Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

New Apple iMAC! Discuss...

i just found out that when the imac is used as a display only, it is actually still running and can run apps in the background.....so for example, with a mbp/imac combo, the imac can render while one can use the display as a second monitor for the mbp.....i am not sure how external HDs behave....i am assuming that only one cpu can access them at a time.....

a question for jeff: will the 2gb gpu option in the new imac make a big difference for fcpx/red raw compared to the 2011 imac 3.4, 1gb gpu, or the maxed out retina? i am super happy with my maxed out 2011 iMac but would like to have the option to bring something on location, so the retina looks good (but is performs about the same as my existing iMac) but costs quite a bit more...or get a new maxed out 27 imac (better performance, cheaper but not so portable)?
 
Yeah, I'm not wild about the pricing... Ouch on several of the upgrades.

@Paul - the 2GB GPU is definitely the way to go. The system should be noticeably snappier all around compared to the 2011 iMac. I also have a maxed-out 2011 iMac -- it's essentially our home/family computer, but I use it quite a bit and the kids are cutting RED and GoPro on it without any issues. Anyway, this new one gains speed with faster quad-channel RAM, faster CPU options and a better GPU. RAM is 20% better, CPU is about 10-15% better, GPU is faster and actually supports CUDA... The ATI 6970 in the previous iMac does provide acceleration for FCPX and is one of the non-CUDA cards extended to in Premiere CS6, but you will get a bit more out of this 680MX.
 
Trevor Emmerson said:
Ouch.. $1560 for the 768GB SSD here in Australia, $1300 US. Was keen for no spinning media but looks to me like the 3TB Fusion drive might be the way to go.
Click to expand...

Yeah, realistic tipping point towards SSDs rather than HDs is still another year or two away, across the board. It'll happen, and SSDs are certainly doable now, but it can be quite a hit to your wallet.

By all accounts I've read, the Fusion drive works as advertised, so it's not a bad option for the time being. But! Make sure youo back up REGULARLY. The Fusion drive is 2 drives mounted as one. If one drive fails mechanically (or electronically), then you probably lose the entire volume. Since you should be backing up anyway, this shouldn't be a problem, but it's crucial here more than ever.
 
Just popped for the 27" with the max GPU, and a 3TB fusion drive. What apple wants for an SSD is robbery.

8gb of ram from Apple, then I'll swap that out for 32 from Ram Jet. Not paying 600 dollars vs sub 300 from RJ.
 
I'm thinking about dumping several 2008 Mac Pros for the new 27" iMac. I already have Kona cards and Fibre cards in the towers. Is there enough bandwidth in one thunderbolt port to put both a Kona 3 and an Atto FC-41es into a Sonnet Echo Express Pro, or would I want to run them on different thunderbolt ports?
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Yeah, I'm not wild about the pricing... Ouch on several of the upgrades.

@Paul - the 2GB GPU is definitely the way to go. The system should be noticeably snappier all around compared to the 2011 iMac. I also have a maxed-out 2011 iMac -- it's essentially our home/family computer, but I use it quite a bit and the kids are cutting RED and GoPro on it without any issues. Anyway, this new one gains speed with faster quad-channel RAM, faster CPU options and a better GPU. RAM is 20% better, CPU is about 10-15% better, GPU is faster and actually supports CUDA... The ATI 6970 in the previous iMac does provide acceleration for FCPX and is one of the non-CUDA cards extended to in Premiere CS6, but you will get a bit more out of this 680MX.
Click to expand...

thanks for that info...benchmarks are trickling out and it seems like the 10-15% speed increase is right on......
problem is i really need something portable as well.....so i might have to go with a retina right now and maybe see how the mac pros look like in spring....
how will the retina (maxed out 2.7) compare to my 2011 3.4 maxed out for fcpx and redcine?
 
A retina MBP will be comparable to that iMac. The newer CPU is faster per clock with better RAM, so it makes up for most of the MHz difference. I really like my rMBP, the screen is nice and sharp and the flash storage is FAST. Only complaint I have is that I wish I could have 32GB RAM because there are times the 16GB feels cramped. You also gain the USB3 that the 2011 iMac doesn't have.
 
I'm wondering, if the HDD is replaceable (using a similar sort of method to the previous generation iMacs), would it make sense to get the basic 1TB drive, then switch it out for your own SSD (saving the cost of the crazy expensive 768Gb version Apple offers)?

I figure an SSD internally to run the OS and Applications, with a thunderbolt enclosure for external RAID would be a nice rapid-fire setup.
 
Well I just ordered the 27" with 3.4Ghz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo boost up to 3.9Ghz, 3TB Serial ATA Drive, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB graphics card, and USB SuperDrive. Then from Other World Computing I ordered 32GB of RAM, and a Mini Display to Mini Display cable. My thought was to use my 2009 27" iMac i7 as a second monitor, and then to attach a Thunderbolt RAID setup off one Thunderbolt port, and drive my Panasonic BT-LH2600W monitor via Matrox MX02LE off the second Thunderbolt port. My older MacPro will then be moved into secondary use position.
 
I ordered a maxed out 27.. Which ram is better, crucial or jet?
 
Worthy

Following test with MBP (r) added Just two Seagate backup Plus 3TB Stripped (US$125 each, 7200 rpm) via Seagate thunderbolt adopter (US$150 each) and I getting this .. wooooorks for me

(Will replace witth OCZ Technology 1 TB, once price is in favor)

263706_10151535950368084_995942900_n.jpg
 
I appreciate the effort James, but I bought a 27" which has easy access to the RAM. Very different than this.
 
Kwan Khan said:
Following test with MBP (r) added Just two Seagate backup Plus 3TB Stripped (US$125 each, 7200 rpm) via Seagate thunderbolt adopter (US$150 each) and I getting this .. wooooorks for me

(
Click to expand...

So I'm guessing you are using a pair of Seagate Thunderbolt adapters, and then using a pair of 3TB drives as RAID 0?
 
If I get a maxed out 27'' iMac with 3TB fusion drive what kind of playback would I get for 4k files if I put the media on that fusion drive? What kind of render speeds? What about transcoding 4K to prores?
 
Playback speeds from the 3TB Fusion drive will be the same as any ordinary 3TB hard drive. The fusion drive is a combined hard drive with companion SSD and the the OS migrates your OS and most commonly used apps (and data if there is still room) over to the SSD portion to speed up loading of the OS and apps. I seem to recall seeing that the SSD portion was 128GB in size. So if you're like me, even my most trim workstation configs, still take 200+GB to fit all my regularly used apps, so I wouldn't even get all my apps onto the SSD portion.

The way I look at it, the Fusion drive is still a useful tool and would be the way I'd go if I were buying a new iMac this time around. The 768GB Flash option is the better choice, but I think Apple has it priced too high. If you have the budget, go for it, but that's a tough nut to swallow. I think I'd go for the cheaper Fusion drive or even just a plain HDD option and see what other options come along. While opening up the iMac will technically void your AppleCare, I don't know how they would ever know. And if you ever took it in for service where an Apple tech opens it and they have record of that, then you could certainly open it up all you wanted after that point and no one would ever question.

OWC and others will undoubtedly have SSD upgrades for these new iMacs at some point in the near future. 6Gbps 1TB SSDs are about to drop from most makers, some have already launched and they're about the same price the 512GB SSDs were a year ago. So, for less than the 768GB flash option Apple has, you can have more storage that's about the same speed. As I understand it, there should be a single 3.5" drive bay inside the new 27", only a 2.5" bay inside the 21.5" model. The 27" gives us some more options with the larger bay, but it's still a single 6Gbps SATA connection. The system's EFI firmware (and OSX storage driver) look for the augmented thermal sensor on the drive. It's not proprietary to Apple, but not all drives on the market have this and the system will run the fans at 100% all the time if the proper sensor is not present. Most SSD products actually don't have thermal monitoring and send out a negatory signal for the sensor data, which the system should understand -- the 2011 iMacs do fine with that.

I think I'd personally order the new iMac with the Fusion drive and look to swap it out myself later if I end up thinking I need to. At that point, I'd probably look to a 1TB OCZ Vertex 5 or the upcoming 1TB Samsung model. It will also be advantageous to wait for iFixIt or OWC to do their testing and let us know which drive or SSD models will work in case there are any gotcha's. I like tinkering and figuring this stuff out too, but sometimes it's nice to let others do it when you know for sure they will. :)


...The 768GB flash model will also be a standard config from Apple Stores and retailers like B&H. As supply catches up to demand, one can probably order from another vendor at a lower discount. My local Apple Store gives business buyers a 10% discount on all system purchases, same as the educational discount. So considering that, the 768GB flash is a bit more palatable and I may be persuaded to go that route if I were buying. I keep mention I'm not buying this round. I'm actually very tempted, but I just don't need a new iMac right now. I have a maxed-out 2011 27" that works just fine. Sure, I'd like the USB3 and better GPU, faster RAM, etc.., but it's not my primary system by any means.


As for transcode and render speeds, I don't want to quote numbers until I can get my hands on the system. But it should fall around 15% faster than last year's iMac. The maxed out 27" here should, especially when connected to fast external storage, be faster than any current Mac Pro for most everything. The only place the Mac Pro will have an advantage is for apps that can use more than 32GB RAM and/or that can use more than 4 cores. Very few apps out there can use more than 4 CPU cores and fewer still that do it right, but Premiere does it well, so do most 3D rendering apps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top