The 27-inch Apple iMac Review (2011)
by Anand Lal Shimpi on May 27, 2011 2:30 AM ESTFaceTime HD
Like the new MacBook Pros, the new iMac ships with a 1280 x 720 video/still camera mounted in the top bezel of the display. The FaceTime experience is pretty similar to what we saw on the MacBook Pro. The 720p video is encoded in real time (using Quick Sync) and sent at up to 2Mbps to its recipient. Image quality is pretty good assuming you have a well lit room and that you have the upload bandwidth to spare:
Photo Booth ships with the system and continues to capture at 640 x 480 by default. It's clear that Apple needs to do a better job of aligning updates to its software with its hardware release schedule.
Network Performance
Like the new 2011 MacBook Pros, the new iMac has an 802.11n WiFi adapter that supports up to three spatial streams. While Broadcom is responsible for the MacBook Pro hardware, Atheros provides WiFi in the iMac (at least for the 21.5-inch model).
As Brian correctly pointed out in our MacBook Pro review, Apple's Time Capsule and Airport Extreme have supported three spatial streams for a while - they just haven't had any clients that could use all three.
Each stream is good for up to 150Mbps, which brings the max negotiated speed of the new iMac up to 450Mbps:
In practice you get far less than that of course:
| 802.11n Network Performance Comparison | ||||
| 27-inch iMac (Mid 2011) | 15-inch MacBook Pro (Early 2011) | |||
| Peak Network Transfer Speed | 150Mbps | 133Mbps | ||
Not as tuned for low power consumption the new iMac actually achieves higher throughput than the MacBook Pro connected to the same Apple Time Capsule.
Range is also improved compared to the MacBook Pro's 3x3 implementation. I saw more APs available on the iMac, which isn't too surprising:
iMac WiFi  |
MacBook Pro WiFi  |
The benefits of better range and higher throughput are less important on a desktop, unless you're one of those people who carries your iMac to coffee shops (in which case, yay?).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
139 Comments
View All Comments
KoolAidMan1 - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
"The example given by headbox is a prime example."I can't think of any Mac user who would really try this. I mean, I plug my gaming PC into my 27" iMac as a primary display through the mini-DP port, and I figure I'm in an extreme minority of users. People who plug consoles and BR players and who would need a converter box is be an even tinier number of users.
Don't get me wrong, I'm annoyed that the 2011 iMac has new Target Display Mode requirements, but the limitations of prior models in terms of using set-top boxes (consoles, Blu Ray players) isn't statistically a big enough number to get bent out of shape over, IMHO.
Tros - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
"How are you going to upgrade the motherboard on a proprietary and overpriced all in one?"This is as much of a criticism on laptops, tablets, smartphones, as all-in-one units. And guess what: That proprietary junk has been of great value to a lot of people, especially if it has an aesthetic appeal.
Penti - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
While certainly great for what they for probably, it's definitively not the same thing using 23" 1920x1080 120Hz TN-screens with Nvidia 3D Vision as with a good IPS or PVA screen with proper viewing angles and for mostly other uses then gaming. Of course you need your PC to your triple display gaming machine and a strong GPU too.rubaiyat - Wednesday, September 7, 2011 - link
Do you actually use your computer for much besides gaming?I'd rather have an excellent monitor than some dodgy and essentially useless 3D 'feature'.
But that separates consumers in all areas. Those who will see a movie because it has (very loud) surround sound and pseudo 3D with lots of explosions, and those who will see a movie because it actually IS a good movie.
My iMac27 has a brilliantly sharp and accurate 27" 2540x1920 display, that thankfully is not 3D nor runs generally awful Windows grade video.
nafhan - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
I'm fine spending more on a monitor than a desktop... However, I'll usually go through two or three desktop hardware upgrades before I replace my monitor.fitten - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
And when the monitor is the majority of the cost of the system, it makes sense to reuse it for future upgrades. Monitor technology seems to evolve slower than the rest of the system so barring some major changes, keeping it for several upgrades won't 'set you behind' any. So, reusing a monitor is an extremely cost efficient technique to keep your computer 'modern'.Spivonious - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
Exactly. I've had the same NEC (Mitsubishi tube) CRT on my desk for 15 years. The picture is still fantastic and blows any TN-panel LCD out of the water.KoolAidMan1 - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
Good thing they use the best IPS panels in these things. :)Guspaz - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
Colour-reproduction wise, perhaps, although that depends on the backlight. In terms of detail and a crisp image, even a cheap TN panel will destroy an old CRT, and IPS panels will match or surpass such a CRT.I'm reminded of a friend of mine, who for years (until perhaps 2-3 years ago) insisted that his old CRT monitor was fine, despite the fact that it was so out of focus that 14 point text was unreadable. He finally relented and upgraded when we proved to him that he was in denial when we realize that the reason he didn't have trouble reading on the monitor was because he increased the text size by 200-300% when he used the monitor. Now, I'm not suggesting that your monitor is out of focus, a good CRT monitor can have excellent sharp detail. But even the best of them comes nowhere close to a half decent LCD.
KoolAidMan1 - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
Not at all. Sell the iMac and get a better monitor that comes in the next update, it happens every 2-3 years. Resale value is also high.