Forums | MacLife

Pariah wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

I should point out the last C2D iMac had full sized PC5300 DIMMs, the current has smaller PC5300 SODIMMs which are the same speed and the new iMacs even support newer PC6400 SODIMMs (though at PC5300 speeds). I should also point out PC5300 chips are still pretty ubiquitous so the laptop RAM argument isn't quite as valid in some are making it seem.

The ram isnt so much the issue as much as the almost 400mhz down clock on the FSB is on the laptop chipset.

That one I cannot argue, it should really be a 533 MHz the down clock on at least the iMacs by now. There ARE laptop chipset configurations available to Apple from Intel with that speed. It's still nothing on the Xeon's chipset's 667 MHz down clock but hey THAT'S a professional/server level chip.

In that light it's not so much Apple is using inferior laptop motherboards as the the fact they are using inferior laptop motherboards.

ScifiterX wrote:

Pariah wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

I should point out the last C2D iMac had full sized PC5300 DIMMs, the current has smaller PC5300 SODIMMs which are the same speed and the new iMacs even support newer PC6400 SODIMMs (though at PC5300 speeds). I should also point out PC5300 chips are still pretty ubiquitous so the laptop RAM argument isn't quite as valid in some are making it seem.

The ram isnt so much the issue as much as the almost 400mhz down clock on the FSB is on the laptop chipset.

That one I cannot argue, it should really be a 533 MHz the down clock on at least the iMacs by now. There ARE laptop chipset configurations available to Apple from Intel with that speed. It's still nothing on the Xeon's chipset's 667 MHz down clock but hey THAT'S a professional/server level chip.

In that light it's not so much Apple is using inferior laptop motherboards as the the fact they are using inferior laptop motherboards.

I'm still having a hard time understanding why any of this matters.  If the mobile chip was really having such an impact on performance, then why are placed like this PCMag review praising the performance of the iMac:

PCMAG Article wrote:

Though Apple used a notebook-class processor to save power usage and reduce heat, the T7700 is certainly powerful, capable of performing multimedia tasks with the help of the 256MB ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO graphics chipset (in other words, you're not missing much by not using a hotter running desktop-class processor)

They even go on to compare it to other desktops, which are using what are clearly "desktop class" chips, and the iMac performs right with them such as this HP Desktop running an E6400 Core2Duo - clearly a desktop chip, or this desktop, also using a desktop-class chip (and one thats been overclocked to 3 Ghz, nonetheless):

PCMag wrote:

When I loaded Windows Vista on the iMac using Boot Camp, it showed its stripes as a fast and capable Windows PC. It got a very respectable 58-second score on both Photoshop CS2 and CS3. Multimedia-optimized PCs such as the HP Pavilion m7780n run CS2 in the 1:10–1:15 range, so anything below 1 minute is very good (under 30 seconds is excellent). And the iMac's ATI Radeon HS 2600 Pro graphics helped it gain a very good score of 3,784 on 3DMark06. It's not a blazing 3D performer, but it holds it own against gaming-oriented midprice systems such as the Velocity Micro Campus Edition 2007 (5,112) and CyberPower Gamer Ultra 8500SE (4,428)

I'm starting to think that all of this whining may have made sense 5-10 years ago when the differences between processor speeds was significant, and things were gettting faster and faster all the time.  But now?  Give me a break.  I have yet to see any compelling reason why it makes the slightest bit of difference.

I still prefer my G5 over my Mac Book Pro...multitasking is a lot better on the G5 for one.  Mac Pro is probably a lot different (better) since it uses a workstation class chip.

That said, I will never buy laptop hardware pretending to be a desktop; I just have way too many hobbies and work related chores that need workstation class computing.

-mark

Czachorski wrote:

I do not see any point couting the cooling system, keyboard, speakers, these are inconsequential to the computer performance.  These are tangential to the conversation and only added to make the list longer.

Ahh, so you saw what I was trying to do there....

But anyway, the three reasons I don't like the iMac are:

(1) Lack of expandability.

(2) Forced monitor purchase.

(3) Unnecessarily weak performance-to-dollar ratio.  The CPU and motherboard may not be that much slower but they are more expensive (and limited, in the case of the motherboard).

Laptop parts are responsible for problems 1 and 3.  Laptop "design" is responsible for 2, and after using the iMac's laptop keyboard I can safely conclude that it clearly places form over function.  It feels pretty solid for a notebook keyboard, but it just doesn't have the same tactile feedback as a desktop keyboard.  Some people may prefer this, but most do not.

Czachorski wrote:

I had always thought that GPU was the same as any other desktop GPU, just not user replaceable.  No one has ever really discussed much here about the difference between mobile and desktop GPUs.  But if you say its a mobile and not a desktop, ok.

Mobile GPUs are usually significantly slower than their desktop counterparts.  In the case of the iMac, Apple's underclocked Mobile R2600 XT is probably about the same as a desktop R2600 Pro, which may explain why Apple named it such.

Last edited by Mr. T (2007-09-02 12:49 pm)

Czachorski wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

Pariah wrote:

The ram isnt so much the issue as much as the almost 400mhz down clock on the FSB is on the laptop chipset.

That one I cannot argue, it should really be a 533 MHz the down clock on at least the iMacs by now. There ARE laptop chipset configurations available to Apple from Intel with that speed. It's still nothing on the Xeon's chipset's 667 MHz down clock but hey THAT'S a professional/server level chip.

In that light it's not so much Apple is using inferior laptop motherboards as the the fact they are using inferior laptop motherboards.

I'm still having a hard time understanding why any of this matters.  If the mobile chip was really having such an impact on performance, then why are placed like this PCMag review praising the performance of the iMac:

PCMAG Article wrote:

Though Apple used a notebook-class processor to save power usage and reduce heat, the T7700 is certainly powerful, capable of performing multimedia tasks with the help of the 256MB ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO graphics chipset (in other words, you're not missing much by not using a hotter running desktop-class processor)

They even go on to compare it to other desktops, which are using what are clearly "desktop class" chips, and the iMac performs right with them such as this HP Desktop running an E6400 Core2Duo - clearly a desktop chip, or this desktop, also using a desktop-class chip (and one thats been overclocked to 3 Ghz, nonetheless):

PCMag wrote:

When I loaded Windows Vista on the iMac using Boot Camp, it showed its stripes as a fast and capable Windows PC. It got a very respectable 58-second score on both Photoshop CS2 and CS3. Multimedia-optimized PCs such as the HP Pavilion m7780n run CS2 in the 1:10–1:15 range, so anything below 1 minute is very good (under 30 seconds is excellent). And the iMac's ATI Radeon HS 2600 Pro graphics helped it gain a very good score of 3,784 on 3DMark06. It's not a blazing 3D performer, but it holds it own against gaming-oriented midprice systems such as the Velocity Micro Campus Edition 2007 (5,112) and CyberPower Gamer Ultra 8500SE (4,428)

I'm starting to think that all of this whining may have made sense 5-10 years ago when the differences between processor speeds was significant, and things were gettting faster and faster all the time.  But now?  Give me a break.  I have yet to see any compelling reason why it makes the slightest bit of difference.

Firs off drop the "whining" bullsmurf. I have held off calling you a simpering fanboi so lets keep away from the adhoms, m-kay?

The contention over the laptop parts is really of interest only to people who appreciate value. I did some checking and laptop versions of the C2D cost from 2 times at the low end to 3 times at the high end, what a like clocked desktop chip costs.
The 2.6ghz desktop part can be had for under $200, the comparable laptop part costs over $600 and has a 400mhz slower FSB plus the added complication of the additional energy saver hardware. A similar price/performance gulf occurs for video cards as well. The laptop optical drive is also more costly and slower.
I have no idea what difference, if any there is for laptop MoBos.
So you end up with MUCH more expensive hardware that performs close to hardware that costs a fraction as much. In an iMac every single part that has anything to do with performance is gimped by laptop necessities that are entirely unnecessary on the desktop and are considerably more expensive.
All with no benefit to the buyer what so ever. It is fairly ridiculous when the absolute top of the line "consumer" computer from Apple can be matched and bettered by a system that costs 1/3 as much, including a monitor.
Now there has always been a certain discrepancy in price between Macs and PCs, we all know that but in the PPC days one could at least attribute some of that to actual platform differences.
But now with the Intel switch you just cannot get around the fact, the glaring, 72 point bolded and italicized fact that Apple could buy better, faster, cheaper parts from the very same manufacturer.
Some of us find that a rather untenable situation.

You seem to be grossly underestimating the price difference:

Dell Inspiron 530:
2.0GHz Core 2 Duo
20" 1680x1050 display
1GB DDR2
320GB SATA 7200RPM
16X DVD±RW DL
128MB GeForce 8300GS
Price: $799

iMac 20"
2.0GHz Core 2 Duo
20" 1680x1050 display
1GB DDR2
250GB SATA
8X DVD±RW DL
128MB ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT
Price: $1,199

That's the hardware problem.  Better-speced Dell costing $400 less.  Plus the Dell monitor has lots more inputs, and is a HDCP compliant.  Plus the whole expandability thing.

Last edited by Mr. T (2007-09-02 2:06 pm)

Mr. T wrote:

You seem to be grossly underestimating the price difference:

Dell Inspiron 530:
2.0GHz Core 2 Duo
20" 1680x1050 display
1GB DDR2
320GB SATA 7200RPM
16X DVD±RW DL
128MB GeForce 8300GS
Price: $799

iMac 20"
2.0GHz Core 2 Duo
20" 1680x1050 display
1GB DDR2
250GB SATA
8X DVD±RW DL
128MB ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT
Price: $1,199

That's the hardware problem.  Better-speced Dell costing $400 less.  Plus the Dell monitor has lots more inputs, and is a HDCP compliant.  Plus the whole expandability thing.

You have to add in $200 for OS X and iLife, and then you still have a crappy Dell box with a Dell monitor.  Subtract the Dell monitor, and add in a 20" Apple and you probably have a better deal with the iMac.

And *shock* some people like the Apple Cinema Displays better than the Dells, even at the higher price point.

Czachorski wrote:

You have to add in $200 for OS X and iLife, and then you still have a crappy Dell box with a Dell monitor.  Subtract the Dell monitor, and add in a 20" Apple and you probably have a better deal with the iMac.

And *shock* some people like the Apple Cinema Displays better than the Dells, even at the higher price point.

So you're saying that Vista and MS Works have zero value?  And the extra hardware in the Dell has zero value? Not a very sound argument. 

And the assertion that the Apple display is better is absurd.  On what basis?  Apple doesn't publish the specs, so the only thing that can be said for sure is that the Dell monitor has more input options and is HDCP compliant, while the iMac display lacks these features.

Also you're not allowed to throw an Apple monitor in a Dell if I'm not allowed to throw a Dell monitor in an iMac.  How is that fair?

Last edited by Mr. T (2007-09-02 3:10 pm)

Mr. T wrote:

And the assertion that the Apple display is better is absurd.  On what basis?

How about on the basis of performance?  I've never seen a monitor even close to the ADC.  A lot of people agree with me, too.

Performance - that seems to be a word that escapes the detractors in this thread.  As has already been proven with the iMac's CPU, what rats-ass difference do the specs make, if not on performance?  I don't really care if there is a rat in there spinning a wheel if it performs well.

Last edited by Czachorski (2007-09-02 3:21 pm)

Mr. T wrote:

You mean ACD?  (which btw, is NOT what the iMac uses) And I dunno..  The Dell monitor has a 5ms response time.  That's pretty quick...

Again, regardless - the iMac looks just as good to me as the ACD.

Mr. T wrote:

And yet it's not.

But anyway, before this turns into even more of a platform debate (which is strange enough, me being a Mac user), let's remember the reason we're having this discussion: My sole point is that laptop parts are significantly more expensive per dollar than desktop parts.  It has nothing to do with software, or the display, expandability, what have you.  The simple fact is that if Apple built an "iMac" with all desktop parts, they could could offer the same machine for a third less (figuring conservatively)  Or they could significantly increase their profit margin at the same price.  Or they could give you a third more computer for the same price.

But would it have the same form factor?  Definetely not.  Doesn't the point that laptop parts are significantly more expensive per dollar than desktop parts, and yet Apple offers a compelling value in the iMac, just make that point even more obvious?

Granted, its not the top of the value pile, it is, afterall, an Apple, which only tends to bring top value to those who highly value style and elegance in the design too.  The fact that Apple is doing that, and even putting this thing in the ball-park of normal PC value is pretty impressive.  A trend that continues ever since the Mac Pro blew the high-end system value out of the water.  It continues with iMac and the upgrade in performance with the new machines with a $300 price drop.

On the link to the panel in the 20-inch iMac - interesting.  That might explain how they achieved the $300 price drop.  It looks like the 24-inch iMac uses a different panel, though.

Additionally, if the panel make little difference in the ability to tell a difference in performance (going from 20-inch ACD to 20-inch iMac right in the store, afterall), could it be that these things just don't matter that much?

Last edited by Czachorski (2007-09-02 5:51 pm)

Mac

mahakali wrote:

Czachorski wrote:

BTW - that Dell monitor you referenced in the Dell PC you built - it doesn't look so good.

Performance-wise, this set scored relatively low on our DisplayMate tests, so gamers, imaging professionals, and videophiles may want to look elsewhere. That being said, the low list price makes this an attractive option as a budget LCD where performance isn't a necessity.

My guess is, you put that thing next to a ACD or an iMac, and you will see the difference.  Meanwhile, on the ACD:

Beautiful image quality; stunning design

You get what you pay for.

It's hard to take any conclusion fromthe links you posted because:
1. Those reviews were written by different people.
2. The review is about ADC, not iMac panels.

I find it ironic you're defending apple as it has been embracing the way PCs are more and more nowadays, like making their displays (at least the consumer level machines) glossy and bright. The "subdued" display used to be what PC users/switchers complained about.

I think you can safely conclude that the Dell is a budget screen that is blown away by the ACD, as just about every review on the web gave the Dell sub-par marks for quality, while the ACD is tops just about everwhere.  I just posted one, but search google yourself if you want for the other dozens.

I'd rather think of myself as pointing out the falacies of the complaints without merit, rather than defending Apple.  I have yet to see a well-made point made without a whole lot of hand waving.  It seems that if Apple was as bad as people would like to make them out to be in this thread, it would be a whole lot easier to do it without falacies, claims not based on merit and price examples with shoddy second-rate equipment.

And I find it ironic that so many in here have such a strong anti-apple biased opinion.  Don't you think the original poster asking the question because they were interested in an un-biased answer?  It seems like if that were true, you would be knocking those spewing so much unfounded complaints - not the one pointing out the falacies.

Last edited by Czachorski (2007-09-02 6:45 pm)