• What
    is this?
    You've landed on the AMD Portal on AnandTech. This section is sponsored by AMD. It features a collection of all of our independent AMD content, as well as Tweets & News from AMD directly. AMD will also be running a couple of huge giveaways here so check back for those.
    PRESENTED BY
POST A COMMENT

103 Comments

Back to Article

  • AmdInside - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    Wake me up when Apple does something exciting with the iMacs. Been a while since I've found the iMacs interesting. I'm a big Apple fan but no blu-ray, no eSATA, no USB 3.0, 4GB of ram....the list keeps on going. It just feels like I'm getting ripped off. Reply
  • dagamer34 - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    Here's what I just bought for $1400.

    Core i7 2600K 3.4Ghz
    8GB DDR3 RAM
    MSI P67MA-GD80 Motherboard with 2 eSATA ports and 10 USB 3.0 ports
    ATI Radeon HD 6950 2GB
    120GB Vertex 2
    2TB Western Digital Green
    LG Bluray burner
    Corsair H70 water cooler
    23" LG IPS 1080p display

    You'd have to get a top of the line iMac to match those specs. I've owned 3 Macs before and I find it hard to spend that much on a desktop when you are knowingly getting ripped off. At least with laptops, one can justify that no one builds a better laptop than Apple (especially since you can't really build your own from scratch).

    But of course, no one buys a Mac because of specs, but it's still a very hard pill for an enthusiast to swallow.
    Reply
  • Casper42 - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    You bought a Vertex 2 to go with a Sandy Bridge machine, and you read AT?

    Send that tish back and get a Vertex 3
    Reply
  • dagamer34 - Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - link

    I bought the Vertex 2 3 months ago. Reply
  • mianmian - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    Look at the low end model, Apple's price is not that a rip off.
    all the price below is approximate price with reference.

    i5-2400S, 2.5GHz --- $195 ( from intel )
    21.5" ips mornitor ---- ~$250 ( rough price from newegg)
    Motherboard --- $150 ( compare to ITX motherboard with WiFi, newegg)
    Ram 4G ----- $50 (newegg)
    HD 500G ---- $50 (newegg)
    6750M --- -$150 (I can't find a source, but $150 should not be too off)
    case + power ~$150 (SILVERSTONE SG06BB-450 , newegg)
    kb+mouse ~~$100 (apple store charges more, a rip off)

    The total price above is $1100, not to mention optic drive and other things.
    Reply
  • Targon - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    You can easily get a 23 inch monitor for $250 or under, not a 21.5 inch. The Acer H233H may not be a top of the line display, but it does a good job, and you can get it for $210 or less. No one would buy a mobile Radeon, the 6750M is not as fast as a regular 6760. You do NOT need a gamer power supply, a normal case with a 500 watt power supply is $80, not $150. Again, you don't have to go top of the line. Reply
  • Guspaz - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    The Acer H233H is not an IPS panel. You're comparing apples to oranges. Reply
  • darwinosx - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    You can easily get a *crappy* 23 inch monitor for $250 or under, not a 21.5 inch.

    There, fixed it for you.
    Reply
  • jrocks84 - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    I got my Dell U2211H which is a 21.5" IPS display for $189. As far as I know it uses the same panel with a different backlight as the 21.5" iMac. Reply
  • XiZeL - Thursday, May 05, 2011 - link

    for 150$ your in GeForce GTX 460 768 MB and Radeon HD 6790 territory
    i imagine this is no where near 6750M performances.
    Reply
  • akm3 - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    Umm, what you just bought does NOT match the specs the iMac, you only have a 1080p display, and it's only 23". That 27" 2560x1440p IPS display costs quite a chunk of change from Dell for example.

    Overall though, your point stands.
    Reply
  • KoolAidMan1 - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    The problem is that your specs do not match.

    Replace the LG 1080 display with a 27" 2560x1440 IPS display. They are $1000 from Apple, $1100 from Dell, or $1400 from NEC. Also don't forget to add the cost of the operating system.

    I reckon that going with the display in the 27" would close the price gap quite considerably.
    Reply
  • iwod - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    You need a 27" Screen
    A LED Backlight - Many of them are still CCFL
    H-IPS , some of them are still E-IPS

    You haven't included the Ultimate version of Windows 7
    A Decent Keyboard and Mouse.

    Your spec doesn't have Bluetooth and WiFi.

    Your Spec isn't very Green, No EPEAT Gold and Energy Star 5.2.

    You haven't included Casing, Please Add a decent Aluminum Case.

    Please add a decent pair Speakers in.

    You spec computer is 5 times larger in Volume compare to an iMac.

    There, a list of difference, if dont care about any of the above and value other things. Then by all count take a PC.
    Reply
  • psychobriggsy - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Well done, so your home built system turns out to be cheaper, and have different specifications. No bluetooth keyboard/mouse though.

    If you buy an iMac, the 27" is the one to go for. A 27" 2560x1440 monitor costs over $800 on its own, making the rest of the computer cost far more palatable, and in the long run it can be used as a monitor too, increasing its longevity.

    And whilst you might not care, many people do care about aesthetics, and the iMac does look better than a pile of components plugged together on a desk (you didn't buy a case it appears).
    Reply
  • alent1234 - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    so?

    a 27" LCD is another few hundred dollars, the top of the line iMac is a 6970, comes with an OS that rivals Win 7 Ultimate since it has AD connectivity and other features that Home Premium doesn't have and comes with software that will run you $200 or so

    apple is just taking the revenue for itself instead of offering software from others and doing a classic upsell by gimping the lower end iMacs
    Reply
  • TEAMSWITCHER - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    And what you have is a hodge-podge of components from multiple vendors. An iMac is a totally different type of computer. Reply
  • darwinosx - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Heh, nobody cares what you just bought.

    But enjoy Microsoft's latest mediocrity of an OS. No service or support. Substandard monitors etc.
    Reply
  • Casper42 - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    Its a Mac, of course you are getting ripped off.

    Perhaps one of these days they will start charging more for OSX and less for the hardware and let other people play in their sandbox.
    Reply
  • Spazweasel - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    When it comes down to where they make their money, Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. Having OS/X run only on Apple hardware sells Apple hardware. Why in the world would they want to change that? Why would they add the burden of having to support every piece of random hardware that Joe' Sound Card and Floor Wax Company produces? Why would they want to go from being a company with half again Microsoft's market cap to one tenth?

    Apple's customers are happy. They're not "stupid" or "in a reality distortion field". And they are most certainly not being ripped off. They buy Macs because Windows and the chaotic PC hardware vendor market is a drain of time and effort. Time spend crawling PC hardware sites, windowsheadaches.com, updating drivers, periodically reinstalling their operating system and dealing with compatibility issues is something Apple users see as a waste of time and efftort. Apple users would rather spend doing what they bought the computer for in the first place. Apple users are not interested in the metatask of managing the computer or the operating system.

    A car that needs to spend a weekend per month in the shop and periodically have an engine rebuild is not better than one you just drive for a year between oil changes. Same principle applies to computers, and to Apple users, that's worth some extra money up front. Sitting on the sidelines yelling "YOU'RE NOT AS HAPPY AS YOU THINK YOU ARE!" doesn't make it so.
    Reply
  • Dex1701 - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    Lol...you just did the same thing by WAAAY over-exaggerating the amount of work and headaches that go into owning a PC. I'm not taking sides...both the PC and Apple markets exist for different types of people. Just wanted to go ahead and point out the "YOU'RE NOT AS HAPPY AS YOU THINK YOU ARE!" hypocrisy of that post. My Windows machines don't require any more maintenance or babysitting than my Macbook does. The fact is that most PC hardware isn't priced at as much of a premium as Apple hardware usually is. That's fine...they make some pretty sexy hardware, but for someone that has a good amount of hardware tech experience there's no reason to shell out for it unless you're hellbent on running MacOS. Reply
  • AddFunction - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    I agree w/ Spazweasel. I've used ms computers since the 80's & 3 years ago I got a MacBook. Not cheap, but not that expensive & a pleasure to use. No virus issues, security updates, constant housekeeping & maintenance. I still have 2 Win 7 computers but I think I'll stay w/ Macs from now on. Windows is just too much bother & I just don't enjoy that anymore. Reply
  • seapeople - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    What exactly do you do to your computers that you need "constant housekeeping & maintenance" on Windows 7? Do you live on a porn site and frequent password cracking sites with admin access for fun?

    Oh I get it, I bet you're one of those XP freaks who insisted on disabling UAC and tweaking your registry so clicking on "My Documents" opens up a customized user interface where one click opens the file you select and two clicks opens the file below it.

    Really, if your Windows 7 needs constant user intervention to provide housekeeping and maintenance then you're using it wrong, and the only reason you think Macs are better is because you listen to Steve Jobs when he tells you that you're using those wrong.
    Reply
  • psychobriggsy - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Or maybe he ran out of patience with Windows and PCs three years ago (maybe Vista was the last straw), and Windows 7 is just too late to matter any longer to him.

    He is right - using a Mac is no headache compared with Windows, and once you're past a certain age you realise that you've better things to be doing as you race towards old age than fiddlearsing around with a computer.
    Reply
  • chillmelt - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    That applies to me. But I still choose Windows over a Mac. I found that overclocking and strenuous amount of gaming is one of top causes of software/hardware malfunction on computers, PC or otherwise. I hardly play games now, and I've yet to experience any crashes since I stopped gaming.

    Now excuse me while I enjoy VMWare running Mac 10.6.2 on my Windows PC without the Mac "tax" or performance plummet.
    Reply
  • seapeople - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Ok, now I get you. Even though he likes Windows 7 like most everyone on the planet, he has been burned by Windows too much in the past to care. I'm in the same boat. I bought a Lisa, so in my mind every Apple computer made today is complete junk and I will thus freely make outdated claims against Apple. Reply
  • ananduser - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Spazweasel, how can you post such idiocies ? No seriously. How do you know how PC users are or how mac users are ? It sounds more like you are a mac user because you perceive macs as suggested to you via marketing. You bought a mac wanting to be what you portray the typical mac user to be, and you strongly believe that you are a "superior" user. This is AT, a tech enthusiast's site. What are you doing here acting like a douche stereotyping everyone who uses a PC? So what if PC users do not agree and do not credit Apple's macs, marketing and doctrine; doest it affect you esteem or what ?

    Man, it is unbelievable how identical hardcore mac fans are. In my country they hold annual mac themed meetings and praise the enlightened despot that is SJ( actual words used ). They spew the same idiocies like you with the platform superiority and the ULTRA synergetic,ergonomic,unisex,revolutionary and whatnot. They even wish well for MS(their perceived enemy) so as the unwashed masses keep to the inferior platform. Well if such is the case in an eastern European country, where Apple is extremely low profile, I can only imagine how the mac "clubs" in USA are. After all Apple is the only tech company that has an ultra loyal following, a fan base instead of an user base.
    Reply
  • akm3 - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    I *personally* don't care about BluRay but your point stands. The 4GB RAM is certainly pretty lame too (as well as the overpriced hard drive and difficulty to upgrade).

    However, no eSATA and no USB 3.0 is kind of a false argument with Thunderbolt and Firewire 800 (and USB 2)

    Thunderbolt > eSATA and USB 3.0....if you're willing to invest in (mostly non-existent today) peripherally to attach to it.
    Reply
  • Targon - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    And there are dozens of Thunderbolt devices ready to go? New technologies always take some time from release to when devices become available. The only reason for the lack of USB 3.0 is because Intel can't get it out at this point.

    If AMDs Bulldozer really does provide the improvements that have been mentioned in terms of CPU performance, that really will do some very interesting things for the industry, since AMD already has USB 3.0 ready to go.
    Reply
  • Wizzdo - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    Yawn. Always the same old boring "It's too expensive...blah blah blah" half-baked comments.

    You make your money back on resale alone with a Mac.

    We all have the same organs but that does not mean we all use them the same. Macs are designed to run amazingly well with OSX. They are like a well-designed, finely-tuned automobile that provides users with YEARS of satisfaction.

    I just installed the latest OSX Snow-Leopard on a 6 year old Macbook Pro and it makes that machine feel and run as if it was brand new. Another happy customer.

    Windows machines look like crap, run like a hodge-podge, and make you feel like upgrading to a mac within a couple of years. And you can barely give away that OLD hunk of junk you thought you saved money on 2 years ago.

    You get what you pay for. If you want cheap plastic crap with no support that is obsolete within a few months and will require half-a-day to upgrade to the next Windows super-overpriced non-professional-version Vista-fix (that you would probably have been better off installing from scratch), then you have no right posting your nonsense here or anywhere else for that matter.

    Best of luck with your soon-to-be landfill donation.
    Reply
  • Tamz_msc - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Typical comment (as expected) from iSheeple.

    If you have some basic knowledge, Windows based PCs run amazingly well too.
    Windows is well designed, and it has given me YEARS of satisfaction, and I'm sure that is also the case with countless other Windows users.

    I installed Windows 7 last year on my old PC(1.86 GHz Core 2 Duo, 1GB RAM, 8600GT, 250 GB HDD) and it runs great.

    ITS WE WHO DECIDE HOW OUR PC WILL LOOK LIKE, not Jobs. It all depends on how much you spend, what parts you buy etc.A Windows machine like this:
    http://www.guru3d.com/article/guru3d-rig-of-the-mo...
    looks a thousand times better than a boring white iMac, and performs better than any of you iSheeple could ever imagine.I guess you're too happy with some shiny white case and Steve Jobs' propaganda to be bothered about the cheap parts inside your Macs like motherboards which come from companies like FOXCONN, where workers are worked to their DEATH.

    You also get what you pay for- shine white poop which gets updates once in six months, gets new hardware only after mainstream Windows PCs,who get them much earlier, some OS that you feel is the best but has been proven to be vulnerable time and again.

    Continue dreaming about the superiority of your beloved Mac..............
    Reply
  • psychobriggsy - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    I didn't realise that the white iMac that was last sold in 2007 is still your reference point for a 'boring white iMac'. Shiny white case - only the low-end MacBook is white these days. White poop - again, where's the white?

    You've probably got Foxconn components in your computer. If not, then the motherboard and other components was assembled elsewhere under worse conditions. It is only Apple and HP that force Foxconn to provide better working conditions, do checks on employee welfare, and so on.

    Glad you can make your PC look awful like the one in the link.
    Reply
  • Targon - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Mac users really need to understand that it is more of a religion than about which is the best. Back in the days of MacOS X vs. Windows XP, there was a fair argument that MacOS X was a better OS, but Windows has come such a long way since then that it is really hard to say that anymore.

    PCs have the advantage that we can mix and match parts, order replacements from all over, and UPGRADE our machines by doing a simple CPU swap in many cases. It is far easier for even a casual user to upgrade a video card or add memory on a PC, and while most people will not do that, it is nice that it can be done fairly comfortably by users with only a little bit of guidance, if they even need it.

    Macs come out of the box easier, but in general are not really better at this point, and there comes a point of stagnation that Apple has already hit in terms of improvements. Seriously, MacOS X, no matter what, is still MacOS X. In the same way that people were crying that they had to finally move away from Windows XP and go to Windows 7 and they couldn't handle the change in UI, what will happen if/when Apple finally releases a new OS? Will Apple users be able to cope with ANY change at this point?
    Reply
  • alent1234 - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    who cares? Mac's retain their value so well that you can sell one every year and buy a new one and it will cost you less than most PC DIY upgrades. Reply
  • Tamz_msc - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Another stupid comment from someone who has no idea of what he's talking about.
    You can overhaul your system(CPU, GPU, HDD, RAM etc) and still it will cost half that of a new iMac.
    Reply
  • PeteH - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    I think his point is that if you can sell your old Mac for more than half its original cost you come out ahead. Reply
  • Tamz_msc - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    I guess Mac users will never understand the the efforts needed to make a PC look like the one I linked. You're blinded by fanboyism to understand such things.FYI I have an Intel CPU which are made in Malaysia, and an Intel motherboard which is made in China, and they're nearing four and a half years of usage without a single problem. Reply
  • Wizzdo - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    So many PC users seem to have such a narrow view. Myself, as a developer and serviceman, I use Windows (because I have to due to legacy and saturation) and OS X "intensively" on a daily basis. I have 3 hand built PCs sitting right here in front of me. PC guys seem to think its rocket science to toss together a motherboard, ram, drive, power supply, fans and case and plug-it in the wall. Even the simplest application I've written is 10 times more involved.

    I know the statistics first hand and it is rare that I will recommend the Windows\obsoletePCbyTheTimeYouGetItHome to most users as I know the pain they are typically in for. And the results speak for themselves - happy users ALL of them. Not a single virus call. "Problems", if any, that can be solved within minutes over the phone.

    I could go on and on. PC users (and much of the world) see face value only (ugly as that face may be ;) and that's what they argue about. There is SO MUCH more to the user experience than a bucket full of bolts. If you use your computer daily and don't enjoy mucking around then Macs are the best value by a country mile for countless reasons.
    Reply
  • araczynski - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    apple isn't about selling hardware/specs, its about selling an image, the hardware just has to be sufficient to maintain that image. Reply
  • darwinosx - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Really?
    A display worth $1000 by itself.
    Much faster Sandy Bridge Procs.
    Thunderbolt which is dramatically faster and more useful than eSata and USB 3.0 which are dead technologies.
    4 GB of ram is more than enough for most and memory is cheap.
    Much faster gpu.
    Reply
  • Sam Spade - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    Does this mean triple monitor? Finally Apple has caught on with the times. I still hate the idea of an all-0in-one as you just can't upgrade it at all in any way shape or form other than adding more RAM, but 3 monitors may make this relevant again, at last for graphic designers who don't really need a ton of power (Maya and Autocad guys run the fuck away). Reply
  • mianmian - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    It can.

    http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/03/apple-imac-hand...
    Reply
  • Lonyo - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    No negative comments about the pathetic 1TB HDD that ships on a $2000 computer? Reply
  • Guspaz - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    What's pathetic about it? There aren't any larger 2.5" drives out there, that's as big as they get. Reply
  • Wurmer - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    You are correct by saying that no one buys a Mac for the specs. I use both Mac and PC and just bought a new rig similar to yours. I also use a mac book and and IPad that I very much like. I fine that those product each satisfied different needs. Next year maybe, I'd like to get and IMac but I am not completely sure yet. I am not arguing against what you said but there something that many people take out of the equation and it's the screesn included in the iMac. A 27'' of that quality cost a pretty penny, I am not current with actual prices but I guess that something around 800-1000 is pretty much in the ball park. I am not a fan of Apple but I like their products.

    Anyways, that said, those changes are welcome but I'd have liked more up to date hardware. USB 3 and eSata are pretty much necessary with the huge HHD capacity available to use for storage...
    Reply
  • rs2 - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    A company as large as Apple hasn't worked out how to deploy new products into their online store without bringing the entire site down in the process? Epic fail. Reply
  • ggathagan - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    I would suggest that they do that on purpose to add a little drama to the roll-out event.
    It's the online equivalent of standing in line for the new iPhone at the Apple store.
    Reply
  • Exodite - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    Am I to understand that the connector is exclusive to Apple until 2012? As in no other company may license or make use of it until then?

    I must have missed that part in the Thunderbolt article, or at the very least glossed it over.

    Don't get me wrong, for obvious reasons I'm all but impressed with Thunderbolt but talk about making sure it'll be another Firewire or mini-DP.
    Reply
  • mianmian - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    I do not think Intel would allow Apple using it exclusively. With the large base of USB devices, I think only Apple "dare" to use thunderbolt instead of USB3.0. Reply
  • KoolAidMan1 - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    Thunderbolt is not exclusive to Apple. According to Intel it is at the discretion of PC builders as to when they implement it. Hopefully they will show up in PCs and motherboards later this year. Reply
  • Exodite - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    I hope that's true, the comments in the article made me rather wary.

    Keeping an entirely unproven connector technology exclusive to one vendor would be an excellent way to nip it in the bud, so to speak.

    Not that I expect PC motherboard vendors to jump at the chance to implement it, seeing as it requires extra hardware and eats up 4 PCIe lanes. The latter you're hard-pressed to find available for love or money.

    I'd probably be less surprised to see it adopted on graphics cards than I would motherboards.
    Reply
  • Andrew.a.cunningham - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    You're right to be suspicious - it's not an Apple exclusive, but it will be awhile before other OEMs jump on the bandwagon (if they decide to). I've corrected the article.

    I also think you may be right about Thunderbolt having the potential to be another Firewire - Firewire 400/800 is, in some respects, technically superior to USB 2.0, but USB is simpler and cheaper to implement and everyone was already used to it, so it's still everywhere while Firewire ports are limited mostly to Macs, add-in cards and higher-end motherboards. Thunderbolt could be better enough than USB 3 that this doesn't happen again, but it's impossible to say at this point.
    Reply
  • Zandros - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    I might be wrong, but my impression was that the GPUs in the 2010 iMacs were desktop cards, or rather mobility cards marketed with the equivalent performance desktop numbers.

    Source: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=97867...
    Reply
  • Tamz_msc - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    They're mobile CPUs, else how could a desktop HD 5770 be made to fit inside it?Apple might have been lying with their previous spec sheets. Reply
  • Zandros - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Did you read the second part of my sentence?

    According to all evidence I've seen, the "5750" in the 2010 high-end iMac was in reality a mobility 5850 (i.e. a mobile card with roughly equivalent performance to the desktop 5750), when the article claims it was a mobility 5750.
    Reply
  • AmdInside - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    The problem is that Thunderbolt is not backwards compatible with any technology. It will be a while before consumers adopt Thunderbolt me thinks. At least firewire had camcorders to push the technology. Reply
  • Focher - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    Actually, that's not really true. Any PCIx based device can be switched to Thunderbolt with minimal engineering effort. DisplayPort compatible devices are obviously fine out of the box.

    At NAB this year, lots of Thunderbolt devices were demonstrated.
    Reply
  • mianmian - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    For PCs, it has a big problem to use thunderbolt : the discrete graphic card.

    Since thunderbolt need to carry video signal, thunderbolt need changes to the current discrete graphic card. Before AMD and Nvidia work out the Optimus like technology for desktop, thunderbolt can hardly go to desktop PCs. Maybe we can see it goes to notebook PCs first.
    Reply
  • Tros - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    I'm probably newb'ing this up, but can't video cards already do off-screen rendering, and isn't Thunderbolt a DMA interface? The video-card doesn't need to be changed at all, IMO. It's probably just the drivers that need retooling. Reply
  • Focher - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    Thunderbolt doesn't NEED to carry a video signal. It can, but it doesn't have to. You can easily have separate discrete GPUs that never touch Thunderbolt and have no impact whatsoever on it. Or they can work together with a software driver to switch between a Thunderbolt-based display versus one running off of a discrete GPU. Reply
  • mianmian - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    According to wiki:

    Because the PCIe bus does not carry video data, it is unclear whether a standalone PCIe card could offer a Thunderbolt port. The Intel Thunderbolt Technology Brief does not give a conclusive answer.
    Thunderbolt can be implemented on graphics cards, which have access to DisplayPort data and PCI express connectivity, or on the motherboard of new devices, such as the MacBook Pro.

    Thunderbolt without video single is unknown yet.
    Reply
  • psychobriggsy - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Thunderbolt is a dual-channel (each channel is 10Gbps) bus. One of the channels can be DisplayPort. All implementations so far have a video signal on the cable, however it surely is possible to have two channels of PCIe instead, but it would probably need a special peripheral to make use of it. With graphics the 'special peripheral' for the second channel is one or two monitors. Reply
  • nitro912gr - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    Are you guys serious?

    I read the comments and I see everyone compare the iMacs with a regular custom build desktop PC with windows...

    You miss the point here, that iMacs are All in ones and as of that is pointless to compare them with regular desktop systems.

    The real competitors to iMacs are the all in ones and the nettops and the only one who stand close in price but is somewhat weaker are the Sony Vaio Aio all in one desktops.

    Those All in one systems are more expensive to build than a part by part custom pc, you know that, they are more complicated. They have to take a serious amount of hardware, fit it on a monitor and plus it must function properly without overheating. The engineers are not just stuffing hardware, they design specific motherboards and specific parts who are not going to sale on large numbers.
    The parts we get for a custom pc can be cheaper, they are massive production hardware and not specialized.

    There is no way someone who wants the latest superGPU for games to get an iMac, it is obvious that he will also not get an all in one desktop at all.
    But some people need every inch of their space and need an all in one, or they have other reasons to believe that an all in one cover their needs.

    If apple ever make a regular desktop in mac pro case then OK, you do the direct compares and you say about overprice and whatever you want. Since that it is pointless to do that.
    Reply
  • riverir - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Agree! Reply
  • edsib1 - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Its a desktop so u compare it to other desktops. Reply
  • nitro912gr - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    It is an all in one desktop so you compare it to the other all in one desktops, how much more this have to be explained to get the difference?
    The oven and the fridge are both kitchen devices but you don't compare each other...
    Reply
  • edsib1 - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    On the one hand u want to say - "Oh look at the fabulous slim design" and use that a plus point when comparing to other desktops - and yet not take into account that slimness means you have to have average performance - by limiting what sort of desktop u want to compare it to.

    As to ur point - although trying to be clever - it doesnt work - a fridge and an oven dont perform the same tasks.
    Reply
  • nitro912gr - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Where the hell you jumped to that conclusion? I used a plus point comparing to other desktops?
    Are you dumb? It is not a performance comparison is a space save comparison and some people DO CARE about space because they don't have space.

    I don't believe that stupidity like the one you show here exist, so you must be trolling.

    I have nothing more to say, there are facts clearly stated above, the ones who have minds of their own can read and think what is right and what is trolling.
    Reply
  • Focher - Tuesday, May 03, 2011 - link

    http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/12/intel...

    The technology will live on, but not in a discrete graphics product from Intel. It never came close to the performance of discrete GPUs from AMD or NVIDIA.

    So let's hope Apple doesn't use it, as a black screen doesn't make for a very good UI.
    Reply
  • fluxtatic - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    One one hand, I'd love for Apple to finally bail on the PC market (we'll see how long this 'back to the Mac BS lasts) and embrace being the commodity-gadget company they have obviously become. If for no other reason than to have the Mactards finally stfu about how much better the holy hand of Jobs is with computers.

    On the other, I'd kind of like to see their market share grow to the point where it is worth the time of virus/spyware writers to write for Mac, to get the Mactards to stfu about how they're virus-proof. No, you aren't. It just isn't worth anyone's time to exploit systems with 10% worldwide marketshare.

    And to all the whiners complaining about how Windows is too much hassle - you're doing it wrong. I keep a real-time scanner on, clean junk out with CCleaner every once in a while, maybe scan with Spybot here and there, but I haven't had any sort of infection in over 15 years. You enjoy 'just using' your Mac. I'm going to do...whatever the hell I want, because there is software available that lets me do that. If I don't like this program, there's a competitor. I don't want to have to pay - that's fine, here's an open-source alternative. You enjoy your Garageband and iMovie. Aside from a small handful of pro applications, is there any software for Mac not written by Apple that doesn't suck hard? Not that all of Apple's software is much better in some cases...
    Reply
  • nitro912gr - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Skipping the delirium which make you look way more tard than all the mactards together, I inform you that there is no lack of software on mac platform and no, apple does not provide the only software available for macs and guess what, most of the open source software is available too!
    Surprise!

    GImp, inkScape, Scribus, Blender and a lot of other open source apps are all available and ported to macOSX.
    Plus most of the windows software is ported to macs as well, but there is a lack of games. However steam made the big step forward for that allowing developers to move and sell their games easier to mac platform.

    So far I haven't found a software (expect some of the games I play) I have in my windows desktop, that is not available or have a good alternative for my macbook.
    So you are not just rude, you are misinformed too.
    Reply
  • Targon - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    There is a valid point about the false sense of security that Mac owners have. In the same way that people in rural areas do not feel a need to lock their doors, too many Mac people feel they don't need anti-virus software. Due to how many pieces of malware have been written for Windows machines, it has forced Microsoft to improve its products to lock it down and make it more difficult to infect.

    With that said, no system is completely immune, but MacOS really IS easier to infect than Windows 7 64 bit, and it is only because Apple marketshare outside of the USA is very very low, to the point where most malware authors don't pay attention to it.
    Reply
  • nitro912gr - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    I don't disagree that no system is really safe, but as far as I use both platforms I have noticed that in windows it is more easy for something to sneak in and mess up.

    MacOS is a more closed environment with it's +/- it have. One of the + is that is not that easy for random virus to sneak in.
    However after windows vista I have noticed that windows too are more difficult to let something to sneak in.
    Still however I believe macOS is safer, for the very reason that is less popular and have less virus.

    So far I don't felt the need to get an antivirus for my macbook. Things happens, times changes however. Sooner or later it will be necessary.

    Here I want to notice that many people use pirated software and windows, and this give a thousand more ways for virus and maleware to sneak in, but they don't realize it and blame windows. This is wrong, windows have come a long way and are a mature system today, it is up to your needs or likes to which platform you will prefer in the end.
    Reply
  • edsib1 - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Your quoting from that article about the pwn2own hacking convention where OSX was the easiest OS to hack, and Safari the easiest browser arent u?

    I recognise that bit about rural people not locking their doors.
    Reply
  • psychobriggsy - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Are you barking mad? Reply
  • edsib1 - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    A high-end price for performance that can at best be described as 'mid-range'.

    Having Thunderbolt (very useful atm) - but only USB 3.0 - bizarre!

    For $2000 - wheres my blu-ray recorder?

    Good improvement from last years range - but I just dont see why you buy an Apple.
    Reply
  • edsib1 - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    yes I meant only USB 2.0 - bizarre! - but theres no edit button. Reply
  • royalcrown - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Actually the ( DUAL ) thunderbolt ports will have adapters to support USB 3.0 or firewire 800 and hDMI as well as DVI according to CNET. The 27 inch imacs also suppory HDMI input via an adaptor ( granted at native, 720, and 480p ), so at least it is and option. External BLU RAY players are $99 dollars if I want one. Reply
  • edsib1 - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    please explain how u play a blu-ray on a mac... Reply
  • royalcrown - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Like this:

    <a href="http://s1191.photobucket.com/albums/z469/drinkoldc... target="_blank"><img src="http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z469/drinkoldc... border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

    And you run it in windows of course...
    Reply
  • royalcrown - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    or this since IE9 is sucking today:

    http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z469/drinkoldc...
    Reply
  • edsib1 - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    so u pay $2000 for ur mac and then have to revert back to windows to play a blu-ray.

    Nothing more needs to be said. Its nice of Steve Jobs to decide what you might want to do on your pc without asking you...
    Reply
  • royalcrown - Friday, May 06, 2011 - link

    Really if I can afford 2000.00 for my mac, I can't afford 100.00 for windows ?!

    Yeah, and MS never limits you...hmmm signed drivers, upgrade to DX10 requires Vista. Plus until vista, windows didn't play DVD's without 3rd party either.

    OSX probably NEVER will suppurt Blu ray tillJobs dies. Still, both machines are good and have good and bad points.

    If you want ALL of the OS features you have to buy the ULTIMATE version. If you want to compain about price: win 7 home premium retail $179.99...Ultimate 259.00 ...Snow leopard $30.00

    Plus until vista, windows didn't play DVD's without 3rd party either. OSX probably NEVER will suppurt Blu ray till jobs dies. Still, both machines are good and have good and bad points.
    Reply
  • royalcrown - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    All you people that say macs can't do "x..." are full of bs and have likely never owned one. I can play MODERN games on my iMac just fine (are Bulletstorm and Dawn of War: Retribution not current enough ?!). The only real "lag" so far has been MS FSX on "ultra"; is it as fast as a full on desktop ? No. However, Win 7 runs great and I can and DO game.

    Now before the flamers label me a "mac" something fanboy, my Prior system was an e8600 running on an EP45-UD3R with 8 gigs and a 1 gig 4890 that I gave to my friend to replace his junkbox.

    You know why I upgraded... because the mac doesent take up the TON of space that my Cooler Master tower did, I still have a large screen (27), and it is DEAD quiet (in the bedroom). No more vacuum cleaner sound from 120mm fans or XFX radeons is AWSOME, being able to hear music or play games and not have to turn it up to drown out crap is great.

    * Posted from iMac running Win 7
    Reply
  • joe_dude - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    But weaksauce for a desktop. 4 GB RAM? 1 TB hard drive? It's 2006 all over again.

    I'll wait for the Anandtech review, but it should be fast enough to play games at medium settings.
    Reply
  • ananduser - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    Since AT made some well researched reviews of the MAC platform, as limited as it may be hardware wise by OSX, scores of the naive kind of mac users(the ones that proactively praise the platform in the same time they ridicule the WinPC) have rushed the comment section of this glorious site. What they don't understand is that this is not the averages user's site, but the poweruser's site or hardcore user's(of both camps) site. Yet they come here lambasting the thoroughness with which PC users maintain their hardware, while praising their detached demeanor in relation with the "superior" mac hardware. I cannot help to observe the irony of their idiocy. Reply
  • marioyohanes - Wednesday, May 04, 2011 - link

    I used PC & Windows (and Linux) for like 15 years, I had fun with it, from national overclocking competition, asian to international overclocking competition with dozens of big companies as my sponsor. Then I moved to gaming competition, from Warcraft 3, DoTA and World of Warcraft in national & international events. My job? I'm a system architect designing a worldwide system involved biometric matching. So, Yes, I'm a power user who knows how to code an operating system and I know a lot about gaming & pc overclocking.

    I switched to Mac ecosystem after I got my job simply because I can't stand anymore with crappy Windows, anti virus, headache synchronization with my gadgets and not to mention I have to deal with multiple vendors to claim warranty for every pieces of hardware attached to my computer. I simply DON"T HAVE ENOUGH TIME FOR THAT ANYMORE.

    Apple is selling integrated system, like IBM in enterprise world. Do you think a big company like AT&T willing to assemble their servers by their own just to cut several millions in hardware? No! They will choose integrated system, where they can dial one number to complaint about everything on their data centre. Because they don't have enough time to deal with that.

    So, both PC & Mac users are equally great, just prefer different taste, that's why we should stop this whole PC vs Mac thing, it will never go anywhere.

    I'm happy working with my 15" Sandy Bridge MBP, old iMac at home, 13" MBA for travel and some of my iOS devices. I don't even use blackberry, because I love how Apple manage their devices to work and get connected seamlessly with each other. That's what I want from paying premium Apple taxes, and I enjoy it.
    Reply
  • ananduser - Thursday, May 05, 2011 - link

    You don't have to buy the PC by parts. You want integrated system you can buy PCs from various vendors(Sony Vaios, top end Dells,HPs, Lenovos etc) or specialized boutiques(like Maingear). Maingear for example is so streamlined that all you have to do is choose the parts and order. They will assemble it, install Windows for you or not, ship it, and if you have Win preinstalled on one of their BTO laptops, it is BLOAT FREE. You also have tech support assured and you can pay for additional support same as AppleCare.

    But you said crappy windows, so if it is crappy for you it's all for naught. Just don't make it seem like the ONLY WAY to own a PC is to build it yourself. You should have known that.
    Reply
  • XiZeL - Thursday, May 05, 2011 - link

    Unfortunately the people that read this kind of sites are tech savy technology enthusiasts.
    The target customer for mac is a mainstream user that wants an easy t use and nice looking pc without any hassle and the feeling that they have a top of the line equipment due to good marketing strategies.

    So yes we are happy that anand does post these articles, because we are tech savy enthusiasts and want to know whats happening in every front.

    the only useless part about this article is the part where enthusiasts post custom computers that with less money have more raw performance than the apple products presented. Once again we are not the target market.

    Only thing that really bugs me about the iMac is that the monitor is always top of the line, that combined with fairly weak GPU power just gives me the feeling the monitor is being put to wast. But still the monitor does give the end user a really nice feeling and a great work area, and good enough CPU power to work on some video/image editing.

    So if your into Gaming and benchmarks and heavy video/image editing/compressing build your own PC.

    if your into Facebook, email music, movies, editing your Holiday pictures/videos, syncing your ipod/phone, and some light photoshoping and have a cool looking easy to install easy to use/configure get an iMac

    if you gain a living on Photoshop and video editing get a workstation or a Mac Pro
    Reply
  • kasakka - Thursday, May 05, 2011 - link

    I work at an advertising agency and we use a combination of Mac Pros and iMacs. The iMacs work just fine for Adobe's programs.

    I currently have a desktop PC and a 30" 2560x1600 display at home but at times I think I should just sell it and get an iMac. The iMac has a very good display and the 27" model has very good specs - basically it's a $1000 computer with a $1000 display to go with it. I don't think that's a bad deal at all. The GPU in the latest ones is pretty powerful and should run most games just fine in 1080p.

    Yes you can build a faster desktop PC cheaper but add a similar quality display and you're pretty close to the same price but have a big box under the table taking space and it doesn't run OSX unless you Hackintosh it. Hackintosh isn't a perfect option because it makes updates more of a hassle and getting things to work requires pretty advanced knowledge at times. Despite writing some custom DSDT stuff I still can't get my motherboard (Abit IP35) to have working sleep in Hackintosh.

    The 27" iMac is a very well thought out and convenient machine.
    Reply
  • royalcrown - Friday, May 06, 2011 - link

    True, plus "PC" users have thhe huge mess of cables...I don't miss that... Reply
  • royalcrown - Friday, May 06, 2011 - link

    What actually got me into mac was my "hackintosh" also. Try a Gigabyte board (45 series) if you are not sure. My EP45-UD3R was literally point and click hackintosh setup and no DSDT needed (kakewalk).

    You can DL mac programs that run in osx and fix sleep problem btw. I had to get one myself. From what I gathered, it was an S3 sleep state hardware problem.
    Reply
  • royalcrown - Friday, May 06, 2011 - link

    Well, it doesen't look TOO bad if you go with the 6970m, I do agree that Imacs need more gpu though. I can however game just fine (but I sprung for the 5750 1gb too).

    Macs are actually better for gaming in one respect, you hear the GAME and not your video card fan :P. I've had both though and if all I did was game constantly, I'd go with a regular "PC" too.
    Reply
  • kioshi - Thursday, May 05, 2011 - link

    EVERYBODY KNOWS ANDROID IS BETTER!!!111ONE1!!!

    oops... Wrong flame fight.
    Reply
  • kakfjak - Thursday, May 05, 2011 - link


    www.stylishdudes.com

    All kinds of shoes + tide bag

    Free transport
    Reply
  • dborod - Friday, May 06, 2011 - link

    Yesterday's firmware update from Apple turns on 6Gb/s, SATA 3.0 capabilities of two of the internal drive bays. Unfortunately, the optical bay remains at 3Gb/s.

    http://blog.macsales.com/10050-firmware-update-ena...

    Since Apple's hasn't shipped any of these models with SSDs yet, it remains to be seen what difference this will make, but those that are intrepid can upgrade the drive(s) themselves.
    Reply
  • skully93 - Friday, May 06, 2011 - link

    So often people get into a tizzy when you insult their favorite product. I personally will not drive a ford, because I had 2 and they were not good to me.

    I have owned macs, find them good products that come highly recommended. What I don't like is that you can't replace parts cheaply or in some cases easily. Anyone that worked on the original imacs...wow. a ton of screws and a static discharge tool otherwise you could zap yourself! However, they were awesome for their time, and any you find now still work!

    Same for my windows compatible hardware. I have 2 old machines I built 7 and 9 years ago. Still work fine. Not good for anything, but they work.

    For me, I love games and tweaking, so I go DIY. However, if I had a good working knowledge of the innards of Mac OS, I would recommend one to my mom all day long. Why? because it would save me hours of phone calls per month.

    I also like being able to upgrade my hardware. Now that Apple has made them a bit cheaper, the markets are somewhat closer. It just depends on how you use things.

    My 6 year old iPod Nano is just barely now starting to have some degradation, and I abused the crap out of it. Don't like something...don't buy it!
    Reply
  • ProDigit - Friday, May 06, 2011 - link

    Finally apple catches up to a HTPC!
    Give or take another 2 or 3 years and they'll have a good gaming rig for sale twice the price it costs windows customers today!
    Reply
  • tipoo - Saturday, May 07, 2011 - link

    My understanding is that each thunderbolt port can daisy chain two monitors, correct? So the low end one will be able to drive three (including its own) and the high end five? Reply
  • tipoo - Saturday, May 07, 2011 - link

    notsureifserious.jpg

    Larrabee as a discreet card was canceled long ago.
    Reply
  • flyvog6 - Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - link

    sells clothing,footwear,handbags,Sunglasses
    Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
    Our Website: ===== www voguecatch com ====
    Our main product list is as follows:
    Reply
  • flyvog6 - Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - link


    sells clothing,footwear,handbags,Sunglasses
    Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
    Our Website: ===== www. flyingstyle org ====
    Our main product list is as follows:
    Reply
  • aa0101bb - Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - link

    sells clothing,footwear,handbags,Sunglasses
    Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
    Our Website: ===== the web w w w voguecatch com ====
    Our main product list is as follows:
    Reply
  • wanlewanle - Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - link

    Come go and see, will not regret it Oh look

    http://www.ifancyshop.com
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now