Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > New iMacs are up

New iMacs are up
Thread Tools
Andy8
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 08:40 AM
 
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 09:29 AM
 
Memory for upgrade to 8 GB is 2 x 4 GB. No more 4 x 2 GB option.

Thunderbolt x 2. I was wondering if they'd do this. A Thunderbolt iMac would by annoying with just one Thunderbolt port, since it's used for video as well.

BTW, it would seem the 3.1 GHz Core i5 2400 is in the same ballpark and often faster than my 2.93 GHz Core i7 870.

Intel Core i5-2500, Core i5-2400 and Core i5-2300 CPU Review. Page 9 - X-bit labs



     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 09:35 AM
 
So if you pick the $1199 low end iMac you can't BTO it with a larger hard drive? But you can on the $1,499 model... Come on Apple, seriously? That's just straight up price manipulation. There is no logical reason for that. Terrible.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
So if you pick the $1199 low end iMac you can't BTO it with a larger hard drive? But you can on the $1,499 model... Come on Apple, seriously? That's just straight up price manipulation. There is no logical reason for that. Terrible.
Good to know APple still has the old moxy.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 09:43 AM
 
Major highlights:
  • Quadcore everywhere. Clockspeeds are high enough that it's desktop chips again.
  • Upgraded graphics - and they're speccing exactly what mobile chips are used instead of presenting them as the nearest desktop equivalent!
  • Thunderbolt port, obviously

First reaction is that the low-end model suddenly got very attractive. It goes to a 2.5 GHz quad - basically twice the CPU power - and a 6750M GPU - 50% more shaders and exactly twice the memory bandwidth. The next two models have only small clockspeed boosts over the low-end one. The top model got a bigger boost, but more importantly the GPU is twice as fast as the next model down and a decent boost over the last model.

No Hyperthreading anywhere, unless you BTO to the Core i7 in the top model.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
ajprice
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 09:48 AM
 
2GB graphics card option, quads all round, two thunderbolts on the 27" (so 2x Apple 27" screens could be added? )


Nice

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 09:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
BTW, it would seem the 3.1 GHz Core i5 2400 is in the same ballpark and often faster than my 2.93 GHz Core i7 870.
I would guess that they are very very close. The i5 has a higher base frequency. It has a lower max turbo, but will reach it much more often. It has a smaller L3 cache, but a lower average latency to it. The i5 has the AES instructions and VMX, but lacks Hyperthreading.

Your CPU will win when running more than 4 threads, but lose narrowly in general tasks and lose a lot when something uses the new instructions.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 10:46 AM
 
Why did the base 21.5" iMac lose its 1 Tb HDD in favor of 500 Gb?

Edit: Just noticed that the Tech Spec page isn't showing IPS display? Did they remove it or did Apple just forget?

Edit 2: They mention it still being IPS in the PR.
( Last edited by imitchellg5; May 3, 2011 at 11:49 AM. )
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 11:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Why did the base 21.5" iMac lose its 1 Tb HDD in favor of 500 Gb?
Probably the BOM cost of that model went up quite a bit - both the GPU and the CPU are one notch higher, I think - and they wanted to compensate by lowering the cost of something else.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 01:19 PM
 
I wonder how big of a jump in speed the new iMac is.
I know that we know more when the speed tests come out.

Mine:
iMac 27 2.8ghz i7

vs

New iMac 3.4 17
I wonder if the jump is as big like the MacBook Pros
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by solofx7 View Post
I wonder how big of a jump in speed the new iMac is.
I know that we know more when the speed tests come out.

Mine:
iMac 27 2.8ghz i7

vs

New iMac 3.4 17
I wonder if the jump is as big like the MacBook Pros
It's a significant speed boost, but the real question is if you really need all that speed. How much memory do you have?

In my case I have a 2 TB, 2.93 GHz i7 870 with 2x4 GB = 8 GB memory, which means my upgrade path is just to add memory. But so far I've found I don't really need any extra memory either. I may add another 4 GB (total 12) but I'm not really pining for more memory like I was when I only had 4 GB.

Part of the reason though is because I don't run virtualization software anymore. Instead of running Parallels, I just bought a tri-core Athlon machine instead, and run it next to the iMac.

Originally Posted by P View Post
Your CPU will win when running more than 4 threads, but lose narrowly in general tasks and lose a lot when something uses the new instructions.
I'll have to do some checking, but the few times I've looked, it seems I'm not maxing out the CPU. It's pretty uncommon for me to see 8 threads all being utilized significantly.

I'm fine with what I have, but if I were to buy a new iMac in 2011, it'd be an i5.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 03:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by solofx7 View Post
I wonder how big of a jump in speed the new iMac is.
I know that we know more when the speed tests come out.

Mine:
iMac 27 2.8ghz i7

vs

New iMac 3.4 17
I wonder if the jump is as big like the MacBook Pros
No, it is nowhere near as big as the MBPs. The MBPs went from a dualcore without IMC to a quadcore with IMC or, for the 13", from a 45nm Core 2 Duo to a 32nm Sandy Bridge - in effect a three year jump in technology. That performance jump is probably the second biggest in a Mac line since the Intel switch, right after when the MP went Nehalem.

The big jump for the iMac line is when it went quad, which is the model you have. This is an evolutionary step - the CPU and GPU shader power are probably about 25% faster each. The GPU memory bandwidth is about double, but that was the case for the last model as well. The model that really gained in this switch was the low-end one.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
I'll have to do some checking, but the few times I've looked, it seems I'm not maxing out the CPU. It's pretty uncommon for me to see 8 threads all being utilized significantly.

I'm fine with what I have, but if I were to buy a new iMac in 2011, it'd be an i5.
Ditto - but I'd put an SSD in it. Actually the reason I decided to go with the i7 wasn't HT, it was VT-d - which it turns out that I never use. The Core i5-750 that was the alternative back then doesn't have VT-d, but the Core i5-2400 that is the option now does.

There are a few times when HT will shine, but it is very very rare that I have a task that works well over more than 4 threads. With Intel's current segmentation, very few CPUs are even able to run more than 4 threads, so I don't see that happening a lot in the future either.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Doc HM
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 05:24 PM
 
hmmm, with these speeds the Mac Pro line looks even more like a bargain, no?
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 05:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Ditto - but I'd put an SSD in it. Actually the reason I decided to go with the i7 wasn't HT, it was VT-d - which it turns out that I never use. The Core i5-750 that was the alternative back then doesn't have VT-d, but the Core i5-2400 that is the option now does.
Yeah, I'd like to have an SSD for the boot disk and then the 2 TB drive for the data and scratch.

However, I'm not complaining. When I got the machine, it was actually a 2.8 GHz i7 which then broke. The 2.8 never had the SSD option in the first place. Apple replaced it with the 2.93 GHz i7 and threw in 2x4 GB for good measure, even though I had 4x2 GB.

I'll be keeping this machine for quite some time... unless Thunderbolt suddenly becomes mainstream and inexpensive. Maybe I'll buy a new iMac when it goes USB 3 + Thunderbolt (+ Firewire)... and Blu-ray!
     
Aeolius
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 05:32 PM
 
So, the new iMac looks like a contender... against my 2008 MacPro 1,3!!

I have been frustrated by the search for a replacement second monitor for my MacPro. My MacPro has DVI and DDR2 memory, which seems to limit my choices. The new cinema display (MiniDisplay) would require a new graphics card, which again seems problematic as many require DDR3.

In theory, the price of the 27" cinema display, plus a graphics card and possibly a display adapter would be more than half of the cost of the new iMac i7.

My Mac Pro (1,3):
3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB had drive
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT

New iMac i7:
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7, 4GB RAM, 1TB hard drive
AMD Radeon HD 6970M with 1GB

decisions, decisions!
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 06:54 PM
 
Funny that Apple charges you $179 to add Aperture when purchased with a new computer but you can buy it from the AppStore for $79.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 10:36 PM
 
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 11:39 PM
 
I know this is not the wholly grail of scores, but there are some posted here:

Found a 27" i7 3.4ghz Geekbench score - MacRumors Forums

I am slightly surprised with the i7 current scores of 11k to a little over 12.
My i7 gen before last is getting slightly over 10k

I know someone much smarter than me will break this down for me here
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
brassplayersrock²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 11:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
Funny that Apple charges you $179 to add Aperture when purchased with a new computer but you can buy it from the AppStore for $79.
Those darn dang silver disks from metal they got from UFOs is expensive shyt.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2011, 11:51 PM
 
Macworld prelim benches of new i5 iMac

It's just a limited test, but it ballparks at the same speed as the older i7 870, as expected.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2011, 03:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by solofx7 View Post
I know this is not the wholly grail of scores, but there are some posted here:

Found a 27" i7 3.4ghz Geekbench score - MacRumors Forums

I am slightly surprised with the i7 current scores of 11k to a little over 12.
My i7 gen before last is getting slightly over 10k

I know someone much smarter than me will break this down for me here
The linked test is 12700, which is about 20-25% faster than something just over 10000. The RAM latency is the same, the RAM bandwidth is controlled by the RAM type (so 25% faster if you have the standard DDR3-1066 in your Mac, and no difference if you have upgraded to DDR3-1333), and the CPU is about 20-25% faster on clockspeed alone. Probably the test is small enough to stay inside the L2 of each core, so cache latencies don't matter. I'm not surprised - this is pretty much what I would expect.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Veltliner
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2011, 04:02 AM
 
I wonder how much the performance jump from the 6770 to the 6790 graphics card is.

512 Mb vs 1 Gb Ram. Who will profit most?

By the way: there is no upgrade path to get the better card in the 2.7 i5. You need to get the 3.1 i5.

Generally, this all looks like a price decrease. You can get a really good machine now for 1699. Used to be 1999.
     
ajprice
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2011, 10:02 AM
 
iFixit have got into the 21.5". The display is an LG, the graphics card and CPU are removable once you've got the logic board out.

iFixit tears down the latest generation iMac to reveal LG display, removable GPU
iMac Intel 21.5" EMC 2428 Teardown - iFixit

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2011, 10:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
I wonder how much the performance jump from the 6770 to the 6790 graphics card is.

512 Mb vs 1 Gb Ram. Who will profit most?
The 6970M (not 6790M) and is roughly twice as fast in both core shader performance and memory bandwidth. It's about 20% faster than the GPU in the last generation top iMac.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2011, 12:00 PM
 
and 2GB VRAM is now an option.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2011, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
The 6970M (not 6790M) and is roughly twice as fast in both core shader performance and memory bandwidth. It's about 20% faster than the GPU in the last generation top iMac.
I wonder how big of a difference the BTO 2gb video card will make...
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2011, 05:34 PM
 
That someone would have to test, but it seems like a very odd combo. The equivalent desktop card is the 6850, and neither the 6850 nor the 6870 seem to have a 2GB version. It only makes sense for huge textures, and those huge textures only make sense at very high resolutions, which the 6970 doesn't have the shader power to handle anyway.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
abbaZaba
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2011, 06:22 PM
 
I just bought a $1199 iMac 7 days ago. Can I exchange the old one for the new one?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2011, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by abbaZaba View Post
I just bought a $1199 iMac 7 days ago. Can I exchange the old one for the new one?
You can definitely return the old iMac, and then buy a new one.

I don't know if Apple will let you do a straight exchange.

-t
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2011, 08:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² View Post
Those darn dang silver disks from metal they got from UFOs is expensive shyt.
Yeah, I can buy 50 of 'em for $20...
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2011, 09:36 PM
 
Agreed new iMacs are strong boxes, great value IF you can tolerate the glossy displays, which I cannot.

IMO the real boost of the new boxes is not the CPU power everyone is crowing about, even though the geekbench scores look good. CPU power of top 2010 iMacs was already hella strong, strong enough that heavy users were more often limited by GPU and i/o than by CPU.

Thunderbolt IMO is a very big deal, because the kind of folks who actually need the top end previously were seriously i/o constrained in iMacs and in laptops. No longer.

The new GPUs are similarly a big boost, especially at the low end. Thunderbolt plus HD 6750M in the cheapest iMac is a huge step up from the previous low end iMac.

-Allen
     
Veltliner
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2011, 12:26 AM
 
Interesting to see the comparison of the MacBook Pro i7 to the new iMac i5.

And the comparison of the MBP 6490 M to the iMac's 6770M.
     
Veltliner
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2011, 12:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
The 6970M (not 6790M) and is roughly twice as fast in both core shader performance and memory bandwidth. It's about 20% faster than the GPU in the last generation top iMac.
Isn't this more for gaming and 3D creator software?

Or would it also make a big difference in Final Cut Pro, Capture One/Aperture and Photoshop?
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2011, 12:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by abbaZaba View Post
I just bought a $1199 iMac 7 days ago. Can I exchange the old one for the new one?
Yes, if you purchased from Apple.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2011, 07:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
Isn't this more for gaming and 3D creator software?

Or would it also make a big difference in Final Cut Pro, Capture One/Aperture and Photoshop?
It's for anything that uses the GPU for calculations. Photoshop and Aperture both use the GPU for that.

The 67x0M series has a 480 shader cores and a 128 bit memory path. The 69x0M series has 960 shader cores and a 256 bit memory path. The clockspeeds are similar, so you have pretty much twice the calculating power on the GPU.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2011, 10:29 AM
 
I assume we can boot off Thunderbolt, but haven't seen anything that confirms that. Any confirmation of that yet?

That'd be the easiest way to do an aftermarket SSD upgrade.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2011, 11:17 AM
 
There should be no reason not to be able to boot off Thunderbolt. It would be a major deficiency if Apple didn't provide the support for such a basic feature, but really given that Thunderbold is an external PCI-e standard it should be bootable as long as driver support is there.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2011, 12:05 PM
 
I am trying to decide on getting the 1gb or 2gb video card.
Has anyone seen any test results for this speed wise?
I know overall that I might not need it, but I play some games and like to run them full tilt and wonder if the better card makes a difference.
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
boy8cookie
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll let you know when I get there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2011, 03:48 PM
 
$100, might as well.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2011, 04:02 PM
 
If you plan to run a multi-monitor setup then I'd recommend the 2 GB card. If not, 1 should be plenty.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2011, 10:05 PM
 
Thanks, I am just wanting the best performance on the mac side that apple can offer in iMac for factor.
I am also looking for the best gaming on the PC side that the mac hardware can offer without going to a dedicated gaming box.
I guess it boils down to the same issue of will that extra gb make a difference in gaming windows side?
Thanks for weighing in yall...
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2011, 07:48 AM
 
Right, well I think I've read that 2 GB GPUs only make sense if you're driving more than one display since the available RAM gets split between each display. If you're only driving one then you probably will see little to no improvement having 2 GB.
( Last edited by Big Mac; May 9, 2011 at 12:37 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2011, 09:05 AM
 
Thanks big mac.

Another question. Is there any benefit to doing the ram one ways vs another?
meaning
2gbx4 slots
vs
4gbx2 slots
I dont think there is a speed difference or anything.
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2011, 06:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Right, well I think I've read that 2 GB GPUs only make sense if you're driving more than one display since the available RAM gets split between each display. If you're only driving one then you probably will see little to no improvement having 2 GB.
The video RAM is used for several things. Two of them are memory for the pixels displayed on screen, and the textures used when rendering. The pixels are obviously doubled, but the textures are not, and the textures are the reason we keep expanding memory. Think about it: The 8 MB RAGE 128 in my old iMac G3 could support 3D graphics at 1024*768. My current iMac i7 has a 2560*1440 resolution, less than 5 times that of the old G3, so should be OK with 40 MB video memory. It has 512 MB, and the current models with the same resolution 1 or 2 GB.

On a dual card setup, SLI or Crossfire, each card has its own RAM for textures, which means that you essentially have to double the RAM to keep the same performance.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2011, 06:50 AM
 
Best way to do the RAM is to buy it stock then either fit 2x4GB 3rd party or throw out the Apple and fit 4x4GB 3rd party. You should be able to get 16GB for less than the price of Apple's extra 4GB. With a lifetime warranty.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Mac Write
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver B.C.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2011, 03:53 PM
 
Get the 2GB card, you can't upgrade it later, so get the 2GB card+3.4Ghz CPU and that will get you an extra 1-2+ years out of your iMac. Though I buy towers (Beige G3, MDD G4 2003, Mac Pro 1,1), I still got the best video card possible at the time and CPU if the speed was a nice jump.
Get busy living or get busy dying
--Stephen King
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2011, 01:40 PM
 
With regards to speed…

I'm currently transcoding some video files for a composite Blu-ray disc on my 2.93 GHz i7 iMac. Right now Activity Monitor is fluctuating between about 400% and 675% (out of 800%). It's been going since about 9 am yesterday. It's now 29 hours later and it looks like it won't be done until late this afternoon.



Ouch.

P.S. The top of the iMac is quite hot to the touch, and for a change I can actually hear the fan at times.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2011, 01:55 PM
 
Wow!
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:54 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,