iMac 4K & 5K updates

[Kaido]

The smaller iMac gets an optional 4K display, all the 27-inch models have 5K:

http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/13/4k-imac/

Apple iMac review (2015): 4K is optional, faster hard drives shouldn't be

http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/13/apple-imac-review-2015-21-5-inch-4k/

Going forward, all the 27-inch models have a 5K screen -- not just the flagship we reviewed last year -- while the 21.5-inch version now has an optional 4K panel. Across the board, too, these new 4K and 5K displays have a wider color gamut, although the difference is fairly subtle. Possibly more important than the iMac itself, though, are the input devices: Apple redesigned the wireless keyboard, mouse and trackpad, adding rechargeable batteries and, in the case of the touchpad, pressure-sensitive Force Touch gestures.

 

[mmntech]

The fact that Apple is still shipping ANY computer with a 5,400 rpm hard drive in 2015 is unacceptable.

I'm also a bit surprised that they're using Broadwell given that the 5K has been updated to Skylake.

 

[Commodus]

The fact that Apple is still shipping ANY computer with a 5,400 rpm hard drive in 2015 is unacceptable.

I'm also a bit surprised that they're using Broadwell given that the 5K has been updated to Skylake.

The slower hard drive is an odd thing, although OS X is at least relatively tolerant of those speeds (i.e. you won't notice until you're doing something particularly disk-intensive). I don't know if Apple can easily get laptop-sized 7,200RPM drives in the capacities it needs, but if not that, it needs Fusion Drives across the line.

Broadwell is likely due to graphics requirements. Apple probably wasn't going to use dedicated video (if it even could), but it needed something fast enough to drive a 4K screen. You can't currently get Skylake processors with Iris Pro graphics (not on the desktop, at least), so Broadwell may simply be a good compromise: a slightly slower processor in return for much faster video.

 

[Eug]

Having all the 27" go Retina surprised me. I expected the pricing on Retina would come down, but not that all of them would get it.

BTW, I think OS X actually does horribly with platter drives. If anything I find that Windows does better than OS X with platter drives. I have a 12 GB Core i7 iMac (2010) with a platter drive, and it's really irritating to use because of bootup and wake from sleep times. I actually have it running off a Firewire 800 SSD, because the responsiveness is just so much better.

OTOH, I have a much slower 8 GB triple-core Athlon II X3 running Windows 7 that feels much more responsive.

In any case, I am not buying anything, desktop or laptop, until at least Kaby Lake. I want full 10 bit H.265 decoding in hardware. For a desktop it may not matter if the GPU supports it, but I'm going to wait anyway since I'm doing OK with my Firewire iMac setup. For the laptop running off integrated GPU though, Kaby Lake is going to be necessary.

For a desktop, it'd also be nice if the video output could drive a 5K screen. Can these?

 

[mmntech]

The slower hard drive is an odd thing, although OS X is at least relatively tolerant of those speeds (i.e. you won't notice until you're doing something particularly disk-intensive). I don't know if Apple can easily get laptop-sized 7,200RPM drives in the capacities it needs, but if not that, it needs Fusion Drives across the line.

I think once you start charging $1500 for a computer, an SSD or at least a fusion drive should be expected. It does make a big difference. Even for everyday tasks. A lot of reviewers have noted that the 4K iMac is painfully slow to boot.

Apparently the decision to go with Broadwell was due to graphics. Apparently the HD 530 isn't powerful enough, and Skylake desktop chips with Iris Pro won't be out until next year.

 

[KeithP]

BTW, I think OS X actually does horribly with platter drives. If anything I find that Windows does better than OS X with platter drives.

That is my feeling as well.

I think once you start charging $1500 for a computer, an SSD or at least a fusion drive should be expected.

Apple has a little surprise for you there...the new 1TB Fusion drives only have 24GB of flash storage. You have to go with a 2TB or 3TB drive to get 128GB.
http://9to5mac.com/2015/10/13/retina-imac-fusion-drive-flash-lol-are-you-serious/

-KeithP

 

[Eug]

Apple has a little surprise for you there...the new 1TB Fusion drives only have 24GB of flash storage. You have to go with a 2TB or 3TB drive to get 128GB.
http://9to5mac.com/2015/10/13/retina-imac-fusion-drive-flash-lol-are-you-serious/

Wow, that really sucks.

 

[HaukSwe]

Don't understand the 5400 rpm decision, only the technologically unsavvy would buy it and then complain that "macs are slow". Why put all the effort in to making such a great computer than have it completely suck due to the HDD?

Anyway, thoughts on the 27" ?

Does having Skylake make it possible to use the 27" 5k in Target Display mode?

How are the new GPU's? Difference between the 4 GPU options?

 

[mmntech]

That is my feeling as well.



Apple has a little surprise for you there...the new 1TB Fusion drives only have 24GB of flash storage. You have to go with a 2TB or 3TB drive to get 128GB.
http://9to5mac.com/2015/10/13/retina-imac-fusion-drive-flash-lol-are-you-serious/

-KeithP

Yeah, I saw that. Apple has been making a few qestionable decisions regarding the Mac line in recent years. The single biggest sin is they glue the damn iMacs together now so you can't easily replace the drive yourself. You're basically stuck with Apple's limited configurations for the life of the computer.

I have Windows 10 installed on my MacBook's 5400 rpm hard drive, and it's so horribly slow to boot that I rarely use it. Was usuing a different 5400 rpm drive to test the beta on my much more powerful desktop. Same results. The only reason to use these drives anymore is because they're cheap. After about 4-5 years of using SSDs, it's hard to go back.

 

[ElectricD]

Don't understand the 5400 rpm decision, only the technologically unsavvy would buy it and then complain that "macs are slow". Why put all the effort in to making such a great computer than have it completely suck due to the HDD?

Anyway, thoughts on the 27" ?

Does having Skylake make it possible to use the 27" 5k in Target Display mode?

How are the new GPU's? Difference between the 4 GPU options?

No, it's still not possible to run the 27" 5K in Target Display mode. Apparently the GPUs are only rebranded from last year's model, with perhaps a slight tweak in clock speed.

Really disappointed with this refresh. No Thunderbolt 3, no USB-C, no DDR4. Guess we'll just have to wait until 2016.

 

[itpromike]

5400 RPM drives and their insistence on foolishly using AMD GPU's shows their overall alignment/allegiance to the all might margin. Their priorities are Margins first, best interest of Apple overall 2nd, customers 3rd, developers 4th. It's their company so it's their prerogative of course. Just pointing out that many of their moves lately are particularly hostile to customers and it's because their first and foremost desire is for the largest margins possible.

 

[Koing]

Wow, that really sucks.

I tell you what blows mate. £400 on top of the 512GB SSD for the MBPr!!!!! That is INSANE. More so now that SSD have dropped a lot.

Koing

 

[KeithP]

Really disappointed with this refresh. No Thunderbolt 3...

Yes, it is a shame they don't have something that isn't available yet. Although I find a lot of computers have that problem.

...also, don't forget, all of the 21.5" iMacs have soldered on memory. No memory upgrades after your purchase.

-KeithP

 

[mmntech]

...also, don't forget, all of the 21.5" iMacs have soldered on memory. No memory upgrades after your purchase.

-KeithP

Well you could, it's just a matter of how much your time and soldering skills are worth. ^_^

They're probably doing it because too many people are keeping their Macs too long.

 

[Ice_Dragon]

It's true, the Iris Pro 580 will not be out until next year and probably around this time at that. Hopefully it comes out a bit earlier around the summer.

I agree about the AMD graphics deal. I have no interest in using AMD graphics and would rather just stick with Intel if they aren't using nVidia. With the base 27" you can't upgrade to the i7 processor.

Apple should kill the non-retina base 21.5" iMac. That thing is useless.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Apple aren't stupid. They purposely gimp their low end stuff to encourage people to talk themselves into buying the higher end.

Not a fan of their business practices. I find it quite anti-consumer.

 

[amyklai]

Apple aren't stupid. They purposely gimp their low end stuff to encourage people to talk themselves into buying the higher end.

Not a fan of their business practices. I find it quite anti-consumer.

Actually, I think they take it a step too far here. Usually, the entry model is somewhat limited as soon as you start doing more stuff (like the 128 GB entry SSD of a Macbook Pro 13 will start feeling small once you put your pictures and some movies on that machine), but it's perfectly fine, fast and balanced for most basic use cases.

The basic iMac is not like that. It's horribly unbalanced. It's got a great screen and a pretty good processor coupled with a subpar graphics subsystem and an godawful hard disk.
And to make things worse, they've also cut down the flash on the 1GB fusion drive from 128GB to 24GB, so not only the lowest end option is a trap, but the one directly above it isn't much better, either.

That's just going to bite exactly those computer-unsavvy-buyers in the ass who often flock to Apple because they think they can't go wrong purchasing an Apple product.

Well they can. They can make a $1500 mistake by buying the entry level iMac.

 

[midwestfisherman]

The fact that Apple is still shipping ANY computer with a 5,400 rpm hard drive in 2015 is unacceptable.

That was my first thought when looking at the config of the new machines. It's crazy to think they feel a 5400 rpm drive is acceptable, especially for the premium price that they charge.

C'mon Apple!

 

[phexac]

Yeah this refresh with its unbalanced (quite honestly, just shitty components for the price) for the entry-level models, combined with a ridiculous markup on upgrades makes the desktop Mac a pretty hard pill to swallow this refresh.

Take the upper tier version, it retails for $2300 and starts with an i5 quad core. That to me is ridiculous. Upgrade to i7 costs $250.

It's even worse in the memory department: 8GB at that $2300 price point and $200 to upgrade to 16GB...in the days when 16GB of memory can be had for $70 retail. And having a large amount of memory is quite important for the Mac since many people have to run virtual machine for Windows, which requires over 8GB of memory to work well.

The markup is just as bad in the hard drive department where you have to pay $200 to go to a 512GB SSD and a whopping $700 for 1TB.

By the time you spec the machine to where a $2k+ computer should be, you are looking at over $3,000 machine. That screen is nice, but I can't shake the feeling that the value we are getting here is still kinda of shitty.