into Aperture makes my current iMac weep. Being able to do that and still have one or two cores free to work on other things or surf is a great thing.

 

[zerolight]

That is the only thing I disliked about my 27inch imac (and the 24 inch before it) was the lack of height adjustment. I have my desk set and chair set at a comfortable position, and the lack of height adjustment was the only thing that I would have liked to see changed on the machine.

Fortunately the 27/24 inch iMac's can be mounted on a VESA bracket which then allows the use of a truly adjustable mounting arm, which I have use to put my iMac. Now I have it at a much lower, and much more comfortable (for me) position. Now, it's perfect.


As for the size.. well, if it were 30-inches I'd still be ok with it. I was working previously with two 24inch monitors, and found this higher res 27inch as a good replacement.

It's the way Macs are designed. With a PC, most manufactures expect you to sit with the monitor perfectly vertical, perpendicular to your line of site, and high enough that your eyes are smack bang in the middle. Apple have a different design, which they explain in the handbook somewhere. What they suggest is that you get yourself sitting comfortable with the correct posture. look at the screen, then angle it up towards you such that it then becomes perpendicular to your line of site, but with you looking down towards it a little. Mine sits at about a 10 to 20 degree angle (I'm guessing). It feels very natural, however if I switch it to perfectly vertical then I feel like it is too low. It's a matter of adjusting to the design. I have a regular size desk and chair from Ikea, and I'm 6 feet tall. No problems with a 24, so I can't see me having issues with a 27.

edit: I see in your case that you were worried it'd be too tall... most people worry in the other direction. My wife uses mine too, same setup, she's 5 foot 9 or thereabouts.

 

[trip1ex]

It's hardly a dirty little secret. More like blatantly obvious. If all you are ever going to do is "browsing, itunes, iPhoto, mail, Office, loading files from camera to computer or computer to ipod, etc." then even the 3Ghz C2D is overkill... my 2Ghz iMac could do that in its sleep and it's 3 years old. A bottom end Macbook or Mini would be more appropriate for that sort of thing - aside from having a nice big ass screen.

For the rest of us, it's about doing more at the same time. If I'm unzipping a large file on my C2D (which I do quite a lot of) then it tends to hog resources, slowing things down when I want to be surfing, or whatever. My wife and I remain logged in all the time, so my login could be unpacking some files whilst my wife is logged in trying to surf. It's just a bit slow.

With a Quad, I can get SABNZBD+ to use no more than 2 cores for unpacking or repairing with par files, and that still leaves a 2 full cores with hyperthreading free for surfing, listening to itunes, or whatever. It's like having that intensive task stuck away on another PC out of the way.

You really don't need to be a power user to make the most of it. If you routinely run more than one task at a time, then you'll feel the benefits. I noticed it going from a single core cpu to a dual core cpu. Jumping to a quad core just increases the available resources meaning less chance of overloading the resources.

You say that the Photoshop benchmarks were similar. They probably were. Would they have been if the guy had been unpacking some files, or encoding a movie, or something, at the same time? Even just pulling in a large RAW image into Aperture makes my current iMac weep. Being able to do that and still have one or two cores free to work on other things or surf is a great thing.

btw, unzipping a large file was faster on the C2D than on the i5 or i7 in Macworld's benchmarks.

True most don't even need a 3.06C2D. And I was wondering if 3 Minis would be faster than an i7.

 

[juliancs]

My main issue is future proofing. I think geekbench scores in a year will be different - slowly but surely, programs are going to get smarter. Hopefully the advent of GC will help. I'm getting the i7 with 8gb and a 2TB, and it's a huge amount of money for me. I'll be able to use this machine for what I do ~5/6 years, so that's a good investment.

 

[dougb256]

I'm getting the i7 with 8gb and a 2TB, and it's a huge amount of money for me. I'll be able to use this machine for what I do ~5/6 years, so that's a good investment.

I can't imagine using the same computer for 5-6 years. That would be like saying "I bought my current computer in 2004 and it still meets my needs." Things will have changed so much in that time period, especially with

-Doug

 

[khollister]

btw, unzipping a large file was faster on the C2D than on the i5 or i7 in Macworld's benchmarks.

My old desktop was a 2.8 C2D 24" iMac. Unzipping a large file on my new i5 27" is a LOT faster than the C2D. Not sure what might have been going on in the Macworld test.

This thing feels a lot faster on most stuff to me. It is much, much faster on Nikon CaptureNX2 and Photoshop CS4.

 

[stylinexpat]

That is why I asked . I also wanted to know if it gets real hot like my Macbook pro '08 version does. This thing will burn you leg off, which is why I use it on a desk .

It gets quite quite hot if you are watching Youtube videos and those fans really kick in.

 

[stylinexpat]

It's the way Macs are designed. With a PC, most manufactures expect you to sit with the monitor perfectly vertical, perpendicular to your line of site, and high enough that your eyes are smack bang in the middle. Apple have a different design, which they explain in the handbook somewhere. What they suggest is that you get yourself sitting comfortable with the correct posture. look at the screen, then angle it up towards you such that it then becomes perpendicular to your line of site, but with you looking down towards it a little. Mine sits at about a 10 to 20 degree angle (I'm guessing). It feels very natural, however if I switch it to perfectly vertical then I feel like it is too low. It's a matter of adjusting to the design. I have a regular size desk and chair from Ikea, and I'm 6 feet tall. No problems with a 24, so I can't see me having issues with a 27.

edit: I see in your case that you were worried it'd be too tall... most people worry in the other direction. My wife uses mine too, same setup, she's 5 foot 9 or thereabouts.

The guys in Asia are going to hate this thing

 

[Bryan Bowler]

The i5/i7 aren't noticeably faster for browsing, itunes, iPhoto, mail, Office, loading files from camera to computer or computer to ipod, etc.

I totally agree. If someone is only using their iMac for the things listed above, then the C2D is definitely the way to go!

Bryan