iMac (mid 2010) Core i3 review
By Nilay Patel 
posted August 2nd 2010 5:30PM
posted August 2nd 2010 5:30PM
Hardware
Externally, the new iMac is exactly the same as the previous generation -- a more squared-off riff on the aluminum and glass iMac design Apple's been using since 2007. The 16:9 21.5-inch IPS display continues to impress with frankly stunning viewing angles and excellent color reproduction, although there's just no getting around the glare from the hyper-glossy screen -- and, as usual, Apple deflected our questions about any possibility of a matte option. We can't help but find that confusing: we're sure most people will be happy with the glossy display, but there's no harm in offering the option to people -- Apple does it on the MacBook Pro, after all.
Around back you'll find a fairly average selection of ports: audio in and out, four USB, FireWire 800, mini DisplayPort, and Ethernet, along with a Kensington security slot and the power jack behind the integrated stand. Having all the USB ports on the back makes swapping things like USB flash drives and camera cables in and out a little more awkward then necessary -- we wish Apple would put at least one port on the side, especially since the wireless keyboard has replaced the wired keyboard and its easily-accessible extra USB ports in the standard config. Oh, and unlike the larger 27-inch iMac, the mini DisplayPort on the 21.5-inch model doesn't double as a video input, so you can't use the display for console gaming or anything like that.
Yeah, oops.
Speaking of the side, the right side holds the slot-loading 8x DVD burner -- no Blu-ray here -- and an SDXC card slot. The SD slot is obviously welcome, but putting it directly under the DVD slot of the exact same width is a recipe for disaster -- we've accidentally stuck an SD card into the DVD drive of our daily driver Core i7 iMac more times than we can count. Apple really needs to move the SD slot farther away from the DVD slot -- fishing around in your shiny new iMac's optical drive for a lost SD card with a butter knife is not a recommended leisure activity.
As far a peripherals, Apple packs in its tiny wireless keyboard and Magic Mouse standard -- you can switch up to the wired keyboard with numeric keyboard and / or the wired mouse for free, but you'll have to pay an extra $69 for the Magic Trackpad and another $29 to score Apple's new battery charger and to have all the peripherals pre-loaded with rechargeables. Note that you can't replace the Magic Mouse with the Magic Trackpad -- Apple says that while some users will set the mouse aside entirely, it expects most people to use both input devices on the desktop. We've reviewed the Magic Trackpad separately, so we won't linger on it too long -- all we'll say here is that we wish we could swap the Magic Mouse for the Trackpad entirely at no cost, since we generally use a third-party mouse anyway.
Of course, the biggest news is inside the case, where the new 3.06GHz Intel Core i3 sits on a 1,333MHz DMI bus with 4GB of RAM and a new discrete ATI Radeon HD 4670 graphics chip with its own dedicated 256MB of RAM takes over from the integrated NVIDIA GeForce 9400m in the outgoing model. Apple promises the new chip is a huge upgrade from the old 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo -- up to 50 percent in some situations. So... is it? Let's look at the numbers.
Performance
Of course, those numbers don't mean anything without some real-world results, and the Core i3 iMac more than held its own doing everyday tasks -- we obviously had no trouble doing some writing while browsing, IMing, and playing some music. Playing back a 1080p video on the 21.5-inch display was quick and painless, and we were able to encode a 30-second 720p H.264 video in around 25 seconds, which is more than solid.
The combination of the Core i3 and discrete ATI Radeon HD 4670 also made the iMac a reasonably credible gaming system -- we averaged between 30-60fps at full 1920 x 1080 resolution and average detail settings in Half Life 2: Episode 2, and 60-70fps at the same settings in Portal. That's not bad at all -- as usual, we don't think hardcore gamers are going to flock to the Mac at these numbers, but you're not going to be unhappy if you're just looking to have some fun. (Playing any of these games with the Magic Mouse will make you tear your hair out and light your skull on fire, however, but that's a different story.)
All in all, the Core i3 and Radeon HD 4670 more than lived up to their billing here -- they provide a noticeable performance boost over the familiar Core 2 Duo / 9400m setup that was Apple's standard kit for so long, and we doubt the average iMac buyer will run up against any performance limitations. In fact, if you're considering a Core i7 MacBook Pro and you can live without portability, an iMac might even be the better bet.
Wrap-up
@HighestRanked1
Just because I didn't use proper language is not a reason to slam my opinion. I don't have time nor cares to tell other people what to do. People can do whatever they want with THEIR money. BTW I'm a sophomore studying premed with 4.0 GPA and with pretty good scores in SAT and ACT. I hope you have a doctorate in language, otherwise shut up. And just because I talk about graphics card doesn't mean I am a gamer. If you think thats all graphics cards are used for, maybe you should reconsider each time you reach for your $69 magic mouse (which is responsible for that cramp in your hand) to comment. Apple makes several awesome products. But iMacs and some Apple products are too expensive for some people. There are times when people need powerful computers but can't spend a zillion dollars for it - like a college student who does high volume video and photo editing while taking 19 credits a semester. I can't afford to replace the whole computer every time a new upgrade comes out. Many kids who use non Apple devices in my college wants Apple products but can't simply afford them, so forgive me if I say Apple products are expensive.
@HighestRanked1
"Perhaps instead of keep on paying money for graphics cards, CPUs and HDDs you should take time off from your custom gaming PC rig and invest that money in going back go school and learning some grammar first."
That should be "keeping on paying money" of course.
There should be a comma after "HDDs".
What does "going back go school" mean exactly?
And yes, you started it.
@nefnet13
it is called loyalty. every other brand only dreams of the customer loyalty apple has, and has had for decades. so what you never defend anything. bs, and weak sauce. at least it's defending a company that has been a successful california based company for over 30 years. what are you offended by? the fact that this is actually a better deal, or that apple always steals the spotlight?
As far as the score card goes, I'm guessing the "excellent display" outweighs the "super-glossy display finish", yes?
@dan325013
I would never buy a super glossy display. Ever. I was working on a friends laptop to get it ready for college, and it was sitting on my desk next to my LCD monitor. It was so difficult to use for any length of time simply because any light in the room was getting reflected back as a glaring white area on the screen. However, my monitor literally has almost no glare whatsoever. The only time I EVER see light reflected off it is if I have a lamp pointed directly at it from a few feet away, which I almost never have a reason for doing. Being glossy instantly cancels out any pros about a monitor in my opinion and from my experiences.
No eSATA, no USB 3.0, no Blu-ray, no deal.
This is one nice-ass computer. Im buying, but I dont know yet which one to buy and if I should get the magic trackpad.
I agree with the review for the most part.
However, I like where the SD card slot is at, anywhere else would be strange. Plus, you should be looking when you put CDs or SD cards in the computer. Silly that the reviewer even put a photo up of that..
What I'm really interested in is a long-term test of these new iMacs. My friend had one of the white Intel ones and the GPU just spontaneously failed one day. It was not an isolated problem judging by the reactions online. No way to fix it either, without having to buy a new motherboard.
I own the last white iMac, don't see the appeal of All In Ones, (for the record, I bought it because I got a good deal and wanted OS X, didn't have an LCD monitor at the time).
First off not having USB ports on the side is ridiculous, makes swapping flash drives a chore. I have to either fiddle around with slotting it in or twirl the iMac around.
USB hubs are an option but having that dangle around is ridiculous, considering one major appeal is that it doesn't have wires and shit.
Not to mention the "if it breaks you're screwed" the DVD drive started giving me shit about a month out of the warranty. Bout a 10 minute job on a PC, probably a $15-$30 part is all but impossible on an iMac. Upgrading anything but ram, forget about it.
Not to mention the biggest downgrade, notebook parts. Slower, cost more. Sounds like a win win.
Good to see the Apple fanboys hanging onto things like IPS, as if every other display in the world is a joke now.
@JfnC : Good points. One of the biggest issues of the iMac design is for owners to discover how difficult it was to open and replace common components like DVDdrive, harddisk, RAM etc. Well, RAM is easy enough now but both DVDdrive and harddrive are just too technically challenged and requires special tools. Another thing is the device runs rather hot that means the inside components will not last for long especially in warmer climate countries.
So if Apple had provided USD3, or eSATA, would that persuade you to upgrade?.
@Fteo64
Can't say it would, it's just all in ones in general, far too many downsides to them for a couple of advantages.
But it brings a point, if you don't have USB 3.0, you're never getting it in this iMac. I want my computer to at least last 3-4 years, and if I'm paying this much probably quite a bit more.
In 2 years USB 2.0 is going to look quite outdated and most firewire stuff is hard to find or has a pretty costly premium, limiting choice.
I'm sorry nilay but that was such a poor review. Your comments about the SD cards position were utter nit picking to be frank. The complaint about the non glossy screen again is obscene. Apples MacBook Pro is widely regarded the professional photographers choice, due to it's raw power, graphic capabilities and stunning resolution. And all of this perfomance in a portable package is essential for them, seeming that photo shoots are very rarely repeatedly in the same studio. So for Apple, fitting a Matte screen option on the MBP is necessary, because the industry requires it. But with the iMac all of these benefits are lost, yes its powerful but it isn't portable and has such a poor resolution in comparison. These flaws remove this product from that segment of professionals in the market, making the cost of designing and implementing a matte option completely not cost effective.
Well, while it is mostly good in this major refresh, I still think leaving out USB3 ports is an unforgivable act for Apple. Just think about 20%-30% more people who would be likely to purchase this product if USB3 were to be included in the iMac range.
I do not accept the excuse that the Intel H55m did not support USB3. The NEC chip can be included to do such a job and adding $50 or $100 to the price would not hurt it one bit for USB3. Intel is technically a monopoly and can afford to milk a chipset for more money at the user's expense. Look AMD supports both SATA3 and USB3 already ....
@Fteo64
"Well, while it is mostly good in this major refresh, I still think leaving out USB3 ports is an unforgivable act for Apple. Just think about 20%-30% more people who would be likely to purchase this product if USB3 were to be included in the iMac range."
20-30% more? Really? Please provide a link to all the market research you've done to support this claim.
@oupoliscigrad : Thats just a guess!. Its common sense. Even a market survey should be taken with a pinch of salt. Nett result it would sell more if it had two USD3 ports in addition to the current four!.
It is for Apple to try because they can get feedback and look at sales figures in 3 or 6 months. They have the best sales database per model, per country of any vendor. But still, it might just be a cost issue since it will need some "retooling" in the production plants. Apple still wants their margins and seemed spoiled by that to date.
>Terrific price / performance
@xNamelessNeko
yep for a 2008 pc!
Cant see where this performance comes from, the i3 is the lowest performing chip from Intel, the graphics card is a low entry one and you dont even get e-sata.
I have an imac for my office but its crap for games. It looks wonderful though but if you need performance there is no getting away from a PC.
Thats life
@nanto
you're insane. let's see how your pc specs stand up to a 12core mac pro, jackass. wtf games on computers. there are consoles and tv's for that. man, i thought i was a geek. computer gamers, ftf [for the fail].
@movies
....really? You're trying to compare his desktop PC with a workstation? Really? Is it possible for me to include images in the comments? Because I really need a facepalm image right.
For your gaming comment as well.
Multi-level fail.
Hey who remembers the rules of placing a computer,
Never place one infront of a window, or place it so the window is pointed directly at it, a surefire way to avoid glare ya know.
hmm
Nice design. I like glossy screens.
Please, please, PLEASE! This may be an obscure request, but it would be SOOOO appreciated. Could you verify whether the ethernet hardware on this new model supports jumbo frames? The previous iteration of iMacs are hobbled by an ethernet board that does not support jumbo frames, and makes them practically worthless for use as a video editing station in a shared SAN environment. I know many, MANY editors who are chomping at the bit to buy a whole flock of iMacs if we can just confirm whether they support jumbo frames.
If I want something like this, I'd be putting some ITX boards with HD5770 or something behind a 16:10 matte screen...
Debately costs more, definately looks uglier,
but imo, works more beautifully without the feeling of being ripped off.
In addition, to those who claimed Apple iMacs is of very high quality, I pity you. Paying premium for last gen commodities with average (in my experience) chance of hardware failure - is fail.
@tatose
last gen what exactly? last gen all-in-one computers? hmm, please show me those specs. since when is a 32nm chip last gen. the 28nm aren't out yet chief. quality is more than a spec sheet to most people. so the quality of build on a Ferrari F430 is the same as an equally spec'd corevette? just because you don't understand it doesn't make it less real.
in this day in age, if you spend more than $1000.00 on a desktop, you blew it.
@tricheboars
Gamers would like to have a word with you.
@tricheboars
Are you serious?
@tricheboars
I spent 1500$ on mine, then an extra 800$ on the 5.1 for it,
Us gamers like having a decent custom build
not a craptacular manufacturer build
I wish they would offer the i7 model internals with this display size. The 27-inch model is too big for this desk.
rather than fighting, can anybody make some useful comments? IMO, imac is very nice concept, only gripe being some troubles we are having with some hardware like no HDMI, and some software like bootcamp.
can anybody make comments on bootcamp like how good it is in running windows software? do they run as good as they do in native windows? i am having trouble with some drawing progs.
@mukhi
it is just native windows. like any other computer running windows.
@movies
then why some of the progs don't work there which works fine in a PC winxp/7?
Why are people on this forum comparing pricing on an iMac to that of gaming rigs? The discussion is akin to comparing a Porsche Carrera and a Ford F-350, and arguing the pickup truck is a better car because it hauls more tonnage at a lower price tag. The two products are for completely different markets.
If you want to compare a Dell to an iMac, the most similar product by Dell is a 19" Vostro All-In-One. From the web site, its $759 with a Core 2 Duo E7500 2.93 Ghz, 3GB DDR2 800Mhz SDRAM, and Intel GMA x4500 integrated graphics. It's $400 less, but also significantly inferior specifications.
The aforementioned review already compares the 21.5" iMac to other computers of its class, and at the $1,100 price range, the iMac offers more than its competitors. Critics seem to focus on the video card being "2 years old." It seems its actually new to AIO computers considering competing AIO machines all have integrated graphics.
I'm not a huge Apple fan, but I know Macs and am not someone who touts the Mac vs PC war. It's preference. If you're in program X, it shouldn't matter. For my money, a buying a PC or building one is a much better value (specification-wise).
It is a nice looking machine. I wish they'd use 16:10 aspect instead of 16:9... unless Mac users are only watching movies or something.
I ran an iMac computer lab for a school back in the late 90's. The original 1G Bondi Blue iMac. A whopping 233 MHz.
Do they still have the little door to upgrade memory? As if that's the only component you're going to want to or are allowed to upgrade? Please... for my money? I'm upgrading a system until you can't anymore. Wish they'd make that easier.
@muzicman82
currently you can upgrade only RAM in imac, and nothing else. the base config of imac comes with 500 GB, therefore, it does not make sense to me to upgrade HDD here. putting a higher HDD for OS makes it unstable now. if someone wants HDD upgrade, go for external ones, perfect solution.
@mukhi Hard drive size should never make an OS unstable. If it does, there's something seriously wrong with that OS. I'm not a huge OS X fan, but I don't think it's that flaky. If you're talking about organization, you could partition the drive accordingly.
Upgrades don't necessarily mean larger. If I were to order an iMac, I would probably get it with the cheapest stock drive. Then, I would upgrade it to an SSD when the time and price were right. See, Apple doesn't tell you what make/model you're getting. On hard drives, I like to be in control of that. They're not all created equal. They're probably overcharging for them too.
And let's not forget processor or optical drive upgrades!
I know, I know... it's doable, just not the easiest thing in the world to do.
An eSATA port or two would've been a wise add-on.
@muzicman82
Last I checked; CPU, memory and hard drive were upgradable. I know the CPU in the model up from mine (early 2009 model) can be removed and replaced. If the rumours of the graphics being MiniPCIe laptop cards is true then every major part of the system can be chopped and changed. I know the older white intel iMac had a MiniPCIe graphics card, hopefully that remains the case in the newer systems with dedicated graphics.
Opening up an aluminium iMac is actually fairly easy. You just need to be cautious of the glass.
Really, removing the glass is the only difficult bit - since it needs a suction-cup - but after that its just unscrewing the case and LCD and bam. Access to the computers internals with no hassle. It isn't any more difficult than taking apart any other system, apart from the aforementioned glass.
@benanderson Yes, I'm aware all of the components ARE upgradeable, but Apple doesn't make it easy. I know you can disassemble it fairly easily.
I remember disassembling early iBooks and MacBook Pros, and that was far more complicated than it needed to be. I know Apple is all about design, but I think higher end models having quickly accessible components would be welcome. I can't believe they got rid of the "user-replaceable" battery in MacBook Pros. The battery might last forever, but there's times when you still want a spare and want to be able to swap them.
Why not just build your own, with more power for less. I head eFix can help you with that. >:3
I specced up a Dell with all the bells and whistles of the iMac (minus the infra-red receiver, speakers, webcam and card reader). It came to £758.99, BUT, without a monitor.
I can tell you now, shopping for a well priced 27" monitor with the same specs and resolution as the 27" iMac was a pain! Since the 27" Apple cinema display's price has not yet been announced, the only other WQHD (2560x1140) monitor I could find that wasn't well over a thousand was a 27" Dell ultra-sharp monitor for £887.91! (price on ebuyer).
The total price of the Dell came to £1646.90. £2.10 LESS than the Core i5 27" iMac and £247.9 more than the iMac it shared the same specs with!
Granted the Dell ultra-sharp is a better monitor with colour (1.07billion to Apple's 16.7million) and response time (6ms to Apple's 12ms) but Apple's had better brightness (375 to Dell's 350) and the same contrast ratio (1000:1 typical) and the same viewing angle (178˚ in both directions).
If anyone knows a cheaper 27" monitor than the Dell U2711 with a WQHD resolution that shares the Apple specs then let me know :-)
I think Apple has done a terrific job with the competitive pricing, even if the Dell had a cheaper monitor it would still be a well priced system.
[prepares for trolls claiming that I'm lying]