Opinion guide for 2011 iMacs

[iamthedudeman]

Sorry for providing this information. I thought I was at least starting a decent discussion on options but I somehow insulted you in doing so. Next time, you do all the leg work so I can criticize what you're doing instead.

You did start a decent discussion. You haven't insulted me in the least. I was just providing additional info and criticized your info as you asked in your post for everyone to do.

Or better yet, I'll do what you should have done here and offer suggestions to improve the information provided rather than attack someone for taking time to offer some help to others looking to purchase a new iMac. As I mentioned in the post, I am open to comments / feedback / criticism. I never said I was open to attacks.

?

I did offer suggestions to improve the info, did I not. How was I attacking you.? I asked you how you came up with your figures, and provide the ones I came up with to links with benchmarks to back up what I came up with. Comprehensive tests. You based your tests for the i7 2.8 QC from geekbench only. But you stated you used barefeats and geekbench. How did you come up with your numbers? That is not a fair question? Your numbers were severely flawed judging by the hard real-world benchmarks contradicting what you came up with.


A buyers guide should have accurate info, should it not? You should not accuse people of attacking you for asking legitmate questions with your findings for a buyers guide when you ask for them in the first place than accuse when they do so as "attacking you'.


SSD: I stated that it was my opinion. I even stated that I omitted it from the performance comparison section of the guide because of a lack of information and that I was strictly offering my opinion. I even asked others to provide feedback, comments, and criticisms on the information provided. Somehow, you overlooked this part and decided to attack and state your opinion as fact. As for your article, I assume you didn't read the part that says, "The storage device did not affect the results in tests that rely solely on the graphics processor or CPU. Those results were the same for both laptops." So everything I said was true. It doesn't impact application performance. It only impacts disk performance such as boot up, application launching and file handling (in other words, disk-dependent tasks).


Just about every OS dependent task is a "disk dependent task". How doesn't it impact application performance when the tests in the link use applications for the test. That doesn't make any sense. Applications read and write to the disk weather it is a SSD or HD. Your opinion is flawed and just plain wrong. Ask anyone on here if what you say is true who have and use a SSD other than myself.

I did nothing of the sort. Never stated my opinion as fact. I provided facts. There is a difference to what info I provided and the one you provided. You asked for additional info. I provided it. I said you should not provide your opinion for a buyers guide. How was that attacking you? You asked for constructive critizisism and opinions, did you not?

How do you equate "applicatoins" usage as ""The storage device did not affect the results in tests that rely solely on the graphics processor or CPU. What does that have to do with anything? What applications that you run solely rely on just a GPU or CPU? They are talking about "testing' that only rely's on the CPU or GPU. Which is little real world applications that use only "the CPU or GPU.

Nothing you said was "true". You provided your opinion so how could it be true. What article were you reading? No Applications other than "specific' tests solely use only a "CPU or GPU'. Did you read the artice. The mac book pro with SSD in overall performance was faster than the macbook pro with a faster CPU and GPU. So how didn't the SSD have no overall effect? What article were you reading?

So how does it just affect just 'booting' and 'applications launches' as you stated? How did you come to that conclusion and that your 'opinion' was right?



This is how I know you never used a SSD before. If you did I would have not have to tell you this. No one who uses a SSD says what you say. You have to use one to understand. That is stating your opinion as "fact". Nor does someones opinion have any use in a so called 'buyers guide'. A buyers guide should just be just that. Facts and figures so people can make informed decisions.





Also, why would you say, "Try owning one first..." when you have no idea if I do or not? It's ok to disagree on things or want clarification on why someone feels a certain way about a product but it's generally not ok to attack people for disagreeing on things. You could simply ask, "Have you owned one? Why do you think that they only..?".[/QUOTE]

See above. Cheer up. No one here is attacking you. Have a beer.

 

[Meever]

Yeah, not trying to jump on the bandwagon but the bit about the i7 is a bit misleading.....

Only reason the i7 does so well in synthetic benchmarks is because it can hyperthread. But in most real world applications (minus rendering and encoding) a higher clock will yield better performance (when two cpus have the same number of physical cores)

Especially in gaming where the i5 apparently did a little better in testing.

Same deal for 2gb vs 1gb vram.

Not even sure how that's going to help "futureproof" anything. By the time 2gb vrams show any benefit in games the 6970 would already be obsolete.

 

[Kerel]

I agree. In a review of anandtech about the desktop HD6970 which is massively more powerfull than the HD6970m used in the imac.
There were only 2 benchmarks where 2 gig of vram made a differense.
Crysis an Stalker at 2560*1600 and framelevels had already dropped into the low 30 or lower.

 

[iamthedudeman]

Yeah, not trying to jump on the bandwagon but the bit about the i7 is a bit misleading.....

Only reason the i7 does so well in synthetic benchmarks is because it can hyperthread. But in most real world applications (minus rendering and encoding) a higher clock will yield better performance (when two cpus have the same number of physical cores)

Especially in gaming where the i5 apparently did a little better in testing.

Same deal for 2gb vs 1gb vram.

Not even sure how that's going to help "futureproof" anything. By the time 2gb vrams show any benefit in games the 6970 would already be obsolete.

The i7 2600 as opposed to the i7 2600s has a higher base clock. Base clock has little to do with the overall speed of the processor.

The i7 2600 and the i7 2600S have the same "turbo' mode clock. At 3.8. For all intents and purposes, they are the same processor, the only difference is the base clock. Thats it. Since they run at the same turbo clock of 3.8 there is little difference in performance. The scale of the clock for both processors is the same. If the 2600 is running at it's base clock of 3.4for a application using just two of it's cores, the 2600S will run at the same clock speed of 3.4 for the same application, it will just take a millisecond or two to "turbo' from 2.8 to 3.4. The scale for both processors is the same. They will both run at the same speed for that application.

Only difference is that the i7 2600s starts at a lower clock speed. In single threaded applications, they run at about the same speed. Hence the almost identical scores in the benchmarks. It might take a milli second or two for the i7 2600s to turbo to the same clock of the i7 2600. Not much of a difference.

On the market right now, The 2600 processors are the fastest there are as far as quad core processors are concerned. With the 2600 and the 2600s as 1a and 1b.

 

[Krovem]

Thanks! Awesome stuff.

 

[kfscoll]

The i7 2600 as opposed to the i7 2600s has a higher base clock. Base clock has little to do with the overall speed of the processor.

The i7 2600 and the i7 2600S have the same "turbo' mode clock. At 3.8. For all intents and purposes, they are the same processor, the only difference is the base clock. Thats it. Since they run at the same turbo clock of 3.8 there is little difference in performance. The scale of the clock for both processors is the same. If the 2600 is running at it's base clock of 3.4for a application using just two of it's cores, the 2600S will run at the same clock speed of 3.4 for the same application, it will just take a millisecond or two to "turbo' from 2.8 to 3.4. The scale for both processors is the same. They will both run at the same speed for that application.

Only difference is that the i7 2600s starts at a lower clock speed. In single threaded applications, they run at about the same speed. Hence the almost identical scores in the benchmarks. It might take a milli second or two for the i7 2600s to turbo to the same clock of the i7 2600. Not much of a difference.

On the market right now, The 2600 processors are the fastest there are as far as quad core processors are concerned. With the 2600 and the 2600s as 1a and 1b.

Not true.

Whether or not the processor "turbos" depends upon a number of factors:

Any of the following can set the upper limit of Intel Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 on a given workload:

• Number of active cores
• Estimated current consumption
• Estimated power consumption
• Processor temperature

In other words, just because a processor can turbo up to 3.8GHz will all four cores active doesn't mean it will. For example, if I'm running a video encode using HandBrake that taxes all four cores for an extended period of time, the i7-2600 will likely operate at 3.4GHz (its base clock speed) for the majority of that encode while the i7-2600S will operate at 2.8GHz for the majority of the encode -- neither chip will be able to "turbo" beyond its base clock because its power and temperature limits will be exceeded in short order due to the nature of the workload. In other words, in a substantial number of usage cases, the i7-2600 will be much faster than the i7-2600S because of the 'S processor's thermal and power limitations.

Contrary to your statement, the processor's base clock has a lot to do with its overall speed.

 

[iamthedudeman]

That is incorrect.

First of all the processors using all four cores do not turbo up to 3.8. 3.8 is only reached with one core active.

(Turbo 2.0) the Core i7-2600 and core i7 2600S will power gate three of its four cores and turbo the fourth core as high as 3.8GHz. Even with two cores active, the 32nm chip can run them both up to 3.7GHz.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...compare,2418.html?prod[4786]=on&prod[4787]=on

The Core i7 2600s will and does exceed it's TDP of 65W when the power is needed.



The core i7 2600s ability to 'scale' from 2.8 to 3.8 allows it to remain most of the time at 65W of total TDP. This is evident in the single and dual threaded benchmarks. The numbers are almost identical.

Secondly the only difference between the processors is that the i7 2600s has a lower base clock. That is it. They scale the same, regardless of TDP.

They are the same processor. Same silicon, same features. Most of the time the i7 will run at 2.8 reducing it's TDP. When applications demand more power, it will scale the same as the i7 3.4. So what you said is incorrect.

Look at the bench marks. In single threaded applications, the numbers are almost identical. It's only heavily threaded applications that the i7 2600 has a slight advantage, that is due to the i7 2600s having to scale to the same speed as the i7 2600. That takes a few milliseconds longer. Most of the time it will run at it's designed TDP and run at 2.8 GHz. When taxed, it will scale the same as the 2600. Exact same.

Turbo Boost 2 is innovative mainly in the way it allows the processor to exceed its TDP for a certain time (up to 25% over, or 120W on models with a TDP of 95W or 95W on models with a TDP of 65W), thus allowing Turbo Boost more of a margin. While this is obviously a bonus in terms of acceleration, it is worth asking how such an operation is possible without taking the CPU beyond its spec, and thus risking seeing the throttling mechanism kick in. The TDP is defined so the die temperature doesn’t exceed a ceiling beyond which the circuit’s integrity is no longer guaranteed.

What Intel is actually doing is exploiting a physical phenomenon: there’s a period of time before the processor actually heats up. The explanation is very simple: when the CPU is sollicited, it starts to heat up, this takes some time and the package doesn’t hit its TDP right away, if it hits it at all (if the increased load lasts long enough). Thus even if the heat disippated by the processor is higher than the TDP during this heating up period, there isn’t enough time for the additional heat to take the package heat over the top.

Of course, the skill here lies in managing the application of this mechanism. The longer it’s applied, the more acceleration you get but also the further you take the CPU beyond its spec, increasing the likelihood of setting off the throttling mechanism. It’s difficult to determine an optimal value, because how much the CPU temperature increases obviously depends on the cooling mechanism used, a point that is external to the processor and therefore not universally quantifiable.

If you doubt what I am telling you google is your friend.

The benchmarks back this up. There is not much difference in performance between the two processors. The i7 2600 is the fastest quad core processor on the market. The i7 2600s is a close second. Lke 1a and 1b.

Overall.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/PCMark-Vantage-Overall-Result,2414.html

Single threaded.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/Cinebench-11.5-Single-threaded,2406.html

Multi threaded.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/Cinebench-11.5-Multi-threaded,2407.html

Handbrake( the benchmark you referenced).

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...Transcode-Handbrake-MPEG-2-to-H.264,2421.html

 

[patp77]

Your buyers guide is more a opinion guide than a buyers guide. You shouldn't add your opinions to a buyers guide. Just colt hard facts and numbers to back those numbers up so people can make a informed decision. Saying a SSD is just good for boot ups is just bad advice, period. Try owning one first before you come to a conclusion or talk to someone who does.

When this is the first paragraph of your response, it's hard not to take it as an attack. Especially when you consider the last sentence.

As for the CPU, I extrapolated data based on current Geekbench scores. Won't say it is a perfect indication but then again, nothing is as it depends on each user's situation. In this entire guide, I was just trying to give approximate information to help people gauge which upgrades may be worthwhile for their situation. Although you do make me realize that my calculation was off for some reason. I used the following:

2.8GHz / 3.4GHz = 0.82 (ratio between CPUs)
0.82 * 11600 (Geekbench score for 2011 i7 3.4GHz) = 9512 (This is a 'probable' score for a 2011 2.8GHz i7 based on same architecture)
9500 (potential score for 2.8GHz i7) / 7925 (score for 2.7GHz i5) = 1.20 (20% increase)

I had written 17% though so I must have made a mistake at some point. Unless I'm making the mistake now and not seeing it. I won't pretend to think this is accurate but it should at least give people an estimate as to the 'worth' of the upgrade.



SSD: I stated that it was my opinion. I even stated that I omitted it from the performance comparison section of the guide because of a lack of information and that I was strictly offering my opinion. I even asked others to provide feedback, comments, and criticisms on the information provided. Somehow, you overlooked this part and decided to attack and state your opinion as fact. As for your article, I assume you didn't read the part that says, "The storage device did not affect the results in tests that rely solely on the graphics processor or CPU. Those results were the same for both laptops." So everything I said was true. It doesn't impact application performance. It only impacts disk performance such as boot up, application launching and file handling (in other words, disk-dependent tasks).

Just about every OS dependent task is a "disk dependent task". How doesn't it impact application performance when the tests in the link use applications for the test. That doesn't make any sense. Applications read and write to the disk weather it is a SSD or HD. Your opinion is flawed and just plain wrong. Ask anyone on here if what you say is true who have and use a SSD other than myself.

Appreciate the feedback on this. I based this mostly on my own experience to this point but have not done A/B tests to confirm. All I can tell you is that I didn't notice any drastic improvements in my gaming performance (FPS) or my video encode times from using SSD. I can see where someone would notice benefits from zipping / unzipping, copying, loading maps, booting, etc.. as these are all disk intensive tasks. However, I still stand by my opinion in that I think it mostly boils down to: Are those benefits worth $1.20 to $2 per GB for SSD versus $0.05 per GB for the typical hard drive. Some will say yes.

How do you equate "applicatoins" usage as ""The storage device did not affect the results in tests that rely solely on the graphics processor or CPU. What does that have to do with anything? What applications that you run solely rely on just a GPU or CPU? They are talking about "testing' that only rely's on the CPU or GPU. Which is little real world applications that use only "the CPU or GPU.

Maybe I should just ask you.. which applications do you use that are disk-intensive and would warrant a $500 price increase which is 25% to 33% of the purchase price depending on iMac model purchased and provides 1/4 of the capacity? And the... what is the impact of in application performance? 5% gain, 10% gain, 50% gain? I couldn't find any data so I can't say for sure (hence I provided my opinion) and I imagine the real world performance gain isn't much more than 10-20% if that. It will have an extremely high benefit for bootup time, application launch time and game map loading times but when you're actually in the application or game, I can't imagine it being that drastic as the CPU / GPU become much more important than the SSD at that point. I would appreciate it if you could share something that shows to the contraty. I just have a hard time seeing that.

Nothing you said was "true". You provided your opinion so how could it be true. What article were you reading? No Applications other than "specific' tests solely use only a "CPU or GPU'. Did you read the artice. The mac book pro with SSD in overall performance was faster than the macbook pro with a faster CPU and GPU. So how didn't the SSD have no overall effect? What article were you reading?

So how does it just affect just 'booting' and 'applications launches' as you stated? How did you come to that conclusion and that your 'opinion' was right?

From the article:
"What does the extra money buy in terms of performance? Faster boot times, for one thing."
"You also get faster application launches, and faster disk functions."
"With the SSD upgrade, the 13-inch 2.3GHz Core i5 MacBook Pro also outperformed the $1499 13-inch 2.7GHz Core i7 MacBook Pro with its 500GB 5400-rpm hard drive by 8 percent"

Tests used:
-Speedmark (hard drive performance testing)
-Startup time
-File duplication
-Zipping / unzipping
-Write speed
-Read speed

Am I missing something? I don't see any application performance tests here.. just hard disk tests. They even state that it mostly helps the things I listed. If I forgot something, please let me know as I've skimmed it 3 times now and don't see anything.

Unless you think that these results will translate to gaming performance or other CPU/GPU intensive applications? Again.. not saying that SSDs won't benefit someone who wants speedy bootup and application launching times.. just saying it won't help gamers or media intensive applications.

This is how I know you never used a SSD before. If you did I would have not have to tell you this. No one who uses a SSD says what you say. You have to use one to understand. That is stating your opinion as "fact". Nor does someones opinion have any use in a so called 'buyers guide'. A buyers guide should just be just that. Facts and figures so people can make informed decisions.

And this is where you are wrong.. I have used one before. I'm stating what I have noticed from this experience. And once again.. I specified that I was OMITTING the SSD information from the performance section of the buyer's guide. I only mentioned what I thought were some of the most important things to consider in that purchase based on my own experience. I can delete it if you want but I get the feeling people would then ask, "Should I get the 1TB or 256GB SSD?". I figured by giving my opinion and stating that it was an opinion, it might give people something to start with. They should definitely question people's opinions or get additional feedback based on their situation.


Also, why would you say, "Try owning one first..." when you have no idea if I do or not? It's ok to disagree on things or want clarification on why someone feels a certain way about a product but it's generally not ok to attack people for disagreeing on things. You could simply ask, "Have you owned one? Why do you think that they only..?".

See above. Cheer up. No one here is attacking you. Have a beer.

Oh.. I've had one alright. Can't believe I'm up at 1am writing this up. Now I feel like I should just have never bothered in the first place. It takes too much of what little time I have available. Oh well..

 

[iamthedudeman]

As for the CPU, I extrapolated data based on current Geekbench scores. Won't say it is a perfect indication but then again, nothing is as it depends on each user's situation. In this entire guide, I was just trying to give approximate information to help people gauge which upgrades may be worthwhile for their situation. Although you do make me realize that my calculation was off for some reason. I used the following:

2.8GHz / 3.4GHz = 0.82 (ratio between CPUs)
0.82 * 11600 (Geekbench score for 2011 i7 3.4GHz) = 9512 (This is a 'probable' score for a 2011 2.8GHz i7 based on same architecture)
9500 (potential score for 2.8GHz i7) / 7925 (score for 2.7GHz i5) = 1.20 (20% increase)

I had written 17% though so I must have made a mistake at some point. Unless I'm making the mistake now and not seeing it. I won't pretend to think this is accurate but it should at least give people an estimate as to the 'worth' of the upgrade.


?

You might want to edit your initial post. That is completely off.

2.8GHz / 3.4GHz = 0.82 (ratio between CPUs)

There is no ratio in these CPU's. Since they are the same CPU just different base frequencies. See my examination above. The i7 2600S has a 'base' frequency of 2.8 but scales up to 3.8 with turbo mode. The i7 3.4 has a base of 3.4 Ghz and scales up to 3.8 Ghz.

When using Cinebench for instance, they will both run at the same speed, base clock has nothing to do with application performance when performing most tasks since both scale to the same speeds. Both can run at 3.4ghz for instance.

The Core i7 2600s will run in variable speeds most of the time to save power and reduce TDP.

There is not really a 'ratio' between the two. For all intents and purposes they are just about equal with the core i7 3.4 being slightly quicker in heavily multi threaded tasks where all four cores are stressed due to the 2.8 core i7 having to take a millisecond or two to get to the same speed.

The average and actual score is around 11400 for the core i7 2.8 and the average for the i7 3.4 is 12500. This is again misleading since the 3.4 has the better GPU and that has a great impact on the overall score. Hence making the geek-bench benchmarks and scores irrelevant when just comparing just CPU's are concerned.

The actual score for the core i5 2500s is about 8650, these are all using the 64 bit version.

Appreciate the feedback on this. I based this mostly on my own experience to this point but have not done A/B tests to confirm. All I can tell you is that I didn't notice any drastic improvements in my gaming performance (FPS) or my video encode times from using SSD. I can see where someone would notice benefits from zipping / unzipping, copying, loading maps, booting, etc.. as these are all disk intensive tasks. However, I still stand by my opinion in that I think it mostly boils down to: Are those benefits worth $1.20 to $2 per GB for SSD versus $0.05 per GB for the typical hard drive. Some will say yes.


Gaming performance all have to do with GPU, video incodes I see greater performance with the SSD, but user experience and perceptions will differ greatly. Most would say yes, just because you don't feel you get the full benefit doesn't mean most don't. Again, my opionon is that you should not interject your own opinions in a "buyers guide'. Provide the info and let the user determine if the info is usefull to him or her. Reason being everyone has different uses and desires.

You game alot and don't see the benefit of the SSD of someone who programs for a living. Everyone has different uses and the benefits of a SSD will differ from user to user. Opinions don't and shouldn't apply to everyone. Everyones wants and needs are different.



Maybe I should just ask you.. which applications do you use that are disk-intensive and would warrant a $500 price increase which is 25% to 33% of the purchase price depending on iMac model purchased and provides 1/4 of the capacity? And the... what is the impact of in application performance? 5% gain, 10% gain, 50% gain? I couldn't find any data so I can't say for sure (hence I provided my opinion) and I imagine the real world performance gain isn't much more than 10-20% if that. It will have an extremely high benefit for bootup time, application launch time and game map loading times but when you're actually in the application or game, I can't imagine it being that drastic as the CPU / GPU become much more important than the SSD at that point. I would appreciate it if you could share something that shows to the contraty. I just have a hard time seeing that.


????

I provided the info in the link I provided. SSD's esentially provide performance to just about everything. I will not every go back to just a HD. It has more of a performance boost than a better processor. And the capicity issue is a non-issue. The imacs come with a SSD+1tb HD. Are you sure you own a SSD. Why are you talking in the past tense? How do you own one and not know these things? That is literally impossible. Again, the link provided says all there is to say.

In the link a mac book pro with a inferior CPU and GPU was overall faster than a mac book pro with a faster CPU and GPU.
How are you not seeing that? That was the whole point of the article.



From the article:
"What does the extra money buy in terms of performance? Faster boot times, for one thing."
"You also get faster application launches, and faster disk functions."
"With the SSD upgrade, the 13-inch 2.3GHz Core i5 MacBook Pro also outperformed the $1499 13-inch 2.7GHz Core i7 MacBook Pro with its 500GB 5400-rpm hard drive by 8 percent"

Tests used:
-Speedmark (hard drive performance testing)
-Startup time
-File duplication
-Zipping / unzipping
-Write speed
-Read speed

Am I missing something? I don't see any application performance tests here.. just hard disk tests. They even state that it mostly helps the things I listed. If I forgot something, please let me know as I've skimmed it 3 times now and don't see anything.

Your missing the point. Again if you own or have owned a SSD, why are you asking this question? Every thing listed effects applications. A application has to access the HD to function. Writing and reading from the HD effects performance, applications, just about everything.

Unless you think that these results will translate to gaming performance or other CPU/GPU intensive applications? Again.. not saying that SSDs won't benefit someone who wants speedy bootup and application launching times.. just saying it won't help gamers or media intensive applications.

?? again, you should know this. You said you owened a SSD? How about transferring a file, creating a file, creating anything for that matter, using applications, everything. I don't know what to tell you at this point.





And this is where you are wrong.. I have used one before. I'm stating what I have noticed from this experience. And once again.. I specified that I was OMITTING the SSD information from the performance section of the buyer's guide. I only mentioned what I thought were some of the most important things to consider in that purchase based on my own experience. I can delete it if you want but I get the feeling people would then ask, "Should I get the 1TB or 256GB SSD?". I figured by giving my opinion and stating that it was an opinion, it might give people something to start with. They should definitely question people's opinions or get additional feedback based on their situation.


Used one before, or owned one before. Just using one will not give you the user experience as 'owning' one. This explains everything. Again, stating your opinion as someone who just 'used one before' and giving advice is bad. Not a good thing. You don't know the benefits of a SSD. Guessing by just using it is not good advice. In my option your CPU calculations were way off as is your opinion of the benefits of a SSD.

I would seriously start over base your info on real world info and let the users make their own decisions.



Oh.. I've had one alright. Can't believe I'm up at 1am writing this up. Now I feel like I should just have never bothered in the first place. It takes too much of what little time I have available. Oh well..[/QUOTE]

What for a hour? External hooked to a USB? Sorry I am not attacking you, you clearly don't know why a SSD is beneficial and don't know the benefits of owning one as well. What brand did you have, and in what machine?

 

[kfscoll]

That is incorrect.

I concede except for one thing below. Good info. I oversimplified the Intel webpage I referenced. Indeed, you are the dude, man.

However, I'd still like to see a benchmark comparing the two processors for an extended (like ~1 hour) HandBrake run (FWIW, this is the use-case I most frequently encounter). The Tom's Hardware HandBrake benchmark ended after ~2 minutes. I have a feeling that both the '2600 and '2600S will have to throttle back to their respective base clocks after a few minutes. If so, the '2600 should significantly outperform the '2600S. Still, I have no data to back this up...just a hunch.

 

[patp77]

Gaming performance all have to do with GPU, video incodes I see greater performance with the SSD, but user experience and perceptions will differ greatly. Most would say yes, just because you don't feel you get the full benefit doesn't mean most don't. Again, my opinion is that you should not interject your own opinions in a "buyers guide'. Provide the info and let the user determine if the info is usefull to him or her. Reason being everyone has different uses and desires.

You game alot and don't see the benefit of the SSD of someone who programs for a living. Everyone has different uses and the benefits of a SSD will differ from user to user. Opinions don't and shouldn't apply to everyone. Everyones wants and needs are different.

...

This is how I know you never used a SSD before. If you did I would have not have to tell you this. No one who uses a SSD says what you say. You have to use one to understand. That is stating your opinion as "fact". Nor does someones opinion have any use in a so called 'buyers guide'. A buyers guide should just be just that. Facts and figures so people can make informed decisions.

And this is where you are wrong.. I have used one before. I'm stating what I have noticed from this experience. And once again.. I specified that I was OMITTING the SSD information from the performance section of the buyer's guide. I only mentioned what I thought were some of the most important things to consider in that purchase based on my own experience. I can delete it if you want but I get the feeling people would then ask, "Should I get the 1TB or 256GB SSD?". I figured by giving my opinion and stating that it was an opinion, it might give people something to start with. They should definitely question people's opinions or get additional feedback based on their situation.


Used one before, or owned one before. Just using one will not give you the user experience as 'owning' one. This explains everything. Again, stating your opinion as someone who just 'used one before' and giving advice is bad. Not a good thing. You don't know the benefits of a SSD. Guessing by just using it is not good advice. In my option your CPU calculations were way off as is your opinion of the benefits of a SSD.

I would seriously start over base your info on real world info and let the users make their own decisions.

Perfect! I'm happy to hear that you're willing to start over and provide real world info which will allow users to make a better informed decision. On my end, it's just too much work at this point so I will let you give us this information seeing as though you already seem to have it. (Please tell me you do?? I really just want to move on at this point as I no longer have the energy or time to continue)

If you've already posted it (hmm.. might have to do a search) then I will GLADLY delete the info provided and link to your post as I think that is probably the easiest answer.

For now, I've made a few changes (title for one as this obviously is one of the sticking points and I now understand where you are coming from). I thought I was being helpful and knew the information wasn't perfect but thought it was at least a good starting point since I hadn't seen anyone else come forward with anything like it yet.


By the way, it's not nice to pull things out of context and twist them around. For a smart guy, you really do annoying things. In case you're not sure what I mean, I'm referring to the 'used one' bit that you pulled. You started it by saying, "... this is how I know how you haven't used one before..." to which I responded, "I have used one before..." and then you twist it to, "Used one or owned one... this explains everything"

Seriously.. you have extremely valuable information to give but quit the child's play. It'll make you look like an ass if you keep it up.

 

[laurenr]

Thanks so much to the original OP for starting this thread. I am considering an iMac to replace my 3 year old Mac Pro. My Mac is just for everyday computer use, I do very little gaming or graphics intensive tasks, so the info in your first post will be extremely useful in helping me make my final decision.

 

[Domino8282]

I just want to throw the OP a bone and say that while your post may have initially had some misconceptions or what-not, it has evolved into something which I'm sure will be useful to non computer-savvy or Mac-savvy buyers.

Cut the OP some slack... In its current form, I can't see anything wrong in his post. He even conceded the SSD issue. Btw, OP, if you search, "2011 iMac SSD" on YouTube, there are a few awesome demos that make the benefits very apparent.

So yeah, on behalf of the community, thanks for writing this and don't let anyone get you down. You really didn't need to change the subject of the post either, IMO.

 

[patp77]

I appreciate the last few posts. I have to admit that after that tirade, it really made me question whether I should bother posting things in the future. In the end, if it helped a few people make their decision then it served its purpose.

 

[Cigsm]

Thanks Patp! Great read!

Seeing as though many people seem to be asking the question, I thought I'd provide my opinion on value of each option available when purchasing a 2011 iMac. To determine performance boost, I used either Geekbench or Barefeats score comparisons

• LuxMark GPU only test
• Portal First Slice 'High'
• OpenGL

 

[patp77]

Thanks Patp! Great read!

You're welcome! Although this is starting to make me wonder... Have any of you made any purchases from this? I'd be curious to hear what people end up buying.

 

[HilbertSpace]

You're welcome! Although this is starting to make me wonder... Have any of you made any purchases from this? I'd be curious to hear what people end up buying.

I bought an 27" iMac this past Sunday. Although I had largely decided on the opinions I would get prior to reading this thread (3.4Ghz i7, 4GB that I'm going to upgrade to 12 myself, 1TB+256GB SSD, 2GB 6970M), the discussions here did help me increase my confidence that I had made the right decisions. The only thing I was really on the fence about was upgrading the video card to 2GB, but in the end I decided that the increase in cost relative to the price of the setup as a whole, and factored into the expected lifetime of the machine, made it worthwhile. I also considered the possible increase in resale value.

I have to say that the discussions on this website as a whole were quite helpful. I do have some concerns about noise levels for the HDD and screen quality (yellowing and dead pixels), but even there I feel that I know what to look for. So, thanks for starting this thread, and thanks to the community for being a fantastic place for informed discussion in general.

 

[laurenr]

I sent my Hubby to this thread, as he is upgrading his iMac in his office. He actually saved the first post of this thread to Evernote on his iPad, and took it with him to the Apple Store yesterday to help him make up his mind for his final choice. He went with the 27" high end iMac. I am still undecided though, on what I will get for home use.....still wishing there was a 24" option.

 

[rWally]

You're welcome! Although this is starting to make me wonder... Have any of you made any purchases from this? I'd be curious to hear what people end up buying.

I found the thread quite informative regardless of the ensuing pissing match. I was thinking I was gonna go with the base 27" but now I'm seriously considering a 21" with a SSD.

Thanks for starting the thread and getting a discussion going. Much appreciated.

 

[iamthedudeman]

Perfect! I'm happy to hear that you're willing to start over and provide real world info which will allow users to make a better informed decision. On my end, it's just too much work at this point so I will let you give us this information seeing as though you already seem to have it. (Please tell me you do?? I really just want to move on at this point as I no longer have the energy or time to continue)

If you've already posted it (hmm.. might have to do a search) then I will GLADLY delete the info provided and link to your post as I think that is probably the easiest answer.

For now, I've made a few changes (title for one as this obviously is one of the sticking points and I now understand where you are coming from). I thought I was being helpful and knew the information wasn't perfect but thought it was at least a good starting point since I hadn't seen anyone else come forward with anything like it yet.


By the way, it's not nice to pull things out of context and twist them around. For a smart guy, you really do annoying things. In case you're not sure what I mean, I'm referring to the 'used one' bit that you pulled. You started it by saying, "... this is how I know how you haven't used one before..." to which I responded, "I have used one before..." and then you twist it to, "Used one or owned one... this explains everything"

Seriously.. you have extremely valuable information to give but quit the child's play. It'll make you look like an ass if you keep it up.

I was not trying to twist anything around. Nor was I trying to annoy you. You need to relax some.

Owning one and using one is two different things. I was trying to gauge how much you used one, owning one or not. Did you buy one and use it for two days? Did you use one for two hours? Did you buy one use it for a month but only use it five times? That was what I was trying to figure out. I will take the high road on this one and just provide this info.

This is with a Core 2 Duo! No processor even a Sandybridge i7 will do everyday things this fast. This is what I was trying to convey to you. You just didn't get it. And then you said you owned one. If you owned one how could you not? That was why I was confused on the matter. If I offended you I apologize. That was not my intention.

No one here is belittling you or attacking, quite the contrary. I am trying to help believe it or not.

Everyday tasks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llYaxpePFjw

Boot up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24JLmd0S0eE

50 apps at once (Get more things done which is the main draw for myself) No CPU will do this for you regardless how fast it is.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgCrnXfi1y4&NR=1

The processor findings I provided are real world numbers, but in response you added to you original post to check my numbers. Why not just fix the numbers yourself? I provided the info.

I run my own business, so I have less time than most and your responceability since you started the the thread.