[Rev2Liv]

I'm looking at the new $2000 Thunderbolt iMac. I like this top end model for the Corei5 quad, ATi Radeon 6970m 1GBVRAM, and the FaceTime cam is nice.

Apple is currently offering a 2010 refurb Imac at $1269 which is just a little off it's original $1500 price. Big price difference!

I'm debating because the Thunderbolt model is Quad Core, and features a fast ATI Radeon 6970m GPU while the 2010 iMac is hobbled by a Corei3 processor and a slow Radeon 5750m vid card.

What would y'all do?

[Eug]

What about the $1699 i5 27" 2011 model?

[Rev2Liv]

Originally Posted by Eug 

What about the $1699 i5 27" 2011 model?

I would snap that up if Apple offered the Radeon 6970M as an upgrade over the 6770m. Even if they did offer it up, it would probably cost $100-$150 bringing the machine back up to $1850 again and at that point, might as well go in for the extra 400mhz speed bump.

[Waragainstsleep]

Thunderbolt should extend the useful life of the machine.

[P]

I don't quite understand which model you are talking about. Apple describes the graphics in the last gen iMacs as the closest desktop equivalent, but they're actually mobile graphics. Do you have the base model Core i3 with "5670" GPU (actually a 5750M), or one upgraded to the "5750" GPU (actually a 5850M)?

[Big Mac]

I think it depends on your wants and your budget. If you can get by with the refurb you can save a good amount of money and upgrade again sooner than if you were to buy the high end. But if the price difference isn't that big of an issue, or if you really want the higher performance, go for the new model.

[Eug]

IMO, if you have any real need for speed, a quad core i5 is the best bang for the buck... but I have the i7 (2010).

However, if for light usage, an i3 would be totally fine too.

[Rev2Liv]

Originally Posted by P 

I don't quite understand which model you are talking about. Apple describes the graphics in the last gen iMacs as the closest desktop equivalent, but they're actually mobile graphics. Do you have the base model Core i3 with "5670" GPU (actually a 5750M), or one upgraded to the "5750" GPU (actually a 5850M)?

I'm in the process of debating which model to buy based on acquisition cost and longevity of the cpu/gpu. From experience I know it takes alot of horsepower to drive around so many pixels.

From Anadtech

And, finally, we’ve arrived at the high end 27” iMac, which gets a 1GB 6970M to replace last year’s 1GB Mobility Radeon 5750. The 5750 is more or less a midrange graphics part – the mobility 5600 and 5700 series GPUs all share the same core, codenamed Madison – but the 6970M is a true high-end part, complete with a 256-bit memory bus (compared to a 128-bit bus for the 5750) and more than double the shaders (960 in the 6970 versus 400 in the 5750). This, again, will drastically improve the new iMac’s utility as a gaming machine – the 6970M is much more capable of driving the 27” iMac’s 2560x1440 pixel display. Update: Further research has revealed that the 5750 that shipped in last year's iMac was in fact a rebadged member of the mobility 5800 series using the "Broadway" core instead of the "Madison" core used in Mobility 5600 and 5700 parts. The 5800 series has 800 shaders and not 400, so while the bump in the new 2011 iMac is still a decent one, it's not as monumental as previously reported.

[Eug]

Driving such a screen with standard 2D business type apps is not that hard even with relatively low end GPUs in 2011, even if you go dual screen.

Are you going to be gaming or running 3D intensive applications?

[Rev2Liv]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Driving such a screen with standard 2D business type apps is not that hard even with relatively low end GPUs in 2011, even if you go dual screen.

Are you going to be gaming or running 3D intensive applications?

We longer live in a 2D world, so yes, I will be running 3d intensive apps. 2560x1440 is a massive amount of pixels to push around even for everyday tasking which makes GPGPU more vital to a lesser rez screen

With each successive OS update offloading more to the GPU and users demanding snappiness at all times in the desktop environment, the gpu can make or break the desktop user experience.

decoding mkv and h.264 in 1080P on a 27" places a massive burden on the entire system. One of the main reasons we have these gargantuan multi-core processing units, heavily pipelined, heavily cached, with multiple stages is like having 20 cops from surrounding towns and multiple fire engines and ambulances crowding around a cat stuck in a tree. To be ready on a moments notice with no delay.

I remember last year playing with that particular low spec Core i3, Radeon 5750 model. Sure I didn't notice much lag shooting off some e-mails and while looking at the system profiler, but for my personal use, I'd have to take a very serious look at its shortcomings not only now, but in a few years when it becomes dated.

Today's users place demand

[P]

None of the Radeons will do any video decoding under OS X right now, and in any case, the low-end version is enough for video decoding under Windows. Bigger Radeon is good for one thing: 3D graphics on the screen.

[Stogieman]

Originally Posted by P 

None of the Radeons will do any video decoding under OS X right now...

Will that change under Lion?

[P]

Haven't seen any rumors one way or the other, but we do know that:

* The OpenGL stack is getting a serious rewrite
* Quicktime is being redone - I'm pretty sure that we won't have both Quicktime X and Quicktime 7 in Lion, so Quicktime X needs to gain quite a few features.
* The latest MBPs use Radeon graphics

As the old 8-ball would say "Signs point to yes". Frankly I'm a little surprised that there isn't something already, given the third point.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Rev2Liv 

With each successive OS update offloading more to the GPU and users demanding snappiness at all times in the desktop environment, the gpu can make or break the desktop user experience.

Not really. Even the lowest end Radeon in the 21.5" Thunderbolt iMac is fine for this stuff.

decoding mkv and h.264 in 1080P on a 27" places a massive burden on the entire system.

Again, not really. Assuming the Radeons do get H.264 decode assist in Lion, even that 21.5" Thunderbolt iMac's Radeon will be perfectly fine for it.

To give you an idea, I play 1080P Blu-ray on my nVidia ION machine perfectly well. ION is much, much, much slower than any of the Radeons we're talking about, but it supports 1080p H.264 decode just fine. It does take up a fair amount the CPU (~35%), but that's because it's just an Atom machine. For a Core i5, it's no sweat at all if there's good hardware assist... which any Thunderbolt iMac Radeon can handle.

Passmark Atom 330: 633
Passmark Core i5 2.7: 4268

[Veltliner]

Looks like the OP wants the newer iMac with the higher end graphics card - just doesn't want to lay out the cash

The choice between a up to-date higher end model and a moderate model of last year's production (original price $1500) - is the OP sure what he wants to use the machine for?

The compromise to go for the $1699 model is the logical one. A newer CPU, Thunderbolt, and a still updated graphics card will make sure this computer has a good life span.

The older model without Thunderbolt? Wouldn't buy it. This year's iMac crop was an interesting enough improvement I wouldn't consider last year's model.

[tears2040]

Originally Posted by Rev2Liv 

I'm in the process of debating which model to buy based on acquisition cost and longevity of the cpu/gpu. From experience I know it takes alot of horsepower to drive around so many pixels.

From Anadtech

And, finally, we’ve arrived at the high end 27” iMac, which gets a 1GB 6970M to replace last year’s 1GB Mobility Radeon 5750. The 5750 is more or less a midrange graphics part – the mobility 5600 and 5700 series GPUs all share the same core, codenamed Madison – but the 6970M is a true high-end part, complete with a 256-bit memory bus (compared to a 128-bit bus for the 5750) and more than double the shaders (960 in the 6970 versus 400 in the 5750). This, again, will drastically improve the new iMac’s utility as a gaming machine – the 6970M is much more capable of driving the 27” iMac’s 2560x1440 pixel display. Update: Further research has revealed that the 5750 that shipped in last year's iMac was in fact a rebadged member of the mobility 5800 series using the "Broadway" core instead of the "Madison" core used in Mobility 5600 and 5700 parts. The 5800 series has 800 shaders and not 400, so while the bump in the new 2011 iMac is still a decent one, it's not as monumental as previously reported.

So what you are looking for is a Gaming Machine...... Go buy an Xbox, Ps3 or a Custom PC.

Any professional person who used Macs for Audio, Video work rely on fast Cpus which these computers have..... lol , people looking for gaming machines

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

...The older model without Thunderbolt? Wouldn't buy it. This year's iMac crop was an interesting enough improvement I wouldn't consider last year's model.

Agreed - at least not without hella more price discounting of the 2010 boxes than what we are seeing.

-Allen

[CharlesS]

Since Thunderbolt is really just PCI Express on an external bus, someone will probably eventually come out with a Thunderbolt box with a few PCIe slots in it. Since PCIe is what modern GPUs use to connect to your machine, this means that the iMac will eventually have the capacity to upgrade the GPU. So if GPU performance is a concern, the Thunderbolt-equipped machine seems like an obvious choice.

[Eug]

GPU performance really isn't a significant real-world issue, for the stuff he's talking about.

Yeah, having Thunderbolt would be nice anyway, just in case, but getting the top of the line model is probably overkill.

[CharlesS]

Whether it's a significant issue or not, In the OP has been talking a lot about the GPU in this thread, which means that to some extent it is an important issue to him. Given that, I think that the Thunderbolt-equipped models would be more attractive than the older ones, given the flexibility they provide.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Whether it's a significant issue or not, In the OP has been talking a lot about the GPU in this thread, which means that to some extent it is an important issue to him. Given that, I think that the Thunderbolt-equipped models would be more attractive than the older ones, given the flexibility they provide.

I actually suggested a Thunderbolt model, just not the top of the line one. However, it sounds like s/he is trying to talk himself into getting the top model. That's fine, but the reasons stated for it don't really make much sense.