Macworld Forums

Macworld Forums: Lab Tested: 2012 Build-to-order iMacs equipped with Fusion Drives, CPU upgrades - Macworld Forums

Jump to content

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Lab Tested: 2012 Build-to-order iMacs equipped with Fusion Drives, CPU upgrades

#1 User is offline   Macworld 

  • Story Poster
  • Group: MW Bot
  • Posts: 34,402
  • Joined: 30-November 07

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:50 PM

Post your comments for Lab Tested: 2012 Build-to-order iMacs equipped with Fusion Drives, CPU upgrades here
0

#2 User is offline   Manusnake 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 129
  • Joined: 30-April 08

  Posted 30 November 2012 - 06:55 PM

I'm glad I ordered the 21.5" with 16gb ram and Fusion drive, seems awesome on paper. Gonna be a big boost from my current mid-2007 iMac ^^
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Santayana, George. The Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense. Scribner's, 1905, page 284
0

#3 User is offline   Manusnake 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 129
  • Joined: 30-April 08

  Posted 30 November 2012 - 06:56 PM

Got it with the i7 too (can't edit posts here?)
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Santayana, George. The Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense. Scribner's, 1905, page 284
0

#4 User is offline   exilhamburger 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 26-July 12

  Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:09 AM

Can anyone say with certainty whether any of the new iMacs supports "target display" mode e. g. can serve as an external display for a new Retina MacBook Pro?
0

#5 User is offline   Custa1200 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 01-December 12

  Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:27 AM

Quote

Can anyone say with certainty whether any of the new iMacs supports "target display" mode e. g. can serve as an external display for a new Retina MacBook Pro?


I really don't understand this use case, why would anybody spend all that money on a decent specced iMac only to use it as a monitor for a lower specced MacBook, makes zero sense. If thats all you want it for why would you not just buy a monitor?
1

#6 User is offline   huzzam 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 29-February 08

  Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:51 AM

Quote

...why would anybody spend all that money on a decent specced iMac only to use it as a monitor for a lower specced MacBook, makes zero sense. If thats all you want it for why would you not just buy a monitor?


Who says that's ALL they want it for? Perhaps they want the nice fast desktop machine, with the option to use that nice monitor for their MBP as well when necessary? Seems reasonable to me.

(I don't understand this tendency of internet commenters to oversimplify others' questions in order to dismiss them. It's rampant, and seems disingenuous.)
8

#7 User is offline   whitedog 

  • Veteran
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,811
  • Joined: 09-August 04

  Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:27 AM

It appears that the Fusion Drive is a real winner when it comes to performance. The other options, like CPU, GUP and RAM, deliver expected results for the specs involved. Taken together, though, a tricked out Fusion Drive iMac seems to be a screamer. Given that Apple will soon be offering iMacs with 3TB Fusion Drives, one might say the iMac has reached workstation status. Especially, if you've got the bucks, with a Thunderbolt RAID attached. The only issue now will be for graphics professionals because the monitor calibration options for the iMac are still quite limited. And the glossy screen remains problematic in the usual office environment with bright fluorescent overhead lighting.
0

#8 User is offline   spanky 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: 04-December 09

  Posted 01 December 2012 - 05:31 AM

Quote

I really don't understand this use case, why would anybody spend all that money on a decent specced iMac only to use it as a monitor for a lower specced MacBook, makes zero sense. If thats all you want it for why would you not just buy a monitor?

I use this feature at work. We've had several users bring in laptops with inoperative displays, and connecting them to an iMac rather than an external display saves us room in our work area. I know there are other advantages too, but this is the feature we use.
When you don't know how things work, ask before you simply dismiss other people's ideas, you may end up learning something.
3

#9 User is offline   spanky 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 72
  • Joined: 04-December 09

  Posted 01 December 2012 - 05:36 AM

@huzzam I should have read all the posts before adding my two cents. I couldn't agree with you more. Yes I know I've done it in the past, but I'm working on it. ;)
0

#10 User is offline   Inkling 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: 07-December 06

  Posted 01 December 2012 - 08:29 AM

I'm in the market for a new desktop and I'd be interested in one of these iMacs except for the fact that the DVD drive in my current iMac has been rendered inoperative by a DVD stuck in it. It's been that way for months, the labor of breaking in and free it is too much. I don't want to repeat that experience.

Apple needs to downgrade its current obsession with thinness, which matters not at all in a desktop, and apply its cleverness to creating products that can easily upgraded and serviced, particularly when passed down to the children.

That's why, when I upgrade, it'll be to the new Mac mini. It'll also make it possible for me to add my own version of a Fusion drive, getting more capacity for less money.
0

#11 User is offline   mjpsf 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 01-December 12

  Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:39 AM

Quote

@huzzam I should have read all the posts before adding my two cents. I couldn't agree with you more. Yes I know I've done it in the past, but I'm working on it.




Repetition on some of these things never hurt ;-)
0

#12 User is offline   gattograsso 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 01-December 12

  Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:58 AM

What is the explanation for the Mac Mini 2.6 having such a poor HandBrake score? It's inconsistent with the processor speed and other scores.
0

#13 User is offline   LelandHendrix 

  • Member
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 304
  • Joined: 06-February 10

  Posted 01 December 2012 - 01:09 PM

Quote

What is the explanation for the Mac Mini 2.6 having such a poor HandBrake score? It's inconsistent with the processor speed and other scores.


I would say that the Handbrake score is much lower for the Mini 2.6 BTO, because it is the only machine in that lost that does NOT have a discrete GPU. The Integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics do a decent job, but are nowhere near as effective as a separate ATI/NVidia GPU.

If the chart above also included the 13" Retina MacBook Pro, then you would likely see that machine has similar results as it, too, lacks a separate GPU.
0

#14 User is offline   gattograsso 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 01-December 12

  Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:20 PM

I thought about that, but a check of the HandBrake FAQ indicates that HandBrake makes no use of GPUs, so there must be another explanation. The 13-inch 2.5 MacBook Pro Retina does have a HandBrake score of 108.7, but the processor is only dual core.
0

Share this topic:


  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users