New iMac worth it?


Recommended Posts

Alright a little back story first.

I used to be an iMac user (2005-2008), well in 2008 I bought the Mac Pro (8core 2.8ghz xeon), and I have not had to replace my computer since. Still feels pretty fast and snappy, gaming is average (I do use bootcamp a ton). So now the new iMacs are coming out and I'm wondering if its time to upgrade again, and if the new imacs are noticabily faster than what I currently have.

Here are my current specs:

Mac Pro 2008 (30" display near same res as the 27" iMac so no biggie there)

Processor 2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon

Memory 10 GB 800 MHz DDR2 FB-DIMM

Graphics ATI Radeon HD 5770 1024 MB

Storage Crucial c300 SSD 128gb + 1TB Samsung 7200rpm

Heres what I'm looking to get:

iMac 27" LED Display 2560x1440 resolution

Processor 3.4GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz

Memory 24GB (2x4GB Apple, 2x8GB Expercom) 1600MHz DDR3 RAM

Graphics NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5

Storage 1TB Fusion Drive

So if anyone has any ideas in terms of the new cpu's and their performance vs the xeon's, same with the memory and graphics.

Am kinda afraid of going to a fusion (Software solution eeeeek), where as now I just use my ssd for everything, then media on the regular drive.

Anyway, thanks for the help, hopefully :p

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1122832-new-imac-worth-it/
Share on other sites

He only hits me because he loves me :'(

Honestly, if you have the money, it's clear you already want to do it.

This kind of thing isn't about need, it's a want. It's purely an economic decision :)

Also, Fusion is kinda :| I'd rather do what you're doing now and handle it all manually.

CPU wise, you will not see much of a difference, as those dual Xeons are on par with the i7,

neither on the "fusion" drive specially when compared to a standalone SSD+hdd configuration

(assuming the SSD is dedicated to the OS, and program data is on the HDD)

Ram, not so much, as the one on the PRO i assume it should be ECC (ddr3) even if is just 10gb

should run "more stable" than the 24gb on the new iMac

Graphics wise is where you would notice most of the difference, as the 680MX is technically a downclocked version of the 680

(very good card specially when compared to the 5770, but it all depends on what "gaming" you'll be doing)

All in all, it all comes down to what you want and what you're willing to trade off in terms of performance (or bottlenecks, such as the Fusion drive)

I just boosted my RAM on my Mid Year 2010 Mac Mini from 2 GB's to 8 GB's and still don't notice any real faster speed difference just yet other than the fact that it is no longer creating so many so called Recovered (Temp) Files on Boot Up to ML and/or Boot Camp.

I am hoping to see a better Speed Difference after I order my SSD from either Godaddy.com or Crucial.com. Just FYI.

I just boosted my RAM on my Mid Year 2010 Mac Mini from 2 GB's to 8 GB's and still don't notice any real faster speed difference just yet other than the fact that it is no longer creating so many so called Recovered (Temp) Files on Boot Up to ML and/or Boot Camp.

I am hoping to see a better Speed Difference after I order my SSD from either Newegg.com or Crucial.com. Just FYI.

Correction: Newegg.com or Crucial.com. This is the second time in 24 hours that I had to make such a Correction. My Bad. :-)

Also, Fusion is kinda :| I'd rather do what you're doing now and handle it all manually.

Handling everything manually won't make you look more interesting, nor will anyone question your masculinity for allowing the OS to do these things. But if you really really want to let your inner geek out you can always disable the software handling "Fusion Drive" and get two serperate drives: 128 GB SSD + 1TB HDD.

Back on topic - is there no official Apple sanctioned graphics card upgrades available? Sure those dual xeons are going to be still pretty decent even compared to the i7's... I'd guess only the graphics would really be holding you back unless you were a SERIOUS gamer.

I guess the RAM only being DDR2 would hold you back performance wise though... that said my Wintel PC only has a single Intel Core 2 Quad with DDR2 but a semi-reasonable graphics card and I'm able to play stuff like Battlefield 3 at 1080p and pretty high detail... so maybe it is just the graphics holding you back?

Edited by Charisma
: Removed reference to a deleted/troll post
Sure those dual xeons are going to be still pretty decent even compared to the i7's... I'd guess only the graphics would really be holding you back unless you were a SERIOUS gamer.

People should keep in mind that the 2008 Mac Pro has Xeon processors based on the Core 2 Duo/Quad architecture. The 2009 Mac Pro introduced Nehalem (first generation Core i7). In that light it could very well be that the 3,4 GHz Core i7 iMac outperforms his 2008 Mac Pro.

From what I remember from back in the day my 2010 2,93 GHz Core i7 iMac already had higher benchmarks than a friend's 8-core 2008 Mac Pro, but don't quote me on it. :p

I was looking at a breakdown of the two new iMacs and came to the conclusion that they really are nothing more then a MBP built into the iMac body. Now I could be wrong, however, having opened my iMac 29 (mid 2009) to add a SSD it occurred to me that it was nothing more then a MBP. Just my thoughts.

I was looking at a breakdown of the two new iMacs and came to the conclusion that they really are nothing more then a MBP built into the iMac body. Now I could be wrong, however, having opened my iMac 29 (mid 2009) to add a SSD it occurred to me that it was nothing more then a MBP. Just my thoughts.

The 2009, 2010, 2011 en 2012 iMacs all have desktop CPUs in them, so in that regard they're different. In the 27-inch iMac the only part laptop is de GPU from what I understand, and the optical drive in the previous models of course.

I'm confused though, did you expect to encounter a desktop-grade GPU inside the iMac's thin casing?

Out of curiosity what is the value of your Mac Pro to resell, in the event that you go for the iMac? Should at least net you 30% of the cost towards the iMac?

Did a search on craigslist for other peoples postings (all of the states), and went by their pricing of a simliar spec'd mac pro, which was around 1200~. Mine has the ssd, newer graphics card (by apple's standards).

I'm confused though, did you expect to encounter a desktop-grade GPU inside the iMac's thin casing?

On a desktop computer? One would hope so. I don't understand what the value of going so thin is outside of aesthetics and price gouging when they make it nearly impossible to change components on your own.

I'm confused though, did you expect to encounter a desktop-grade GPU inside the iMac's thin casing?

why not? they don't take up that much room if they are integrated chips, NVidia had integrated chips that where desktop card quality that took up not much room at all

why not? they don't take up that much room if they are integrated chips, NVidia had integrated chips that where desktop card quality that took up not much room at all

If that was a reasonable option, even in the previous models, I'm sure they would have done so. In this regard nothing has changed between the 2009 and 2012 design. The only trade-off I find completely unacceptable in the current 21,5-inch iMac is the fact it comes with a laptop HDD and a 5400rpm model at that. From what I understand the 27-inch iMac doesn't suffer that issue luckily.

Anyone know where I could get benchmarks to compare the two cpus? Not even sure what model i7 is in the new iMacs

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-3770+%40+3.40GHz

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E5462+%40+2.80GHz

(x2)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • According to Microsoft, Cause: One of the drivers controlling the device notified the operating system that the device failed in some manner.   https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/error-codes-in-device-manager-in-windows-524e9e89-4dee-8883-0afa-6bca0456324e
    • This looks awesome, I will request access via Steam later this afternoon!
    • Personally, I’ve found that it’s usually worth investing in the infrastructure you don’t want to replace later, especially cabling. Running Cat6A (or better, depending on your needs) during an upgrade is relatively inexpensive compared to having to re-cable a few years down the road. For switches I try to balance current specs with realistic growth. If my budget allows it Ill choose switches with higher uplink speeds which leaves room for expanding later on, but I don’t necessarily overspend on access ports if the endpoints won’t benefit from them anytime soon. One lesson I’ve learned is that planning for scalability pays off. It’s much easier to add devices, VLANs, or higher-bandwidth workloads when your network infrastructure already supports it than to replace hardware later.  What is your budget like?
    • I hate the term, "future-proof." We saw it back in the 90's / 2000's, if not before. You cannot future-proof anything, since there is no definition of how far into the future you plan on prepping for. Best idea is to tell us what you currently have and what its use is at the moment, and we can then offer ideas about some areas that might need an upgrade and other areas that can be left alone.
    • I can agree that it is being used in a small capacity. I worked for a company where their engineers still used XP, and when asked why it was because their sensor software wasn't compatible with newer operating systems and the software was discontinued so they couldn't upgrade the software. Given that the sensors were still in use by companies, they had to continue using XP to support the sensor, otherwise the price to the company would have gone into the millions or billions. Our response was simple: Ok, you can keep the XP machine. But we're removing it from the network. "But then it can't access the Internet or folder shares!" Yup, kinda the point. If someone wants to continue using an unsecure OS they can do, I have no problem with that. But it should be isolated. Simple. I had a fight with a guy in the engineering department for weeks before he finally relented. But we digress.   What do I plan on doing to commemorate the anniversary? Nothing. I have fond memories of the OS, but at the end of the day it's just an OS. If I had some time I might see if I could install it on my Raspberry Pi for a laugh. But my reflex memory with today's OS ideas would probably get me frustrated and I'd uninstall it after 5 mins.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      539
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      269
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      154
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      99
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!