27" iMac Quad Core

[morficus]

Hey guys,

I haven't seen much (if any at all actually...) talk about the new iMacs, so I wanted to get the ball rolling.

Who's getting one?

Who wants one?

Who already has one?

Is the $200 price difference between the i5 and i7 worth it?

What do you think about it over all?

Personally, I can't wait to get one and have been tracking their avalability with a rather unhealthy obsession :laugh: This will be my first Mac (been a PC-guy for years) so I'm really pumped to pick one up.

I didn't pre-order one back in 10/20 since I rather not skip out on work just to sign for a package - so that means I'm waiting until they hit retail stores.

Reports of pre-orders being delivered are flying around the web (as well as unboxings and benchmarks), but resellers and Apple retail stores alike seem to not be part of this shipping action :-( has anyone heard when they may be in stores?

Oh well, more waiting I guess.

Just wanted to see what fellow Neowinians felt.

[Rudy]

I got the dual core because I wasn't willing to wait for the quad core lol. But i would say the i7 is not worth the extra $200, they showed the extra HT doesnt add much performance.

[Damian]

I got the dual core because I wasn't willing to wait for the quad core lol. But i would say the i7 is not worth the extra $200, they showed the extra HT doesnt add much performance.

Same here.

I couldn't wait for the quad core to arrive.

[PyX]

I bought a Core i5 and still waiting. It got on flight from Shanghai today :)

I saw a few benchmarks comparing the i7 and the i5 here : http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/core_i5

...and realized they were both equivalent processors... but I have heard other benchmarks in the MacRumors forums saying the opposite. Anyways my credit card couldn't hold more than the configuration I bought, so meh. I couldn't care less anymore about this.

[Malisk]

IF I would buy one, I'd get the non-quad version. :) That one is unusually well worth its price for being Apple! :o I mean, that is not even just a huge 27" screen, but a huge 27" led-backlit IPS screen. And the rest of the hardware is not bad either. If I'd get a stationary computer today, there would be no question about it.

[PyX]

Nore sure about that. I've seen benchmarks in OS X about the Quad-Core version of the iMac, and it crushes its 2-cores little brother.

Benchmarks : http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/11....than.past.gen/

I'm surprised they didn't compare it to the 3.06GHz though... meh.

[thertrain]

I'm going back and forth on which to get, the standard C2D or the i5. I am on a first gen. 24" Aluminum with the 2.4 C2D. I tend to upgrade every couple years but haven't made up my mind yet. The most process intensive stuff I do is Photoshop or Soundbooth CS4 and sometimes, minor video processing. Will I see a significant jump between my C2D and the newer one, or is the performance pretty similar. Another factor helping is the 4GB standard RAM, as my current model has 2GB at the lower 667mhz speed.

Thoughts or help?!?!?!?

[Death Proof]

That one is unusually well worth its price for being Apple! :o I mean, that is not even just a huge 27" screen, but a huge 27" led-backlit IPS screen. And the rest of the hardware is not bad either. If I'd get a stationary computer today, there would be no question about it.

Same goes for me, My 2008 2x Dual Xeon Mac Pro is still holding superbly & Id love to have one of em 27" iMacs

[the1himself]

the only question i have is what is the response time in the 27" iMac? If i'm gonna be running win7 and playing games on it (its got a pretty good GPU) I'd wanna know that and apple is horrible about disclosing that information. Anyone know?

[Stetson]

the only question i have is what is the response time in the 27" iMac? If i'm gonna be running win7 and playing games on it (its got a pretty good GPU) I'd wanna know that and apple is horrible about disclosing that information. Anyone know?

I found this, I don't know much about the specifics of the technology so I don't know if it's right. I looked at the specs of a few other monitors using the E-IPS tech and they all seemed to have response times of 5-6ms.

What's the response time of the iMac's monitor?

Looks like 5ms... that's the speed of the E-IPS tech.

[the1himself]

I found this, I don't know much about the specifics of the technology so I don't know if it's right. I looked at the specs of a few other monitors using the E-IPS tech and they all seemed to have response times of 5-6ms.

wicked!

thanks for the info. i suppose that is average or maybe just above but either way, not too good for gaming...but i suppose it'll do

[PyX]

I suppose 5ms is VERY good, given that :

Nevertheless, despite the discrepancies over reported numbers, response time does matter. As recent as 2005, monitor manufacturers and gaming experts were recommending a response time of under 16ms to avoid blurring and ghosting. However, a year later we are seeing response times of less than 5ms, or more typically, less than 8ms. This in turn means that game manufacturers are going to utilize these new capabilities and create games that demand this faster response time. Who knows, maybe next year we may see Samsung reporting a response time of 2ms, it could happen.

Source : http://ezinearticles.com/?Monitor-Response...d&id=503352

I know it means 2006, but is it really useful /possible to diminish it so much?

It's like games who run at 100fps, while the human eye refreshes 60 times per second, it's lost energy and bad for the environment and should be kept for benchmarks only. But I think we're in another subject of my own opinion right now hehe

[saxondale.]

[Niels.]

I ordered the i5 a few weeks ago, it was supposed to arrive yesterday, but it got delayed untill monday. Can't wait to get my hands on it!!

[Elliott]

Wow! Those benchmarks are impressive. (Y)

[cupertinian]

Amazing computers. Panels to die for. Mine arrives today :)

[burtonmotion583]

My parents just got one for their house. I have to say the thing is gorgeous. We have had PC's all our lives and just recently have been switching over to Apple for laptops and such. I haven't had a chance to play around with it a ton, but for the limited time I had with it, it responded and ran wonderfully. My dad has a vision problem and the Universal Access is just absolutely incredible for him. What he use to have to use was a terrible program called Zoomtext on the PC, but Apples built in program is instantaneous and works even better.

[Malisk]

Nore sure about that. I've seen benchmarks in OS X about the Quad-Core version of the iMac, and it crushes its 2-cores little brother.

Benchmarks : http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/11....than.past.gen/

I'm surprised they didn't compare it to the 3.06GHz though... meh.

Yes, but the question is what your needs are. ;) I know it crushes the 3 GHz dual core, but...

that is still a 3 GHz dual core.

the only question i have is what is the response time in the 27" iMac? If i'm gonna be running win7 and playing games on it (its got a pretty good GPU) I'd wanna know that and apple is horrible about disclosing that information. Anyone know?

I wouldn't worry about that. I own a three-four year old S-IPS NEC panel with ~10 ms response time, and there was no problem playing Guild Wars at least. I noticed no ghosting at all.