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

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!