Since late 2012, the 21.5-inch iMacs use 2.5-inch, 9.5mm drives. 1 TB is as much capacity as you can get in that form factor, and there is only one 7200 RPM, 1 TB model on the market at this point (HGST Travelstar 7K1000) which only launched earlier this year. Single sourcing the HDD for your base model desktop would be a pretty stupid move for Apple, and while they could offer a 7200 RPM version as a CTO option, why would they (and who would buy it) when there is already a Fusion Drive option for $200 for those who care about performance?
It wouldn't be a tiny bit bigger, it would be a huge difference. And there's really no reason for it. The difference in performance wouldn't be worth it. Just get an ssd internal and if you need more storage use usb3 or thunderbolt external. That way you never have to take apart the machine for a mechanical failure of a hard drive.
On another note, we have been deploying these as desktops, because at the end of the day there isn't anyone competing on a complete package like this. I can't even get an SSD in a Dell. Never mind the incredible display, thunderbolt, usb3, bluetooth 4, good sounding speakers, great keyboard and touchpad, and no noise! It's been nice getting rid of heavy desktops with wires everywhere. There isn't even a power brick with the iMacs. It's just a really nice package.
I use a 27" iMac at work and its great. They weren't even a bad value for what you got until recently: those amazing 27" IPS screens used to be $800+ by themselves. The prices only started coming down in the last year.
But I don't agree with your argument. It's still a desktop computer and the benefits of the desktop sized drive are worth making this computer a little bigger and heaver. You are rarely going to lift it and it is already thinner than some standalone monitors. The desktop hard drives are offering 3x the storage and more than 2x performance, Even forget the performance, a lot of people need that space. It would be nice to truly be able to store everything on external drives but some Apple software doesn't support it. iTunes is designed for the music files to be stored on a local drive and if all my video is on an external drive then my time machine backup won't protect it. There's no good reason to make such a performance / size tradeoff on a desktop computer. Same goes for not making the RAM user replaceable.
There have been 2TB 2.5" drives on the market for over a year. They are also faster than the 1TB, so this should have been a no-brainer to at least put as an option (or standard on the $1999 model)
All the 2.5" drives > 1 TB are also 15mm, and any that are performant are bloody expensive. Which units in particular would have been a "no-brainer" for Apple to have included?
@jimbo2779 Saying that going with a 3.5-inch drive would only add a cm of thickness is sort of oversimplifying things. The volume, power and thermal differences between a 2.5 and 3.5 inch drive are considerable for an all-in-one such as this. Spinning disks are an anachronism at this point that survive primarily due to significantly lower cost/GB. They also have probably the highest failure rate of any component that Apple ships, and I'm sure they'd love to be rid of them entirely. Furthermore, booting OS X from USB is trivial, so if you want, you can always plug in a 4 TB, 3.5-inch, 7200 RPM USB 3.0 external for $160 and ignore the internal drive entirely.
Those aren't fair points. This is a desktop computer. You're assuming that every cubic millimeter of space is sacred to the customer. For most that's not true. Even the last generation models that had 3.5" drives and user replaceable RAM were thinner than some standalone monitors.
You're also ignoring the capacity issue: some people need more than 1TB capacity. Between audio, video and photos, 1TB isn't enough for a lot of people.
You're also ignoring latency and real world performance: local drives are lower and have higher respectively. Booting to an external drive isn't an equivalent solution. People who need more than 1TB storage won't find external drives a great option.
A lot of the Apple software is really optimally used with storage on the local drive. For example, iTunes works best when you choose the "Copy Files to iTunes Music Folder" option and if you put the itunes music folder on an external drive and accidentally try to play music when the drive is disconnected, you're music files get tagged "file not found" and you have to manually reconnect them one by one. iMovie is similar with work files. Plus, if all of my video is on an external drive, its not backed up and I lose it all if I lose the external.
I just don't get the argument to make these tradeoffs on an already compact desktop computer.
It's an all-in-one, not a traditional desktop. And the 27-inch models still have 3.5" HDDs and user accessible RAM slots. There are also hundreds of options on the market if you're looking for a traditional "desktop" box, but that's just not Apple's schtick.
1TB is generally sufficient for a boot volume these days. If you need more storage than that, you can spend up on a 27-inch with a 3TB internal, or deal with the minor inconvenience of using an external drive. All of the iMac's USB ports are USB 3.0 provided by the Intel PCH. If you connect an external HDD with a USB 3.0 interface that supports UASP, there will be virtually zero performance penalty compared to connecting the same drive to one of the native SATA 6 Gb/s ports. If you're really concerned about performance and need tons of storage space, you can always go with a Thunderbolt connected Pegasus RAID solution. Or you could order the 21.5-inch with the 256 GB Flash Storage option, add a 4TB USB 3.0 external drive and roll your own Fusion Drive volume so that you get ridiculous performance, plenty of storage space and a single logical volume.
Relocating your iTunes Library is easy, just move it wherever you like, then hold down option when you open iTunes and show it where you moved it to. Time Machine will back up (or exclude) any volume you tell it to. Your backup volume shouldn't be on the same physical drive as what you're backing up.
WD recently crammed 3 platters into 9.5 mm height, giving you 1.5 TB of 5.4k rpm action. It's not available in retail, but similarly spec'ed HGST's are (maybe the same model?).
If you can afford an 1800 dollar iMac you can afford an external hard drive if you need more space. If you do not want to have the external hard drive located on the same table as a computer you can afford a router with a USB plug in and then plug in the external hard drive, or a time capsule, or a true NAS.
i5-4570R doesn't have 6MB L3 cache, it has 4MB... So Apple must be wrong stating "2.7GHz 2.7GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 processor (Turbo Boost up to 3.2GHz) with 6MB L3 cache" because such haswell CPU with Iris Pro doesn't exist.
It seems to be a mix of two processors with Iris Pro:
i5-4570R is 2.7GHz (Turbo to 3.2 GHz) with 4MB cache But the mobile 50HQ processors are the ones with 6MB cache
A new SKU from Intel, or just mistyped by Apple? The desktop SKU hasn't been seen in anything else yet, and is 65W. The mobile SKUs are available, and are 47W.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't pretty much all iMacs going all the way back to the original Bondi Blue CRT version been pretty much laptop innards coupled with a screen?
Depends what you call "laptop innards". The 27" iMacs have used 3.5" HD, have used CPUs that are faster than (and have a higher TDP) than laptop rated, and have hotter than (and faster than) laptop GPUs.
What you say may be true for 21" --- I don't follow those as closely.
Apple does tend to use lower voltage "S" SKUs in the smaller iMacs, and they're not afraid of using BGA packages vs traditional sockets when available. Also, they tend to get some custom SKUs from both Intel and AMD/NVIDIA, notably the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 6xxMX parts used in the 2012 iMacs.
I noticed that too. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a special SKU just for Apple but I put 4570R in the table since it's otherwise a match. The die itself has 6MB of L3, so it wouldn't be hard for Intel to provide Apple with 4570Rs with 6MB of L3.
Hmm, yes it seems like the nearest match for now. I work at Prisjakt (telling by your name you should at least heard about it ;)) so I need to get specs right...
Aaaaand they fixed the specs... Now it's "2.7GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 processor (Turbo Boost up to 3.2GHz) with 4MB L3 cache". So far only on US apple site.
It would absolutely kill them in the rather important sub $1500 market because they would no longer have an entry there. Face it, the storage offerings here are better than any other OEM's all-in-one line up, so I'm not quite sure what you're on about.
I don't think a 64GB SSD for Fusion Drive would break Apple's bank. It's just ironic that Apple has always praised flash memory and they're even making the next Mac Pro SSD-only. iMac is one of the few Macs that have the space for both hard drive and an SSD, so why not make it a standard? Even 32GB would be better than nothing.
Ah, the old "they can afford to give it to me so they should give it to me" argument. It's funny that I never hear this argument when it comes to any other successful company.
Personally, I think the cost on an item should reflect the market, not your myopic view of comparing a component and saying it should be included because you want it. I guess I just don't get why you're so against the free market system.
But this is Apples main attraction, pushing forward the base technology to make a great customer experience. We are just pointing out when they don't maximize on that choice to cement that mentality across all options. They do it with GPU's, they won't go too low to cripple performance, we are just saying HD's should be their next target and make SSD's standard.
This isn't the type of situation where Apple (or Anand) would go for half measures—I think 128 GB is the smallest amount of flash that makes any sense these days. I was reckoning that not making that the baseline was purely a price play by Apple, but seeing as they manage to do so for their least expensive notebooks, perhaps there could be other factors at play. For instance, I wonder if they still have contractual obligations with HDD suppliers and are just seeing those out, or if they are concerned about supply constraints from their NAND vendors.
Who else sells all-in-one's with under 23" non-touchscreens at exclusively the $1,300-$1,500 price point? Sure they offer better storage options than everyone else, because no one else does it.
I think the point the guy was making, was that you would hope at >$1300, they could have put in an SSD standard. I tend to agree...
Repoman, you are delusional. How are the storage offerings "better than any other OEM's all-in-one line up" when Apple restricts you to a 9mm laptop hard drive? Most AIO's, especially HP and Lenovo, use a standard 3.5" drive which come in capacities up to 4TB 7200RPM. Many have space for a 2.5" + 3.5" allowing for an SSD AND HDD combination. Apple is making $2000 toys with no upgradability, questionable reliability (2005-2007 iMac LCD line-of-death, 2010-2012 GPU failures, hard drive recalls (because they mounted them ON TOP OF THE GPU) and so on. All for the cool price of $2000 with support that denies problems until a class-action suit is filed (as was the case with failing GPU's, hard drives, Crackbooks, iPod hard drives, and....just Google it.)
Face it. Apple has, and always will, make extremely pretty, cutting-edge, overpriced, unreliable devices.
When I said "better" (which I admit was overly general), it was in the context of the OP complaining that the base models don't ship with SSDs as standard equipment. My point was that the 21.5-inch models have 3 very good CTO SSD options and the 27-inch models have 5, which is well ahead of the competition. The 27-inch models use 3.5" HDDs whereas the 21.5-inch models only have room for 2.5", 9.5mm drives. Other OEMs make USFF PCs that don't have 3.5" bays as well.
Anyway, enjoy your rage. I've serviced enough iMacs through the years to know all about their reliability issues (failed LCD panels, HDDs, bad caps, GPU solder problems), about 80% of which were component failures that were entirely the suppliers' fault. Apple pushes the limits on thermal designs which certainly comes back to bite them at times, and I'd cite that for a significant amount of the remainder. However, any rational person can compare the innards of an iMac to a Dell AiO and immediately recognize who spent more time and money on both engineering and components.
I'm looking forward to teardowns of the SSD only version, if there is just a free SATA slot and the SSD fusion like in the former blade slot. Now PCIe. Or if there are 2 PCIe slots and no SATA at all for the SSD only macs...
Ha! The 21.5-inch iMac (Intel Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB Flash Storage) is $1499, and the Surface Pro 2 (Intel Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB Flash Storage) with mouse and Type Cover 2 is... also $1499.
However, the CPU in the iMac is an Intel Core i5-4570R (2.7GHz 4-cores/4-threads, 3.2GHz Turbo, 65W, Intel Iris Pro 5200), whereas the one in the Surface Pro 2 is only a Core i5-4200U (1.6GHz 2-cores/4-threads, 2.6GHz Turbo, 15W, Intel HD 4400). So even with the touch screen and stylus in the plus column for the Surface Pro 2, I'm not sure it's such a great deal from a price/performance perspective.
It is an Interesting Section on comparing 2011 to the latest iMac. I dont see much improvement there.
Would have been if the next iMac actually have SSD as default like the Macbook. No more slow HDD. If the consumers want they could always get a External One via USB3.0 ( No Power Cord ) or Apple just make a proper Time Machine.
like Gregory said I am alarmed that a stay at home mom able to earn $5886 in 1 month on the internet. visit their website............B u z z 5 5 . com open the link without spaces
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
44 Comments
Back to Article
repoman27 - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
It looks like autocorrect may have caught you out, "we are still dealing with the same silicones..."Unless there are implants in there, that should be silicon.
Kristian Vättö - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
You're right. I had "silicons" there first but then it got changed when I applied spellcheck. It's fixed now, thanks for the heads up!FITCamaro - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
$1800 just to get a 7200-rpm hard drive...no thanks.Tegeril - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
Forest for the trees.repoman27 - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
Since late 2012, the 21.5-inch iMacs use 2.5-inch, 9.5mm drives. 1 TB is as much capacity as you can get in that form factor, and there is only one 7200 RPM, 1 TB model on the market at this point (HGST Travelstar 7K1000) which only launched earlier this year. Single sourcing the HDD for your base model desktop would be a pretty stupid move for Apple, and while they could offer a 7200 RPM version as a CTO option, why would they (and who would buy it) when there is already a Fusion Drive option for $200 for those who care about performance?jimbo2779 - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
But there are tons of 1TB+ 3.5inch HDDs at 7200rpm or above. Why not make the machine a tiny bit thicker without compromising on function.I understand making everything impossibly thin for mobile devices but this is a desktop and an extra cm here or there in thickness will not be noticed
DigitalFreak - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
"Why not make the machine a tiny bit thicker without compromising on function."Guess you forgot what company the article is about.
Dug - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
It wouldn't be a tiny bit bigger, it would be a huge difference. And there's really no reason for it. The difference in performance wouldn't be worth it. Just get an ssd internal and if you need more storage use usb3 or thunderbolt external. That way you never have to take apart the machine for a mechanical failure of a hard drive.On another note, we have been deploying these as desktops, because at the end of the day there isn't anyone competing on a complete package like this. I can't even get an SSD in a Dell. Never mind the incredible display, thunderbolt, usb3, bluetooth 4, good sounding speakers, great keyboard and touchpad, and no noise! It's been nice getting rid of heavy desktops with wires everywhere. There isn't even a power brick with the iMacs. It's just a really nice package.
tuna_hp - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link
I use a 27" iMac at work and its great. They weren't even a bad value for what you got until recently: those amazing 27" IPS screens used to be $800+ by themselves. The prices only started coming down in the last year.But I don't agree with your argument. It's still a desktop computer and the benefits of the desktop sized drive are worth making this computer a little bigger and heaver. You are rarely going to lift it and it is already thinner than some standalone monitors. The desktop hard drives are offering 3x the storage and more than 2x performance, Even forget the performance, a lot of people need that space. It would be nice to truly be able to store everything on external drives but some Apple software doesn't support it. iTunes is designed for the music files to be stored on a local drive and if all my video is on an external drive then my time machine backup won't protect it. There's no good reason to make such a performance / size tradeoff on a desktop computer. Same goes for not making the RAM user replaceable.
Samus - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
There have been 2TB 2.5" drives on the market for over a year. They are also faster than the 1TB, so this should have been a no-brainer to at least put as an option (or standard on the $1999 model)repoman27 - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
All the 2.5" drives > 1 TB are also 15mm, and any that are performant are bloody expensive. Which units in particular would have been a "no-brainer" for Apple to have included?@jimbo2779 Saying that going with a 3.5-inch drive would only add a cm of thickness is sort of oversimplifying things. The volume, power and thermal differences between a 2.5 and 3.5 inch drive are considerable for an all-in-one such as this. Spinning disks are an anachronism at this point that survive primarily due to significantly lower cost/GB. They also have probably the highest failure rate of any component that Apple ships, and I'm sure they'd love to be rid of them entirely. Furthermore, booting OS X from USB is trivial, so if you want, you can always plug in a 4 TB, 3.5-inch, 7200 RPM USB 3.0 external for $160 and ignore the internal drive entirely.
tuna_hp - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link
Those aren't fair points. This is a desktop computer. You're assuming that every cubic millimeter of space is sacred to the customer. For most that's not true. Even the last generation models that had 3.5" drives and user replaceable RAM were thinner than some standalone monitors.You're also ignoring the capacity issue: some people need more than 1TB capacity. Between audio, video and photos, 1TB isn't enough for a lot of people.
You're also ignoring latency and real world performance: local drives are lower and have higher respectively. Booting to an external drive isn't an equivalent solution. People who need more than 1TB storage won't find external drives a great option.
A lot of the Apple software is really optimally used with storage on the local drive. For example, iTunes works best when you choose the "Copy Files to iTunes Music Folder" option and if you put the itunes music folder on an external drive and accidentally try to play music when the drive is disconnected, you're music files get tagged "file not found" and you have to manually reconnect them one by one. iMovie is similar with work files. Plus, if all of my video is on an external drive, its not backed up and I lose it all if I lose the external.
I just don't get the argument to make these tradeoffs on an already compact desktop computer.
repoman27 - Friday, September 27, 2013 - link
It's an all-in-one, not a traditional desktop. And the 27-inch models still have 3.5" HDDs and user accessible RAM slots. There are also hundreds of options on the market if you're looking for a traditional "desktop" box, but that's just not Apple's schtick.1TB is generally sufficient for a boot volume these days. If you need more storage than that, you can spend up on a 27-inch with a 3TB internal, or deal with the minor inconvenience of using an external drive. All of the iMac's USB ports are USB 3.0 provided by the Intel PCH. If you connect an external HDD with a USB 3.0 interface that supports UASP, there will be virtually zero performance penalty compared to connecting the same drive to one of the native SATA 6 Gb/s ports. If you're really concerned about performance and need tons of storage space, you can always go with a Thunderbolt connected Pegasus RAID solution. Or you could order the 21.5-inch with the 256 GB Flash Storage option, add a 4TB USB 3.0 external drive and roll your own Fusion Drive volume so that you get ridiculous performance, plenty of storage space and a single logical volume.
Relocating your iTunes Library is easy, just move it wherever you like, then hold down option when you open iTunes and show it where you moved it to. Time Machine will back up (or exclude) any volume you tell it to. Your backup volume shouldn't be on the same physical drive as what you're backing up.
MrSpadge - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
WD recently crammed 3 platters into 9.5 mm height, giving you 1.5 TB of 5.4k rpm action. It's not available in retail, but similarly spec'ed HGST's are (maybe the same model?).Roland00Address - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
If you can afford an 1800 dollar iMac you can afford an external hard drive if you need more space. If you do not want to have the external hard drive located on the same table as a computer you can afford a router with a USB plug in and then plug in the external hard drive, or a time capsule, or a true NAS.krabar - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
i5-4570R doesn't have 6MB L3 cache, it has 4MB... So Apple must be wrong stating "2.7GHz2.7GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 processor (Turbo Boost up to 3.2GHz) with 6MB L3 cache" because such haswell CPU with Iris Pro doesn't exist.
IanCutress - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
It seems to be a mix of two processors with Iris Pro:i5-4570R is 2.7GHz (Turbo to 3.2 GHz) with 4MB cache
But the mobile 50HQ processors are the ones with 6MB cache
A new SKU from Intel, or just mistyped by Apple? The desktop SKU hasn't been seen in anything else yet, and is 65W. The mobile SKUs are available, and are 47W.
bountygiver - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
seems like they are going back to mobile hardware for this gen, as the gpu are mobilr gpus nowKristian Vättö - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
iMac has always used mobile GPUs.colonelclaw - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't pretty much all iMacs going all the way back to the original Bondi Blue CRT version been pretty much laptop innards coupled with a screen?name99 - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
Depends what you call "laptop innards".The 27" iMacs have used 3.5" HD, have used CPUs that are faster than (and have a higher TDP) than laptop rated, and have hotter than (and faster than) laptop GPUs.
What you say may be true for 21" --- I don't follow those as closely.
repoman27 - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
Mobile graphics, desktop CPUs.Apple does tend to use lower voltage "S" SKUs in the smaller iMacs, and they're not afraid of using BGA packages vs traditional sockets when available. Also, they tend to get some custom SKUs from both Intel and AMD/NVIDIA, notably the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 6xxMX parts used in the 2012 iMacs.
krabar - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
but 50HQ with Iris Pro and 6MB L3 are i7's not i5's so it would be kind of interesting mix...Kristian Vättö - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
I noticed that too. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a special SKU just for Apple but I put 4570R in the table since it's otherwise a match. The die itself has 6MB of L3, so it wouldn't be hard for Intel to provide Apple with 4570Rs with 6MB of L3.krabar - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
Hmm, yes it seems like the nearest match for now. I work at Prisjakt (telling by your name you should at least heard about it ;)) so I need to get specs right...krabar - Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - link
Aaaaand they fixed the specs... Now it's "2.7GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 processor (Turbo Boost up to 3.2GHz) with 4MB L3 cache". So far only on US apple site.r3loaded - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
Would it really kill them to put SSDs as standard in a performance-oriented product with premium pricing from an aspirational brand?repoman27 - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
It would absolutely kill them in the rather important sub $1500 market because they would no longer have an entry there. Face it, the storage offerings here are better than any other OEM's all-in-one line up, so I'm not quite sure what you're on about.Kristian Vättö - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
I don't think a 64GB SSD for Fusion Drive would break Apple's bank. It's just ironic that Apple has always praised flash memory and they're even making the next Mac Pro SSD-only. iMac is one of the few Macs that have the space for both hard drive and an SSD, so why not make it a standard? Even 32GB would be better than nothing.solipsism - Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - link
Ah, the old "they can afford to give it to me so they should give it to me" argument. It's funny that I never hear this argument when it comes to any other successful company.Personally, I think the cost on an item should reflect the market, not your myopic view of comparing a component and saying it should be included because you want it. I guess I just don't get why you're so against the free market system.
kwrzesien - Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - link
But this is Apples main attraction, pushing forward the base technology to make a great customer experience. We are just pointing out when they don't maximize on that choice to cement that mentality across all options. They do it with GPU's, they won't go too low to cripple performance, we are just saying HD's should be their next target and make SSD's standard.repoman27 - Thursday, September 26, 2013 - link
This isn't the type of situation where Apple (or Anand) would go for half measures—I think 128 GB is the smallest amount of flash that makes any sense these days. I was reckoning that not making that the baseline was purely a price play by Apple, but seeing as they manage to do so for their least expensive notebooks, perhaps there could be other factors at play. For instance, I wonder if they still have contractual obligations with HDD suppliers and are just seeing those out, or if they are concerned about supply constraints from their NAND vendors.jaydee - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
Who else sells all-in-one's with under 23" non-touchscreens at exclusively the $1,300-$1,500 price point? Sure they offer better storage options than everyone else, because no one else does it.I think the point the guy was making, was that you would hope at >$1300, they could have put in an SSD standard. I tend to agree...
DigitalFreak - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
Tony Swash, is that you?Samus - Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - link
Repoman, you are delusional. How are the storage offerings "better than any other OEM's all-in-one line up" when Apple restricts you to a 9mm laptop hard drive? Most AIO's, especially HP and Lenovo, use a standard 3.5" drive which come in capacities up to 4TB 7200RPM. Many have space for a 2.5" + 3.5" allowing for an SSD AND HDD combination. Apple is making $2000 toys with no upgradability, questionable reliability (2005-2007 iMac LCD line-of-death, 2010-2012 GPU failures, hard drive recalls (because they mounted them ON TOP OF THE GPU) and so on. All for the cool price of $2000 with support that denies problems until a class-action suit is filed (as was the case with failing GPU's, hard drives, Crackbooks, iPod hard drives, and....just Google it.)Face it. Apple has, and always will, make extremely pretty, cutting-edge, overpriced, unreliable devices.
repoman27 - Thursday, September 26, 2013 - link
Interesting analysis.When I said "better" (which I admit was overly general), it was in the context of the OP complaining that the base models don't ship with SSDs as standard equipment. My point was that the 21.5-inch models have 3 very good CTO SSD options and the 27-inch models have 5, which is well ahead of the competition. The 27-inch models use 3.5" HDDs whereas the 21.5-inch models only have room for 2.5", 9.5mm drives. Other OEMs make USFF PCs that don't have 3.5" bays as well.
Anyway, enjoy your rage. I've serviced enough iMacs through the years to know all about their reliability issues (failed LCD panels, HDDs, bad caps, GPU solder problems), about 80% of which were component failures that were entirely the suppliers' fault. Apple pushes the limits on thermal designs which certainly comes back to bite them at times, and I'd cite that for a significant amount of the remainder. However, any rational person can compare the innards of an iMac to a Dell AiO and immediately recognize who spent more time and money on both engineering and components.
tipoo - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
I wonder how many workloads the Iris Pro model would beat the higher end models in due to the L4 cache?Death666Angel - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
I think Anandtech did a lot of benchmarks for that. IIRC the 7zip benchmark got a good increase in performance out of the L4 cache.MatthiasGasser - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
I'm looking forward to teardowns of the SSD only version, if there is just a free SATA slot and the SSD fusion like in the former blade slot. Now PCIe. Or if there are 2 PCIe slots and no SATA at all for the SSD only macs...michaelljones - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link
Looks like an inflated (in terms of size) Surface Pro to me at the entry level. Roughly the same price/performance without the portability.Just sayin...
repoman27 - Thursday, September 26, 2013 - link
Ha! The 21.5-inch iMac (Intel Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB Flash Storage) is $1499, and the Surface Pro 2 (Intel Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB Flash Storage) with mouse and Type Cover 2 is... also $1499.However, the CPU in the iMac is an Intel Core i5-4570R (2.7GHz 4-cores/4-threads, 3.2GHz Turbo, 65W, Intel Iris Pro 5200), whereas the one in the Surface Pro 2 is only a Core i5-4200U (1.6GHz 2-cores/4-threads, 2.6GHz Turbo, 15W, Intel HD 4400). So even with the touch screen and stylus in the plus column for the Surface Pro 2, I'm not sure it's such a great deal from a price/performance perspective.
IntelUser2000 - Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - link
The 6MB L3 cache on the Crystalwellparts are a separate die, not a defeatured 8MB part.iwod - Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - link
It is an Interesting Section on comparing 2011 to the latest iMac. I dont see much improvement there.Would have been if the next iMac actually have SSD as default like the Macbook. No more slow HDD. If the consumers want they could always get a External One via USB3.0 ( No Power Cord ) or Apple just make a proper Time Machine.
Kathrine647 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
like Gregory said I am alarmed that a stay at home mom able to earn $5886 in 1 month on the internet. visit their website............B u z z 5 5 . com open the link without spaces