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
Mentawl - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
Hrm, I wouldn't call that backwards at all. The monitor is perhaps the single most important thing when interfacing with a computer, and it's worth splashing out on it over 10% extra CPU or GPU power or whatnot.mcnabney - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
You missed the point. Definitely pay good money for a nice screen.However, in three years this nice screen on the iMac is going to be stuck on an outdated system. If you bought the system separate from the monitor you could save a huge cost (of having to buy ANOTHER expensive IPS screen) when upgrading to a new system.
Is is actually kind of sad, knowing that all of these awesome screens are going to land in the junk heap in five years when they could provide excellent service for 10-20 years.
KoolAidMan1 - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
The plus side is that iMac resale value is very high, and they update the displays every 2-3 years or so. Sell the old iMac on ebay for a good amount, and use the proceed to replace it with a new one with a better LCD.I upgrade my gaming PCs every 2-3 years, and I wish that upgrading it was as simple as with my iMac. With the iMac I put the whole thing in the box it came in, and the new one is faster with a better monitor. With my PC I have to sell components piecemeal for way less return than I get with my Mac stuff.
rubaiyat - Wednesday, September 7, 2011 - link
So what do you do with your old PCs throw them away when you recycle the peripherals, and selected components? Not that there is much point to most of those.Macs go to a new home and the money from that pays a large part of a newer Mac.
PC upgrade = 1 half new PC, plus box of discarded parts.
Mac upgrade = 2 computers, 1 totally new, 1 older but still working.
So which makes more sense? Which is more environmentally sensible?
kevith - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
I think it´s a bit like buying a stereo: Use half your cash on the speakers, and the other jalf on amp, CD-player and good cables.Then you have a well-matched system.
And here it makes sense - to me at least - to spend one half on the screen.
You´re gonna look at it several hours every day, and it´l probably outlive two or three builds ahead.
Spivonious - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
I think you should spend 80% on speakers, 20% on other stuff (and no more than $10 on cables. Really, they don't make a difference). Most amps today are equally good, and jumping from 100W per channel to 150W per channel is pointless when a normal music source will use 1-2W per channel. Even really blasting it will only use 5-10W. I'd much rather get better sound, and that comes with better speakers.mcnabney - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
Yep.My speakers ~2k
Receiver ~400
BluRay ~120
Cables ~50 for everything (12ga for speakers, 1 nice RCA for sub, the rest is cheap digital)
Exodite - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
Regarding the display resolution it's all in what you do.I mostly work with text and horizontal space is pretty meaningless for me, which means the only upgrade for my two 1280x1024 displays is to go for a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 panel.
There's no way in hell I'm paying the asking price for those though, I can get no less than *eight* 1080p displays for the price of one 27" 2560x1440 display. Mostly, I suspect, due to these kind of displays being aimed at graphics professionals and coming with all kinds of features that I care nothing about.
I can only agree with Anand and hope that the strong focus on high-DPI mobile displays will trickle upwards too. After all, with 4" panels doing 720P and 10" displays doing quadruple that a 23-27" high-resolution display shouldn't be a problem.. right?
Rinadien - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
Or... you could get a 1900x1200 display, and rotate it 90 degrees?KoolAidMan1 - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
Those eight 1080p displays are TN. Sorry, not interested in downgrading, I'd rather have one high quality display instead of eight crappy ones. I have two IPS displays on my desk and I wouldn't trade them for any number of TN monitors.