[chucker]

Also, GeForce 8800 GS on the top end.

Disappointing: the hard drive configurations, and no 2 GB on the low end model.

No press release yet.

[Robo]

OK, the new iMac is go. All the specs and prices are almost exactly the same as the old model, with the exception of the processor:

The low-end, $1,199 20-incher is 2.4 GHz.

The mid-range, $1,499 20-incher is 2.66 GHz.

The high-end, $1,799 24-incher is 2.8 GHz.

The top-of-the-line, Apple-online-store exclusive (?) $2,199 model is 3.06 GHz. Wow!

The top-of-the-line model also sees the only non-processor change: an Nvidia GeForce 8800 GS (512MB memory). At least, I don't think the iMac had that before.

Those speeds are...different from the mobile Penryns currently available. IOW, I think Apple is actually using desktop processors! But other people know far more about Intel's chips than I do, so I'll leave that to smarter folk.

What an exciting update!

[Robo]

DAMN IT

I was beaten.

I had a pre-made post ready and waiting for the updates, too. I just had to fill in the speeds and prices...and I was still beaten. Curses.

Well, *my* post is more informative.

[Wyatt]

It's actually the 8800 GS, not GTS.

[Robo]

AND my post is more correct!

So, the iMac discussion should continue in my thread.

[chucker]

Press release out: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/04/28imac.html

6 MB L2 cache (up from 4) and 1066 MHz bus (up from 800) means they're using Penryns now; not a big surprise there either.

A solid update, nothing else.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Roboman AND my post is more correct! So, the iMac discussion should continue in my thread.

From that thread, which will be merged into mine any minute now…

Originally Posted by Roboman Those speeds are...different from the mobile Penryns currently available. IOW, I think Apple is actually using desktop processors! But other people know far more about Intel's chips than I do, so I'll leave that to smarter folk.

They're using May-revision Penryns. See over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ile_processors

[Robo]

Originally Posted by chucker From that thread, which will be merged into mine any minute now… They're using May-revision Penryns. See over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ile_processors

I might be blind, but I'm still not seeing 2.66 GHz or 3.08 GHz models, or 2.4 GHz models with 6MB of L2 cache, for that matter. There's a 3.08 GHz Penryn XE, but the 3.08 GHz iMac isn't Core 2 Extreme-branded.

Are you saying Apple is under- and over-clocking the processors?

[MCQ]

Still being stingy with the hard drives - at least the upgrade prices aren't a complete rip-off.

Nice to see the optional upgrade to the 8800GS.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by MCQ Still being stingy with the hard drives - at least the upgrade prices aren't a complete rip-off. Nice to see the optional upgrade to the 8800GS.

I don't know, I think 320 GB is...a lot. Hell, I think 250 GB is a lot. I don't have any problems with the hard drives.

The only thing I really have a *problem* with in the iMac is the screen, but I wasn't expecting them to fix that in a spec bump. That will have to wait for the next design change (this fall?). After the screens, I'd like to see 2) better graphics and 3) Blu-ray. Hard drives aren't really on my list of desired updates. Like increasing RAM, they're a nice way to add value when you're not A) redesigning the product or B) increasing the clock speed by, like, 400MHz overnight.

But that's getting into S&R territory, so I'll just say this for now: I'm totally happy with the new iMacs, and even if they don't update them before I buy one, I'll still be cool. I mean, 2.7 GHz? That's, like, my lucky number. (Oh, and it's hella fast, too.)

EDIT: Thanks to the mod that merged the threads.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Roboman I might be blind, but I'm still not seeing 2.66 GHz or 3.08 GHz models, or 2.4 GHz models with 6MB of L2 cache, for that matter. There's a 3.08 GHz Penryn XE, but the 3.08 GHz iMac isn't Core 2 Extreme-branded. Are you saying Apple is under- and over-clocking the processors?

"Extreme" is really just a marketing moniker, but you're right; those models don't match. I still don't think they're using desktop CPUs, though — that seems too drastic a change for what otherwise seems like a speedbump-type revision. I think they're just getting slightly custom models.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by chucker "Extreme" is really just a marketing moniker, but you're right; those models don't match. I still don't think they're using desktop CPUs, though — that seems too drastic a change for what otherwise seems like a speedbump-type revision. I think they're just getting slightly custom models.

That's posssible, which would make Eugene's outburst of laughter at the suggestion that the new iMacs might use custom chips even more funny/sad.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Roboman I don't know, I think 320 GB is...a lot. Hell, I think 250 GB is a lot. I don't have any problems with the hard drives.

It's a lot, but hard drive prices are insanely low now. 1 TB drives are between $200 and $250, so I would expect the high-end model to have one.

The only thing I really have a *problem* with in the iMac is the screen,

Specifically? I don't think they'll move away from glossy and TN, and I think it's way too early for LED backlighting (environment aside, it also isn't as much of a concern on a desktop: the main appeal on a laptop is that they achieve far more brightness with the same amount of power).

[Robo]

Originally Posted by chucker ]Specifically? I don't think they'll move away from glossy and TN, and I think it's way too early for LED backlighting (environment aside, it also isn't as much of a concern on a desktop: the main appeal on a laptop is that they achieve far more brightness with the same amount of power).

I don't mind glossy - that's inherent to an aluminum and glass design. I do mind TN. I understand that it was a cost-cutting measure, to allow Apple to sell the 20-inch aluminum iMac for the price of the 17-inch plastic one, but I'd like them to (eventually) get back to the point where they're using Cinema Display-style panels in the iMacs.

I'd like higher resolutions, too. There's talk about resolution independence, there's talk about Blu-ray...I think it'd be nice if the 20" iMac was true HD (basically, the resolution of Apple's current 23- and 24-incb displays).

And LED backlighting. "Environment aside"? Um, yeah, let's just put, oh, idunno, the health of our only planet aside for a minute... I know it might be expensive (as if Apple didn't already charge a premium for their displays?), but Apple did commit to LED backlighting in the past. (On that note, I noticed that the new tech specs page for the iMac has a "Greener Apple Environmental Scorecard." I like that.)

Basically, my dream would be for new, HD-across-the-board Cinema Displays to be released at WWDC - at 20-, 24-, and 30-inches - and then for the iMac to start using those same higher-resolution panels with its next design change.

[Dorian Gray]

Even the lowest iMac should have a bigger hard disk than 250 GB, which is almost comically small now. Sheesh, there are now notebook disks on the market with double that capacity. Since the switch to Intel Apple has placed too much emphasis on the processor, and not enough on disk and memory. This iMac update continues that trend, IMO.

Still, the iMacs are very nice.

Screen-wise, the 24-inch iMac has one of the best screens on the market. I suspect the panel will end up in a Cinema Display at some point. It's expensive, bleeding edge tech. The 20-inch iMac does have a relatively poor screen, though it used to have a better one in the days of the G5 and perhaps early Intel (can't remember when they switched to the TN panel).

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Even the lowest iMac should have a bigger hard disk than 250 GB, which is almost comically small now. Sheesh, there are now notebook disks with double that capacity. Since the switch to Intel Apple has placed too much emphasis on the processor, and not enough on disk and memory. This iMac update continues that trend, IMO.

There might be notebook discs with 500GB, but Apple doesn't use them, do they? Hell, I haven't seen one for sale in *any* mass-produced notebook from a major manufacturer. They're probably a super-expensive option, as the very top of the line always is.

I'm sure you will all hate this, but...maybe Apple is letting their hard drives lag behind a bit, so that they can eventually switch to 2.5-inch drives in the iMac without hurting capacity? Such an iMac could be quite thin... Of course, I'm sure everyone will bitch about the performance, but lots of demanding professionals use laptops with 2.5-inch drives these days...

Or else Apple just believes that the majority of users don't need more than 500GB.

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Still, the iMacs are very nice. Screen-wise, the 24-inch iMac has one of the best screens on the market. I suspect the panel will end up in a Cinema Display at some point. It's expensive, bleeding edge tech. The 20-inch iMac does have a relatively poor screen, though it used to have a better one in the days of the G5 and perhaps early Intel (can't remember when they switched to the TN panel).

They switched to TN panels in the 20-incher last August, with the new aluminum and glass design, when the 20" iMac replaced the 17" iMac at the same price (excluding the scaled-down edu model).

The 24-inch panel is good, though. The only thing I'd want out of that is perhaps a higher resolution (if this really is the year of resolution independence) and LED backlighting (which is probably a ways off). I've wondered why Apple hasn't just replaced the 23" Cinema Display with the 24" iMac's screen - it has the same resolution, and (from what I've heard) far fewer problems.

[Wyatt]

Did the last revision allow up to 4 GB RAM? I can't remember, but I think that's new.

[edit] Oh, plus the base configuration now is one SO-DIMM, not two. I think the last revision was 2 x 512, not 1 x 1024. That's a much-needed improvement.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by fcgriz Did the last revision allow up to 4 GB RAM? I can't remember, but I think that's new. [edit] Oh, plus the base configuration now is one SO-DIMM, not two. I think the last revision was 2 x 512, not 1 x 1024.

The last revision did allow for 4 GB RAM, up from 3 in the plastic iMacs. But you're right - having the 1 GB of RAM on one SO-DIMM is new. That's rather nice of Apple, since I'm sure many people will want to double their own RAM.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

IIRC, 4GB was available with the last revision.

[turtle]

This is making the new iMac more tempting for me...but I'd still rather have a Mini. Though with the Mini-DVI out I can still hook an external monitor up without a problem and end up with two big screens to stare at.

Going up to 4GB of RAM is a must. After moving my MB up to 4GB it screams.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by turtle2472 This is making the new iMac more tempting for me...but I'd still rather have a Mini. Though with the Mini-DVI out I can still hook an external monitor up without a problem and end up with two big screens to stare at. Going up to 4GB of RAM is a must. After moving my MB up to 4GB it screams.

See, I have it all planned out. I'm getting a place with my friends Tay and Di and we all want to have matching iMacs. (Yes, they're both as OC and nerdy as I am.) They'll each probably be fine with the (new) base model, but I'd want the base 24-inch model, upgraded (by me, of course) to 4GB of RAM. That will leave me with two 1GB SO-DIMMS - which will fit nicely in the open slot on each of their iMacs, giving them 2GB of RAM!

Now we just need to get, like, five thousand dollars. Then we'll be all set.

[MCQ]

Originally Posted by Roboman I don't know, I think 320 GB is...a lot. Hell, I think 250 GB is a lot. I don't have any problems with the hard drives.

I should have qualified my statement - I was speaking specifically on the $1799 24" model. While I agree that 320GB is a lot for most people, it could easily become a checkpoint issue for consumers since many $700 desktops at Best Buy will come with 500GB hard drives. Why even bother risking consumers saying "Well hey this $750 Computer X over at Best Buy has a 500GB or 640GB hard drive, why does this $1500/$1800 iMac only have 320GB?"

Originally Posted by chucker It's a lot, but hard drive prices are insanely low now.

Exactly. I would have expected something more along the lines of $1199 250GB, $1499 320GB, $1799 500GB, $2199 750GB.

Originally Posted by Roboman I'm sure you will all hate this, but...maybe Apple is letting their hard drives lag behind a bit, so that they can eventually switch to 2.5-inch drives in the iMac without hurting capacity?

I doubt it, for my first point above. Then you'd see someone saying "Hey why does $800 computer X have 1-1.5 TB and this iMac only have 500GB?"

[Koodari]

Low end model 999€. Finally. That is by far the best part of the update.

The 8800GS should be the default in the 24". Those 30% additional pixels compared to the 20" don't move themselves. The 8800GS is a cheap part, even the retail cards have dropped to $130 ($100 after rebate) at Newegg. Component costs can't be far from the 2600 Pro's.

I'd have bought a 20" today if the GS could be BTOed in it. With the 24", I can get a more powerful PC and pocket a grand, no sale.

[Luca]

Yeah, I wish they had actually upgraded the graphics instead of just providing a BTO option on only the 24" models (meaning it's $1949, minimum, to get a Mac with a GeForce 8800 in it).

Hell, they should have gone 8800GS 256MB on the 20" (standard) and 8800GT 512MB on the 24". Turn the iMacs into somewhat viable gaming machines (not economical at all, but not the embarrassment they currently are).

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by turtle2472 This is making the new iMac more tempting for me...but I'd still rather have a Mini. Though with the Mini-DVI out I can still hook an external monitor up without a problem and end up with two big screens to stare at. Going up to 4GB of RAM is a must. After moving my MB up to 4GB it screams.

My mini has been good to me. You know as much as I like the iMac. A mini hooked up to a 50" HDTV flat panel is very tempting to me right now.

I'm surprised about the low hard drive options. Apple's a proponent of downloads versus renting on discs. Well that means that people need above average hard drives storage ...not below average.

All in all a good update. However it appears that computer hardware is in a lull right now. There's very little to get truly excited about. Welcome to commodity village.

[kpluck]

Originally Posted by Koodari The 8800GS should be the default in the 24". Those 30% additional pixels compared to the 20" don't move themselves.

It is too bad that the 8800GS isn't an option on all the iMacs. From a gaming point of view, even the low end iMac is more hampered by its GPU than CPU for those types of tasks. In fact, given that the 8800GS is a rather low end part, it would make more sense to have one in the 20 inch machines. The lower resolution of the display would be easier for it to deal with.
-Keith

[bassplayinMacFiend]

I for one am glad that Apple is at least offering a more recent GPU for the iMac. I've been trying to figure out how to afford it for $2K plus tax though and other than donning a ski mask, nothing is coming to mind.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by kpluck It is too bad that the 8800GS isn't an option on all the iMacs. From a gaming point of view, even the low end iMac is more hampered by its GPU than CPU for those types of tasks. In fact, given that the 8800GS is a rather low end part, it would make more sense to have one in the 20 inch machines. The lower resolution of the display would be easier for it to deal with. -Keith

Yup, the 8800GS is around the same playing field 9600GT (the later is better), but the prices on the 8800GS has gone down a lot in the last few months, since the 9600GT came into the market. I agree with others, it should be 8800s across the board, with 8800GS on the bottom and 8800GT on the 24" though. I doubt doing so would even hurt Apple's margins too much.

[Koodari]

Originally Posted by hmurchison However it appears that computer hardware is in a lull right now.

Have you looked at what a 3GHz dualcore, a 2.4GHz quadcore or a 8800GT costs in retail these days? (All <$200!) Desktop parts' value has improved incredibly and there's no end in sight for it anytime soon. Apple just refuses to use them.

[Partial]

When is Apple going to learn?!? I can build a much faster system with an equal display for 600-700 even with a Leopard license through third party vendors. I imagine that could be drastically reduced when buying by the 1000 unit manufacturer direct. C'mon Apple. Stop gouging us with your 50%+ markups.