New iMacs - Graphics

New CPUs, faster Wi-Fi, same flaws: Apple

Read that and tell me the Iris Pro is worse than last years Nvidia. It's not. Read it carefully.

They talk about Faults with the iMac. Those are not anything to do with the Iris Pro. Same basic stuff that bugs me, Glue sticks to get in to change the ram and stock 5400 RPM Notebook drive.

EDIT: Just to note the 27" iMacs have a full size 7200 RPM 3.5" Desktop drive and a memory door.

dtravis7 said:

Since my post in fact there was another test of the actually new iMac showing the Iris Pro beating last years Nvidia Chip set in ever test but one and saying how good it was.

Click to expand...

This is great news...since it's nice that the new Iris Pro graphics are better overall than last years Nvidia.

The point I'm trying to make is...if Apple had decided to continue including dedicated graphics hardware in the "Late 2013" entry level iMacs (as they have almost always in the past)...the dedicated graphics scores would probably be even better than the Iris Pro graphics.

So "better" is still "better"...which at the end of the day...is what consumers like to see!

- Nick

ISTR that they lowered the price of the iMac by $100 last time round. I may be misremembering.

Click to expand...

You are misremembering. Actually, the 2012 entry level 21.5" iMac was $100.00 higher than the entry level 2011 21.5" iMac and came without an optical drive and the ability to upgrade memory. What a deal!

But at least the 2013 model has stayed the same price and added 4 GB more of memory plus the Iris Pro integrated graphics. Big deal.

Dennis -- was not referring to you!

Was referring to Nick and chscag, who seem to think you're getting less for your money. You and I don't agree with that.

Since the "discrete" graphics card of the previous iMac couldn't be removed/changed out, and the Iris Pro (per your link) shows it to be of the same or better performance, and that it doesn't use system RAM -- I would argue that buyers aren't losing a thing, and may even be gaining better performance in day-to-day use. Plus gaining extra RAM for the same price.

In short, I don't think the 21.5" iMac on sale today is in any way shape or form a lesser value than the previous version, particularly for entry-level buyers. Quite the contrary.

Was just being sure as I had heard good things about the new Intel Graphics and now I see everything I read was correct.

I now am glad you did say what you did as it got me to find that other test at ARS!

In short, I don't think the 21.5" iMac on sale today is in any way shape or form a lesser value than the previous version, particularly for entry-level buyers. Quite the contrary.

Click to expand...

Let's just say I disagree. In any event, I have no intention of buying an entry level 21.5" iMac or even the better model. I certainly would buy the entry level 27" iMac though.

chscag said:

Let's just say I disagree. In any event, I have no intention of buying an entry level 21.5" iMac or even the better model. I certainly would buy the entry level 27" iMac though.

Click to expand...

If your disagreement is for the reasons I also would not buy one, then I agree, but in no way is it the Video chipset they are using that is the issue. The lack of Memory door and having to go through the great tribulation just to put in more RAM is the largest issue for me.

You're correct Dennis. The graphics is certainly not the show stopper although it does stick in my craw that Apple has "devolved" the 21.5" iMac. I know chas will disagree with me and he's certainly entitled to his opinion. But this is what is fact that can not be denied:

2011 21.5 " iMac = 1. 3.5" 7200 RPM hard drive, 2. upgradeable memory easy access 3. discrete graphics 4. Optical drive included.

2012 Model = 1. 2.5" 5400 RPM hard drive, 2. non upgradeable memory 3. discrete graphics 4. No Optical drive

2013 Model = 1. 2.5" 5400 RPM hard drive 2. non upgradeable memory 3. integrated graphics 4. No Optical drive

So which way is Apple going here? (I forgot to add that you can order a fusion drive for extra on the 2012 and 2013 models, however, OWC can do the same thing for the 2011 model)

Chas, did you list the wrong figures for the hard drive size? On the 21.5" it's a 2.5" Notebook drive at 5400 RPM. That chaps my hide.

Oops, spoke too soon. I was quoting the email from the forums. You fixed it since! Me bad!

Check the post again Dennis. I corrected it to show the proper hard drive sizes on the last three models.

I just edited my post to reflect that! hahahahaha! Grin

I personally believe from all the take apart s I have been looking at for it that it's because with the thinness and smaller case size of the 21.5", the larger 3.5" drive will not fit! SAD!. It does not need to be that thin.

Anyway, Dennis... you can see where I'm coming from on this. I love my 2011 21.5" iMac and plan on keeping it here in the office for several more years, but I can assure you I will never purchase another 21.5" iMac as long as Apple continues along this same line. My next iMac will definitely be the 27" model.

chscag said:

Anyway, Dennis... you can see where I'm coming from on this. I love my 2011 21.5" iMac and plan on keeping it here in the office for several more years, but I can assure you I will never purchase another 21.5" iMac as long as Apple continues along this same line. My next iMac will definitely be the 27" model.

Click to expand...

Oh I see for sure and agree. It might be nice for some, but not for me. I am a power user and want power!

It's too bad as that is a nice form factor for a lot of folks as the 27" does take up a lot of desk space. Take care my friend!

chscag said:

Anyway, Dennis... you can see where I'm coming from on this. I love my 2011 21.5" iMac and plan on keeping it here in the office for several more years, but I can assure you I will never purchase another 21.5" iMac as long as Apple continues along this same line. My next iMac will definitely be the 27" model.

Click to expand...

See, they know what they're doing. Making sure next time you don't buy that low end machine - gotta spend the big bucks.

Oops, you just let the cat out of the bag! Grin

Everyone is entitled to an opinion...and I stand by my opinion.

Approximately 95+% of all iMacs ever released since 1998 (including entry level models) had dedicated graphics. And for the most part...the iMac's that didn't have dedicated graphics were "Education Only" models...which are almost always "cheapened" to be more affordable for the education market.

It's great that the new Intel Iris Pro integrated graphics in the entry level "Late 2013" iMac is faster than last years "Late 2012" entry level iMac with dedicated graphics. But then cpu and gpu benchmarks almost always increase from year to year.

As I said earlier...the Intel Iris Pro graphics may be good...but if Apple included dedicated graphics in the new "Late 2013" entry level iMac...the graphics abilities would probably be even better.

And hey...if the Intel Iris Pro graphics are so great...why are they not part of the higher level "Late 2013" 21.5" iMac...and the "Late 2013" 27" iMacs??? Easy answer...because dedicated graphics are still better than integrated graphics.

By including integrated graphics into the "Late 2013" entry level 21.5" iMac...Apple has taken something away. I'm sure this entry level iMac will still be a great computer...but it could have been better if it had dedicated graphics!

- Nick

dtravis7 said:

If your disagreement is the reasons I also would not buy one, then agree, but in no way it's it the Video chipset they are using. The lack of Memory door and having to go through the great tribulation just to put in more RAM is the largest issue for me.

Click to expand...

^^^ this, but again ... none of you guys are in any way typical entry-level iMac buyers.

There's no such thing as an "entry-level" 27" iMac because the price alone excludes "entry-level" (by which I mean "novice") buyers for the most part.

If someone gave me one I would not turn it down. I still think many are missing what the experts in the field who know video chipsets are saying about the Iris Pro and and the separate Memory. The performance tests I provided shows it's not just some integrated graphics. It's way above that.

Also I just edited the post Chas quoted above as I noticed I typed it so fast words were missing. Most probably figured it out but I fixed it as I am a perfectionist!

imac

Hi Chaps
First time here but I have been lurking. I'm about to bite the bullet and buy an iMac (long time PC builder/user/ poss seeing the light!) I am/was going to get the 21.5, 3.1ghz quad core i7, with 16gb ram and the 1tb fusion drive, but.... I have noticed that you guys seem to like the 27 more. I'm a pro toggie that does video as well and I can get the above for £1654.80 with union discount (1700 is my limit) what are your thoughts to this poss purchase, what would my options be as to 21.5 over 27",
Regards
Pete. (xrayferret)

If cost is a factor and the 21.5" iMac is more in line with your budget, by all means purchase the higher level model, not the basic one. And, load it up with as much memory as you can afford since none of the 21.5" models can be upgraded. Do the same with the graphics and hard drive.