New products today!

Status
Not open for further replies.

KnishofDeath

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,089
More expensive. Doesn't perform as well. Only 1066mhz. Standard for P55 chipsets for these i5/i7 processors is 1600mhz.


biggest concern for me is $$$

I can buy 6gb's of DDR3 1600 for $130 for decent ram and $250 for high end
 

fibroptikl

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 9, 2000
Messages
7,339
I am tempted to pick up a Mac mini, and add in 4GB of my own RAM and a 250 - 500GB drive.

Very tempting ...
 

tronmaster

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
482
Wouldn't be great if all games could run in window mode. I am beginning to enjoy running WoW in window mode and multi tasks going to a website, or something else. I also play lots of older games such RPGs, plus games that are from GoG.com. With the 27-inch screen I probably would be able to see all of my windows at the same time with that screen resolution.

So tempting, plus I notice the Apple Store is offering a 12-month interest free on first time credit users on their approved credit bank. Dang, I definately need to stop by the Apple Store just to gawk at the iMac. :D
 
Last edited:

Serpico

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 8, 2000
Messages
8,425
That's good to hear. I just wish one of these sites that already have the 27" imac would put up some benchmarks!

http://www.barefeats.com/ should have them up sooner or later. Still, an i7 860 with a Radeon 4850 at 1920 res is more than enough for the kinds of games I like to play (Source games, etc). Almost makes me wonder why I'm putting together this new gaming PC right now, haha.
 

phide

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
16,693
Yeah, but gaming at the non native rez tends to look like crap.
The combination of the still-high pixel pitch and a good scaling engine would minimize the impact of non-native gaming. The question is: is Apple using a good scaler? It'd make a lot of sense given the supposed quality of the panel, but then they've been using great panels for years in tandem with fairly mediocre scaling engines, so it's tough to call at the moment.
 

tnt3k

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Messages
2,085
is there a difference now between the 13 macbookpro and the 13'' macbook? besides it being white, the new macbook is basically the same isn't it?
 

Terpfen

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
6,079
is there a difference now between the 13 macbookpro and the 13'' macbook? besides it being white, the new macbook is basically the same isn't it?

The Pro line has FireWire, a better display panel, aluminum body (the MacBook is made of polycarbonate), is about 0.2lbs lighter and about 0.13'' thinner, has a backlit keyboard, has an SSD option, has an SD Card slot, and has a 2.5GHz CPU option.

So, yeah, there are differences, but nothing really dramatic, beyond the size/weight and body material. IMO, the MacBook is a perfect college laptop.
 

Burke Hamblin

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
2,540
I'd pay $1,600 for a 27" LED IPS screen at that res alone. The computer that comes with it is just icing.
 

prodigee

Gawd
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
987
I think that the iMac 27" is basically the all in one we have all been waiting for. Before I swore I would never get an apple desktop (other than a mini) and right now the new iMac's with the i5/i7 and 27" 2560x1440 IPS LED backlit displays are amazing the pixel pitch is godly and, really if you are a photo editor I don't understand how the new iMac could not at very least be in the top 3 for computing and display quality.

I am by no means a fanboy of Apple (even though I have a uMBP 13") I still think that these are really good machines, would I buy a 27" with i7 yes, would I run Windows on it too, OF COURSE, in fact really for an all in one, I cant believe I am saying it but for the price and what it offers, it is perfect.
 

CEpeep

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
6,061
I'd pay $1,600 for a 27" LED IPS screen at that res alone. The computer that comes with it is just icing.

Yeah. The DisplayPort input means you can use it as a display for just about any other digital device too. Playing Xbox on my Mac? Sign me up.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
858
Now I need to decide if I want the i5 or 17.

Like many others, I've been waiting for an iMac that has video in!
 

Appa

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
2,748
I ordered a 27" today. Anybody want to buy my mint condition 4 month old 15" Unibody w/ Applecare? lol
 

PointandClick

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Messages
383
Kind of a mixed bag IMO.

My initial impression of the 27" was "why", but then I noticed the res bump on both models, quite nice. But, why are they even still offering Core 2 Duo's in the iMac's? There should at least be an option for a quad core on all models.

The MB is now better than the 13" MBP, although the geek in me could never settle with the MB.

The server option on the mini is interesting. It appears they did away with the 10 client version of server, or am I not looking hard enough? Other than that, I don't see much of an upgrade on the mini. Even though it's the "cheapest" mac, it's never been much of a value. Oh well.
 

mrgstiffler

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 20, 2000
Messages
13,408
Unfortunately the mouse doesn't support 4 finger expose or pinching. It's possible that a future software update will support this, but it's kind of odd that it's not there now.
 

aaronearles

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,016
I tried to hit the apple store on the way home but they are closed until Saturday "creating an all new apple store" according to their voice mail message. They redirected me to another apple store about 45 minutes away but they didnt have them in yet and "hope to by the weekend".
 

wheels2040

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
156
These are the iMacs I was hoping for at Macworld. I ended up with a Dell Studio XPS Core i7 instead, that will soon be on Craigslist ;)
 

aaronearles

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,016
Yeah my studio XPS i7 went on craigslist like 2 weeks after I got it. I think I only ended up getting $500 for it, so goodluck! mine had a 4850 in it too.
 

Elledan

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2010
Joined
Oct 18, 2001
Messages
15,913
I think it's somewhat disturbing that the new MacBook now has only a fraction of the I/O options of even my relatively low-end laptop. I mean, 2 USB ports, shared headphone/line-in? Why not cut out the optical drive while they're at it? It's less useful than more USB ports and a FW port or two to most people, I would imagine. Now you get to lug a USB hub around with your fancy new MB :p
 

wheels2040

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
156
Yeah, I have seen a few go for around 500. I'll have the Ultrasharp 2408 going with it, so hopefully I can get 750 ish.
 

Terpfen

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
6,079
I think it's somewhat disturbing that the new MacBook now has only a fraction of the I/O options of even my relatively low-end laptop. I mean, 2 USB ports, shared headphone/line-in? Why not cut out the optical drive while they're at it? It's less useful than more USB ports and a FW port or two to most people, I would imagine. Now you get to lug a USB hub around with your fancy new MB :p

It's a notebook. It doesn't need six USB jacks. It's a portable device. If you really need that many inputs, you may not be in the market for a notebook at all.
 

mrgstiffler

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 20, 2000
Messages
13,408
Yes mobile, yes slow. And that on a 27" they are joking to keep the same GPU as last iMac :D.

Do you have a link that shows this? They did switch to desktop CPUs on one iMac line. I'd say it's doubtful that they also switched to desktop GPU, but I haven't heard anything about the chipset even on the new model. The iMac with the i5/i7 has to be considerably different from the other ones.
 

mischief08films

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
74
It's a notebook. It doesn't need six USB jacks. It's a portable device. If you really need that many inputs, you may not be in the market for a notebook at all.

yeah....true. My lappy has 2 usb ports...I dont think Ive ever used em both...
 

einer2060

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
272
Do you have a link that shows this? They did switch to desktop CPUs on one iMac line. I'd say it's doubtful that they also switched to desktop GPU, but I haven't heard anything about the chipset even on the new model. The iMac with the i5/i7 has to be considerably different from the other ones.
Could be desktop but that wouldn't be thin. Still to slow for that resolution.


Apple is always behind with GPUs, unfortunately.
Yes, thats why i don't have an iMac yet.
 

Terpfen

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
6,079
Could be desktop but that wouldn't be thin. Still to slow for that resolution.

In other words, you're just guessing based on a pessimistic personal view of the hardware lineup.

Meanwhile, iFixit's teardown revealed that Apple put a large amount of space between the CPU and GPU to minimize concentrated heat buildup from both components, then topped things off with rather large heatsinks. Sounds to me like a measure taken when you want to use deskop-class components in an enclosed space.

I don't see any reason on the specs list or teardown photos to believe that Apple is using the Mobility Radeon line.
 

elleana

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,590
I don't see why everyone is so up in arms over the lack of high end graphics options. I mean, when has an iMac ever had anything yummy in the graphics department?
 

Archer75

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 10, 2001
Messages
6,465
I don't see why everyone is so up in arms over the lack of high end graphics options. I mean, when has an iMac ever had anything yummy in the graphics department?

It doesn't mean people still don't want that.

And the 27" display with the higher resolution is harder on video cards. The 4850 is barely adequate, for some games. It's expected that because of the higher rez they would put in better cards. There are much higher end mobility cards they could have used.
 

Terpfen

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
6,079
What do you mean? So, do you think Apple iMac uses Desktop HD4850?

Yes, exactly. It looks like they're using a standard 4850 chip on a daughterboard, which they can easily swap out when the 5850 makes the transition to daughterboard format. There's always a chance it's the Mobility 4850, but I don't see anything to suggest it. Apple is usually pretty clear about distinguishing between notebook and desktop GPU parts: they've designated chips as being mobile versions in the past.

And the 27" display with the higher resolution is harder on video cards. The 4850 is barely adequate, for some games. It's expected that because of the higher rez they would put in better cards. There are much higher end mobility cards they could have used.

The 4850 is more than adequate to drive 2560x1600 and fill the usual graphical needs of OS X: Core Image, Core Animation, Quicktime X, and some OpenCL work on the side. The 4850's been doing it on the Mac Pro for a while.

I'm not sure which other chips Apple could have used while still including Core i5 and i7 support. There are no 5xxx daughterboards yet, nor could they have used nvidia's parts thanks to the Intel lawsuit. Now, Apple could have waited a few months for 5xxx daughterboards, but they wanted to have new products in place to respond to the Windows 7 launch.

Not really sure what you expected in these machines that could have realistically been delivered.
 

Archer75

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 10, 2001
Messages
6,465
The 4850 is more than adequate to drive 2560x1600 and fill the usual graphical needs of OS X: Core Image, Core Animation, Quicktime X, and some OpenCL work on the side. The 4850's been doing it on the Mac Pro for a while.

I'm not sure which other chips Apple could have used while still including Core i5 and i7 support. There are no 5xxx daughterboards yet, nor could they have used nvidia's parts thanks to the Intel lawsuit. Now, Apple could have waited a few months for 5xxx daughterboards, but they wanted to have new products in place to respond to the Windows 7 launch.

Not really sure what you expected in these machines that could have realistically been delivered.

The 4850 is not adequete IMO for gaming at that resolution. Yes, there are native mac games. World of Warcraft would not perform well with that card at that rez. Call of Duty 4 may also be barely adequte. With an all in one computer I expect to be able to do all things.
I have a 9800GTX which benchmarks very close to the 4850 and it's only OK for WoW IMO. I'd hate to play it at a higher rez.

If you take gaming out of the equation than there is no point in these imacs having a 4850 at all. They could have used a cheaper, lower end card and achieved the same thing for all other apps.
It would be nice if they gave us an option for a real card. There are many Nvidia Mobility GTX cards that would work far better. The Intel lawsuit does not stop nvidia from making graphics cards. They only got out of the motherboard chipset business.
 

Elledan

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2010
Joined
Oct 18, 2001
Messages
15,913
If you want to push games to their limits, the only real option you have is to get a PC and run Windows. That's how it's been for a while. Hacking the BIOS of PC GPUs only gets one so far as well.
 

Terpfen

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
6,079
The 4850 is not adequete IMO for gaming at that resolution. Yes, there are native mac games. World of Warcraft would not perform well with that card at that rez. Call of Duty 4 may also be barely adequte. With an all in one computer I expect to be able to do all things.

In your opinion. We're going to need benchmarks to prove or disprove the adequacy of the 4850 for WoW and CoD4. Personally, I don't see how the 4850 would have any trouble running WoW even at 2560x1600: WoW isn't exactly a bleeding edge game. CoD4 I can see having a little more trouble. But once again, Apple doesn't come up with spec lists with gaming in mind.

If you take gaming out of the equation than there is no point in these imacs having a 4850 at all. They could have used a cheaper, lower end card and achieved the same thing for all other apps.

This is what I've been saying for the last while in attempting to reason with people about Mac specs. Gaming simply is not a priority on OS X, and won't be until developers divorce themselves from Direct X.

It would be nice if they gave us an option for a real card. There are many Nvidia Mobility GTX cards that would work far better. The Intel lawsuit does not stop nvidia from making graphics cards. They only got out of the motherboard chipset business.

The Intel lawsuit prevents nvidia from designing Core i series chipsets. This prevents Apple from coupling a Core i7 with an nvidia GPU, because they can't get the relevant nvidia parts to drive the platform. Ergo, they went with ATi. The best ATi has to offer for Apple's purposes is the 4000 series. When ATi comes up with a daughterboard reference design for the 5000 series, Apple can update the iMac to take advantage of that.

Again, I fail to see how your expectations could have realistically been delivered.
 

Archer75

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 10, 2001
Messages
6,465
In your opinion. We're going to need benchmarks to prove or disprove the adequacy of the 4850 for WoW and CoD4. Personally, I don't see how the 4850 would have any trouble running WoW even at 2560x1600: WoW isn't exactly a bleeding edge game. CoD4 I can see having a little more trouble. But once again, Apple doesn't come up with spec lists with gaming in mind.

All I can say is I have a similar card and it's barely adequate at 1920x1200. I can easily drop my FPS in the teens in parts of wow. And wow is more demanding on that card than CoD4. But yes, we do need to see the benchmarks. I just can't believe there aren't any yet.

If they want macs to be a more mainstream platform you have to support gaming. Or at the very least give people an option. WoW is the most popular game in the world right now, you'd think they'd want to embrace that. There are many mac games out there. Including one of the best selling game series of all time, The Sims.



The Intel lawsuit prevents nvidia from designing Core i series chipsets. This prevents Apple from coupling a Core i7 with an nvidia GPU, because they can't get the relevant nvidia parts to drive the platform. Ergo, they went with ATi. The best ATi has to offer for Apple's purposes is the 4000 series. When ATi comes up with a daughterboard reference design for the 5000 series, Apple can update the iMac to take advantage of that.

Again, I fail to see how your expectations could have realistically been delivered.

You forget the mac pro. Which is basically a custom x58 board with i7 processors. "xeon" but same difference. They are all Nehalems. And it has nvidia cards available.
There is nothing that needs to be placed on the imac logic board for them to use a mobile nvidia video card. The ATI card in the new imac is a stand alone daughter card. It's not soldered on the board. You may very well be able to unplug it and plug in another card of the same form factor. To me it looks like a typical MXM card found in many laptops.

"It was, and is, Intel's position that Disputed NVIDIA MCPs are not licensed...because they cannot provide an interface between an Intel [Nehalem] processor and system memory." Intel goes on to detail its belief that NVIDIA has misrepresented its licensing status to various partners and manufacturers, repeatedly insisting that it has a license for Nehalem-compatible chipsets when, in fact, it does not."

Nvidia just can't make Nehalem chipsets. But they don't need to, to make thier cards available. Nvidia cards work just fine in Intel chipsets.
 
Last edited:

Terpfen

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
6,079
All I can say is I have a similar card and it's barely adequate at 1920x1200. I can easily drop my FPS in the teens in parts of wow. And wow is more demanding on that card than CoD4. But yes, we do need to see the benchmarks. I just can't believe there aren't any yet.

Mainstream enthusiast sites aren't exactly big on OS X or the Mac line in general. Well, there is Anandtech, but they don't benchmark every release.

If they want macs to be a more mainstream platform you have to support gaming.

Apple is cracking into the mainstream without the help of gaming developers just fine. OpenGL is in OS X. It's there for developers to take advantage of if they so choose. They simply opt not to. What specifically does Apple need to do to "support gaming" in your eyes?

You forget the mac pro. Which is basically a custom x58 board with i7 processors. "xeon" but same difference. They are all Nehalems. And it has nvidia cards available.

I haven't forgotten the Mac Pro. It's simply not relevant to the discussion of the iMac line, for one primary reason: the iMac's internals are designed like a notebook, not a desktop tower like the Mac Pro. Apple has to worry about the same things in the iMac that they do with the notebook, namely heat and power efficiency. That's why they usually resort to putting notebook components in the iMac. Would you complain about the MacBook's graphics by saying "The Mac Pro has X GPU chipset?" Of course not.

So we again come full circle to the problem: no nvidia chipset available for the Core i series, thanks to Intel's lawsuit.

The ATI card in the new imac is a stand alone daughter card. It's not soldered on the board. You may very well be able to unplug it and plug in another card of the same form factor. To me it looks like a typical MXM card found in many laptops.

You are fully reading my posts, yes? That the iMac uses a daughterboard for its GPU access is already established. What you're missing is that ATi does not offer the 5000 series on a daughterboard. The best they offer is the 4000 series. Apple went with the 4850. Best they could do given the legal and technical situation at the moment. When ATi creates a daughterboard card for the 5000 series, Apple can go ahead and update the iMac line accordingly.

Nvidia just can't make Nehalem chipsets. But they don't need to, to make thier cards available. Nvidia cards work just fine in Intel chipsets.

I'm still waiting to hear specifically which chipsets you thought should have been made available in the iMac refresh.
 

Archer75

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 10, 2001
Messages
6,465
What specifically does Apple need to do to "support gaming" in your eyes?

Offer more video cards. It's difficult to justify spending that much money on something that isn't going to last me. Otherwise i'd buy one in a heartbeat.


I haven't forgotten the Mac Pro. It's simply not relevant to the discussion of the iMac line, for one primary reason: the iMac's internals are designed like a notebook, not a desktop tower like the Mac Pro. Apple has to worry about the same things in the iMac that they do with the notebook, namely heat and power efficiency. That's why they usually resort to putting notebook components in the iMac. Would you complain about the MacBook's graphics by saying "The Mac Pro has X GPU chipset?" Of course not.

You're missing the point. The mac pro uses nehalem processors and has nvidia video cards. This is no different than what the imac can do. Despite what you think the lawsuit prevents. This actually proves my point. Nvidia can make video cards. And those cards can be used in any machine. If the lawsuit prevents an nvidia video card in an imac it would also prevent it in the mac pro, which it does not.
The imac is more desktop like than you think. It uses desktop i5 and i7 processors, desktop hard drives and a discrete GPU. However this is irrelevant, aside from the discrete GPU.

The macbooks graphics are integrated. It's a different situation. And as such using nvidia graphics in a nehalem based notebook would require an nvidia motherboard chipset and this would not be allowed per the lawsuit. imacs graphics are discrete and do not use an nvidia or AMD chipset.

Hell, EGA makes a Nvidia GTX 285 for the mac pro(which again, uses nehalem processors)

So we again come full circle to the problem: no nvidia chipset available for the Core i series, thanks to Intel's lawsuit.

Not true. The lawsuit prevents nvidia from making MOTHERBOARD chipsets for nehalem. Not video cards as seen with the mac pro. They can indeed make video cards. Nvidia video cards do not require an Nvidia motherboard chipset to run.

My point in pointing out that the ATI card is a daughterboard is that it's not integrated into the motherboard. Using an ATI card in the imac is no different than using an nvidia card. It doesn't require anything specific to ATI or Nvidia on the motherboard chipset itself.




I'm still waiting to hear specifically which chipsets you thought should have been made available in the iMac refresh.

Why the nvidia GTX mobility cards!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top