Yup, another Apple store outage reveals yet another bump in product specs. This time, it's the iMac getting the treatment just as
Geeksugar and our own sources predicted -- on a Monday though instead of Apple's customary Tuesday morning approach. So what's new? Well, for starters you're now looking at the latest Core 2 Duo Penryn processors. For the same starting price of $1,199, you now get a 20-inch iMac with 2.4GHz proc, 128MB of ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT graphics, 1GB of memory and a 250GB 7200RPM disk. The top of the line 24-inch model now sports a 3.06GHz processor, 512MB of NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS graphics, 2GB of memory, and a 320GB 7200rpm disk for $2,199. Rounding out the specs across the lineup are Bluetooth 2.1+EDR, 802.11n WiFi, Gigabit Ethernet, built-in iSight cam, and 5x USB 2.0 (which includes the 2x on tethered keyboard) and 1x Firewire 400 and 1x Firewire 800. Same size, same weight and available now... yes, right now.
posted April 28th 2008 8:29AM
Plus you included the 32-bit version of Vista. Leopard runs 64-bit on all C2D machines.
Doesn't 64-bit Vista cost the same as the 32-bit one?
It's not like anyone would notice the difference, anyway. So few programs actually take advantage of 64-bit. And the ones that do are usually very expensive and used for real work, anyway.
Ryan, I've purchased a copy of Leopard and shoved it in a homebuilt PC.
It's actually really easy.
Actually, I've gotten my friend's computer to tri-boot Xbuntu, Leopard, and Vista ultimate for his birthday. Leopard works just fine.
Total cost of the PC in the end? $1700 with the copies of OS X and Vista purchased. The computer still sported better specs than the damn Mac
"Gigabyte GeForce 8800 GT 256MB GDDR3 HDTV/Dual DVI (PCI-Express) "
256MB? seriously? I would never buy a neutered 8800 GT.
Ok. Good for you then Coster.
This was just a quick exercise in comparison, regardless it closely matches the price and covers all the basic spec of the iMac and improves in all areas.
The 8800GT which is apparently neutered being a piece of silicon and all, is still way way better than the AMD card on offer from Apple. In addition, yes to be more accurate I should have included a 64bit OS. But to have the 'it just works on a Mac' effect on the pc, a 32bit OS is just easier for a regular Joe.
And yes, the 64 bit version does cost the same as the 32 bit version :)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-9600-gt,1780.html
the 9600GT 512MB is better then the 8800GT 256MB
why is the base cost iMac still only have 1 gig of ram? what year is this
Macs don't come installed with Vista. You only need 512 MB to run Leopard and it's not like you can't get the iMac upgraded in the store or on Apple's web site.
I bought my sister an iMac about six months ago and paid a little extra for Apple to install some RAM because I thought my sister might want run Windows on it one day. Of course, it turns out that she loves OS X and hasn't even said anything to me about Windows, so I wasted that money for nothing.
wow, someones a fanboy. ps, when you are using large programs like Final Cut, Premiere, Photoshop etc, its nice to have some extra ram. Just sayin in this year, you would expect 2 gigs on the low end models
European price start at 999 eur.....
Quite honestly, I still, and will always think that Apple products are way too overpriced for what they offer. Sure, it's a nice looking computer, but the fact that the damn thing costs at least $1000, I can buy a nice chassis and some good parts, and build a better rig for the same price. For $2200, I can definitely make an amazing rig, considering almost anything can be manipulated into being a chassis provided you make a place to shove the motherboard. I could definitely make a better desktop, and make it look good for that price.
Hell, give me a few weeks, and I could probably sport some sort of handmade notebook for the same price that would hold better specs.
My $500 notebook has better specs than the damn Mac.
Which Mac?
Come on, backup your claims. And better is not 1GB of extra ram and 100MHz faster CPU :P
Yuri, your $2200 doesn't include a 24" S-IPS panel monitor, and the iMac does. Factor that in and try again.
I'm on the PC side, and I'm happy to say this is a damn good Mac at a damn good price. I'd be tempted.
Very nice upgrade indeed. Nice to have the new processor and better graphic cards on the iMac. The form factor, fit and finish, as well as the demanding need to have a silent computer have all been achieved.
Something that clone makers are incapable of achieving. Or the puberty challenged PC users who build their own substandard boxes and cannot fathom the reasoning for a high quality build or design on a PC. These users quickly dismiss the advantages of such a product and quickly tout their own hack jobs as superior in every way.
Haha "Puberty challenged PC user!" hahaha That was classic. I completely agree with what you just said. "Quickly dismiss the advantages of such a product and quickly tout their own hack jobs as superior in every way. PC users are all the same...wah wah i can build something better wah wah wah. Whatever...maybe some people like not screwing with their stupid computers all day to get them to work and perform basic tasks like dvd burning, movie editing or web surfing. The Windows OSs are all dead and are never coming back.
Bravo. I was also a juvenile PC DIYer at one point and probably would have made the same kind of comments (25 years ago when I built my first computer). I wish there were age filters on the internet. Personally, I don't care about the opinions of 8 year olds. It's one of the major downsides of anonymity...
Don't feed the trolls. It just brings more of them and they breed like...
Just a little info. for all of you who have commented on this subject. I'm an average person,I'm not a crazy gamer or anything like that,just a college kid. If I had to choose between Apple or the opposition,I would DEF. choose an APPLE product. I've been through 4 laptops in 3 years, various brands and they are ALL garbage. Apple appeals to people because it's a fashion trend in society and also they have easy to use,hassle-free hardware and software. BUT, when average people like myself are faced with the actual decision to buy an APPLE or anything else,most likely we will go with the CHEAPEST alternative...unless mommy and daddy are loaded and don't give a shhh that you spend three grand on a laptop that will be out dated in less than 2 years, your going to favor the product that has less of an impact on your piggy bank.
JUST MY OPINION!
;)
I don't know if anyone noticed, but Apple's overclocking these iMac CPUs with the FSB. Intel does not make 1066MHz 6MB L2 cache Core 2 Duos, mobile nor desktop:
http://processorfinder.intel.com/List.aspx?ProcFam=2643&sSpec=&OrdCode=
http://processorfinder.intel.com/List.aspx?ProcFam=2558&sSpec=&OrdCode=
Just thought it was interesting.
This is stupid. Why is everyone comparing a Mac to a Window's base PC? I built my own PCs, but the PC's I built "DOES NOT" run MacOSX. Apple can charge what they want, the same as a watch or purse manufacturer can charge hundred times more than another company. Stop whining. If you are not willing to pay Apple's asking prices, go get ripped off by PYSTAR if you want a cheap clone.
I think they also droped the price of RAM too.
It shows 4GB for $200. I just got a Mac Book and I thought I remember it being $400 before.
LOL, I think Apple is using the slowest 6MB L2 cache Penryn and overclocking it for all of the processors for these new iMacs!
1066MHz FSB means you take 266MHz and the multiplier number of the CPU to get the final speed for the CPU. T9300 has maximum of 12.5 for the multiplier. That means it's 200MHz x12.5 = 2500MHz: http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLAPV
These new iMacs have CPU speeds of 2.4GHz, 2.66GHz, 2.8GHz, and 3.06GHz. You can achieve those speeds with multipliers of 9, 10, 10.5 and 11.5 respectively.
Apple is giving us faster speeds for CPUs, but not giving any money to Intel to do it! Shouldn't have made such an awesome overclock friendly CPU line, Intel. LOL
Well played, Apple. Well played.
I still want to know where the 512MB 8800GS cards came from.
Apple has historically been getting access to processors earlier than others. Yonah and mobile processors wearing the Extreme badge are all examples of this.
The iMac is the first computer to use the Montevina platform.
Please do your research properly.
Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrino#Montevina_platform_.282008.29
BOO HISS @ Intel's pokey web master! Update that crap on the web site before the product hits the virtual shelves! LOL
Well looky looky Andre. Perhaps we are both wrong. Apparently they are not quite Montevinas:
"Intel told us Monday afternoon that this new processor in fact is not the X9100, but rather a "special" SKU of the 45 nm Penryn processor for the company's Santa Rosa platform. We can’t imagine that HP and Dell are happy about the fact that Apple can officially ship a Core 2 Duo processor that matches most of the specifications of an unannounced Intel product - the only technical differentiator is the CPU's power thermal design power (TDP), which is 11 watts above the 44 watt X9100."
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37152/135/
Please, people. Does it matter who runs what on what?
So what if you have the latest iMac or Dell computer. When its all said and done, it just an operating system which you have chosen to use. Personally, I use Windows Vista with Ubuntu 8.04 on a virtual PC. Both operating systems have their advantages and disadvantages, and I'm even willing to try out the Mac OSX.
Please, it an operating system. Quit the flaming. It 's the one thing that lets Engadget posters down.
- Joshua, UK
You're all right Apple could build a cheaper computer with less features, software and so on...
BMW could build a cheaper car that was slower with less features and so on, but thats what Kia's for.
if you want a cheap computer go ahead there's plenty, if you want OSX, everything to work together, and even look good too get a Mac.
Just called the NYC 14th St. store and the imacs may be in later today or tomorrow.
Lovely,
ATI and NVIDIA release a new generation of hardware into the marketplace using new functions or smaller die sizes to reduce cost and they're still pushing old hardware instead. If even for just basic rendering purposes they would have been better to consider using something updated instead.
No I'm not going "ZOMG ThRO a 9800GTXXX2 SLI iN Der" but the 9xxx budget series is emerging from NVIDIA and the 34xx and 36xx series are out as well from ATI. So much for updates. Are the using 6bit panels as well on these models? It'd be nice to see everyone in the industry push for 8 to level the playing field, yeah 6 is cheaper but if you're mass producing 8 the cost should come down to some extent. >_< it's not like people are asking for 10bit panels and a complete redesign of facilities.
Either way it's a cheap update it seems like. Nothing causing someone to throw away their old imac and buy a new one. At least back in the start of the x86 products people had a performance excuse going from Core to Core 2.
I'll stick with my desktop, if I ever needed to make the switch I'd end up with a Mac Pro and for that price I'd be better off just buying the workstation board and chips myself to build a better rendering machine. Yeah the whole "zomg ur wirez be evaryware" thing doesn't work because cables would be popping out of the mac pro as well. :(
If I was the generic hobby user the imac might work, but given my usage, I'd probably be fed up with it in a relatively short span.
There's a mistake in the specs for the top-of-the-line model.. it comes with a 500GB drive at the $2,199.00 price point.
The anti-mac crowd seems even more pissy than usual. Apple must have scored another bulls-eye.
As did you with that comment :o)
Now wheres that new Mac Mini??
these things are actually pretty good for running adobe creative suite 3. you can run photoshop and illustrator simultaneously while doing some pretty heavy vector tracing or rendering effects and photoshop and not lag, at least on my older one. i'd call it a professional machine at least for graphic designers and photographers.
why wont apple let me exchane the imac i just bought last friday for a new one....
without paying the restocking fee
they dont let you swap it??
i want to swap mine too
I use my computer for design work. I open a million windows and programs at once. If the pc I had before the mac I now own could have efficiently moved between programs and actually worked properly without wasting my time running a million antivirus suites and tweeking it to death than I would still be a pc user.
Forget the bs and the emotions. My mac just works.
Are all you Mac haters tards? Compare the imac to the dell xps or the the hp all in one. The imac is actually the better deal. Ohhh, the imac is faster according to the popular science article than the hp with 3gb of ram compared to the mac with 1gb.
Yes, shame on him for not wanting to spend $2800 on a Mac Pro.
i baught one just last week :S
why the f**k is everyone going wah wah about games anyway? i wanna play a game i'll buy a f**king console. macs are better suited for multimedia apps, 2 words made me buy mine LOGIC STUDIO....
If it's true that Apple gets the latest processors from Intel first. Then I would be pissed if I were Dell. All those years of Intel loyalty, and for what, apart from bulk buying deals. As for all those people who keep going on about a lack of gaming on a Mac, Give me a break, and get a grip, it's a computer not a toy. Go buy a console for christ sake, there's three of them out on the market, for you to choose from you know.
Wait, is AMD aware that Apple is pairing its ATI graphics cards with Intel processors on its Macs? That's travesty! (Well, although I prefer to pair AMD with NVIDIA myself.)
When will we realize that there are few things that we need to do faster on the computer. Video rendering? What % of overall computer usage time does that entail at it's current rate of output? (let's say 5%). So, if you reduce that time by half (doubtful) it will be 2.5% of your time, freeing you to do about 1 more thing. wow.
Gaming? Okay, but darn, you nearly need supercomputers these days for that stuff. Still not a majority % of your time to save. Oh, for better frame rates, huh? lol
psytar all the way.
Just go and check alienware.com and apple.com, choose two similar systems and customize them to be exactly the same specs, compare prices.
I found that they are almost the same!
Ok, I really don't know what to do now. I was adamant that I was going to buy a mac pro, but the specs of the high end imac are so close to the mac pro I'd priced up!
I was going to buy a mac pro with one 2.8 quad core, 1TB hard drive, 4 gig of ram and obviously the 8800 gt but the new imacs got a 3.06 dual core and a 8800 GS. Now, the top imac costs over £300 less (this is with the 1TB hard drive and 4 gig of ram BTO options). I'm well aware that the imac uses laptop parts and the 8800 GS isn't quite as good as the 8800 GT, now I'm also questioning If i need a quad core, especially one that runs 0.26 slower than than the dual core I could get in the imac. I do also know that more cores can be advantageous for certain tasks, but will that extra speed in the dual core compensate for the difference overall?
I REALLY wish Apple would up the graphics card specs in the mac pro, and maybe make it possible to have 3ghz + single processors in the BTO options. Does any one else think the mac pro options are quite shameful in comparison? I know the macpro obviously comes in to its own if you can afford the highest specs, but there doesn't seem to be any leeway further down the line!
I'm just interested what any one else thinks about my dilemma?
(oh and before any one try's to start this argument again, i really don't think apple should have a mid range desktop, the mac pros are great, they could just do with a more diverse set of build to order options.)