Quote:
Originally Posted by nst7
Also, the performance should be increased. These are the newer Ivy Bridge processors, not the Sandy Bridge from the last ones. So although the Gigaherz numbers may look similar, they're not (same goes for the Mac Mini).
As for the prices, they look to be pretty similar to the last round (and the last couple of years).
So the top-line 3.4ghz 27" will most likely be $2199, just like the last ones (but again, 3.4ghz Ivy bridge, not Sandy bridge).
And from what it looks like, there doesn't seem to be a second internal hard drive option (we'll know when OWC or Ifixit.com cracks one open).
But between Thunderbolt and USB 3.0, there are plenty of options for externals without the bandwidth limitations of before.
Another thing, these now officially go up to 32gigs ram, so that means that most likely, they actually will take 64. That seems to be the pattern with OWC's offerings-whatever Apples says officially, you can expect to double that.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dism
There really isn't much of a benchmark difference between Ivy and Sandy. At the end of it all, it's maybe 3-5% difference in CPU performance. The biggest factor is the on-die GPU, which should only be relevant if you are not using dedicated graphics. It's why I stuck with Sandy on my build. Ivy is really more for laptops than anything else, since it uses significantly less power to produce essentially the same results as Sandy Bridge.
One should also note that they don't seem to be offering a 6-core option in the iMac this time around.
|
nst7:
These new machines have everything glued together (what Apple calls the chin to the case, etc.) so prying these cases apart will take some doing. Heard this in the event from the presenter (about things being glued together at least that's the way I understood him).
dism:
It's difficult to know exactly what's available in upgrades from the basic machines as the store isn't yet set-up to do that so who knows about options and prices. Is there a 6 core i7 anyway?
What I don't understand is why the thinness? Apple appears to have done nothing to the stand so the front-to-back measurement is less than an inch smaller, if that. Which wouldn't mean squat on a desktop.