I have to say these are pretty good specs, and the prices aren't insane when you compare that to PCs with similar specs.

I have to say these are pretty good specs, and the prices aren't insane when you compare that to PCs with similar specs.

Until you stop and consider they're not always upgradeable and can't be overclocked. The OC on an i5/i7 makes the difference between lasting 2 or 5 years without bottlenecking anything. I used a W3530 (Xeon version of i7 930) until January of this year because I ran it at between 4 and 4.4GHz. It would have been a bottleneck years ago if it was at stock.

Until you stop and consider they're not always upgradeable and can't be overclocked. The OC on an i5/i7 makes the difference between lasting 2 or 5 years without bottlenecking anything. I used a W3530 (Xeon version of i7 930) until January of this year because I ran it at between 4 and 4.4GHz. It would have been a bottleneck years ago if it was at stock.

All one in machines and laptops you generally do not overclock... Man, I want the new Pro! My Air is starting to feel a little insignificant now...:D

I have to say these are pretty good specs, and the prices aren't insane when you compare that to PCs with similar specs.

I think you're forgetting the fact that they have laptop hardware, not desktop.

I think you're forgetting the fact that they have laptop hardware, not desktop.

When have laptops stopped being PCs?

When have laptops stopped being PCs?

Don't think he's saying or even close to insinuating that...All he's saying is the iMac uses laptop class parts. Which is usually slower, and more expensive than desktop parts.

I have to say these are pretty good specs, and the prices aren't insane when you compare that to PCs with similar specs.

They aren't AS insane as they have been in the past, but I can still build a similar spec'd PC for way cheaper. Honestly I'd rather buy a Surface 3 than any Macbook.

I don't really get these responses. Regarding MacBook Pro 15 - non-Apple laptops with similar specs would have similar (or sometimes greater) price. Regarding that all-in-one - its price isn't that far from the cost of 27" 5k screen itself. Of course if we consider desktops and overclocking, it's starting to look quite different. With the amount of overclock my gaming rig has and the upgrades I've done, I can't really imagine how much I'd have to pay for iFruit counterparts. No, I'm not going to get any of them, only wanted to express that they don't seem to be overpriced any more. btw, Surface 3 Pro in i5/128GB flavor costs around $1300 over here and I don't really think it's worth it.

I don't really get these responses. Regarding MacBook Pro 15 - non-Apple laptops with similar specs would have similar (or sometimes greater) price. Regarding that all-in-one - its price isn't that far from the cost of 27" 5k screen itself. Of course if we consider desktops and overclocking, it's starting to look quite different. With the amount of overclock my gaming rig has and the upgrades I've done, I can't really imagine how much I'd have to pay for iFruit counterparts. No, I'm not going to get any of them, only wanted to express that they don't seem to be overpriced any more. btw, Surface 3 Pro in i5/128GB flavor costs around $1300 over here and I don't really think it's worth it.

This.

Don't think he's saying or even close to insinuating that...All he's saying is the iMac uses laptop class parts. Which is usually slower, and more expensive than desktop parts.

Exactly what I meant.

I don't really get these responses. Regarding MacBook Pro 15 - non-Apple laptops with similar specs would have similar (or sometimes greater) price. Regarding that all-in-one - its price isn't that far from the cost of 27" 5k screen itself. Of course if we consider desktops and overclocking, it's starting to look quite different. With the amount of overclock my gaming rig has and the upgrades I've done, I can't really imagine how much I'd have to pay for iFruit counterparts. No, I'm not going to get any of them, only wanted to express that they don't seem to be overpriced any more. btw, Surface 3 Pro in i5/128GB flavor costs around $1300 over here and I don't really think it's worth it.

4k IPS displays start at 500USD here in Romania and tech is more expensive here in general. Let's say you get a good one for 750. That's 1250USD left (targeting the 2kUSD base model) just for an i7. You joking? It's overpriced as hell. I paid less than 1250USD for an ASUS G551JM with far superior specs. Yes, I know it's a laptop, but you can't compare to desktop prices either. And yes, I know that screen is 5k and not 4k. For a fair price considering the specs, that screen should cost around 1400USD, which is ridiculous. They are simply taking advantage of the fact that there are few 5k screens available and, like DELL, are pushing prices into the astronomical segment. But it's going to be bought anyway, people love big numbers. 5k > 4k, even if 4k is perfectly fine. Hell, I'm sitting here happily on my 1080p panel. And sorry, but if you're talking about the Macbook with the Core M priced at 1300USD, that's ridiculous aswell. Look up ASUS Zenbook. Same specs bring you around 800USD iirc. But I think that Macbook was 11 or 13-inch, if we take the 15-inch i7 one which is 2500USD, I will gladly remind you that my G551JM costed less than half and is only slightly bigger. And excluding the GPU, they are same spec-wise. I'm excluding the GPU because you can't game on a MAC. If the G551 had no GPU, it would cost even less. Sorry man, Apple products ARE heavily overpriced. Maybe this iMac is not AS overpriced as Apple's prices in the past, but it's still overpriced.

Exactly what I meant. 4k IPS displays start at 500USD here in Romania and tech is more expensive here in general. Let's say you get a good one for 750. That's 1250USD left (targeting the 2kUSD base model) just for an i7. You joking? It's overpriced as hell. I paid less than 1250USD for an ASUS G551JM with far superior specs. Yes, I know it's a laptop, but you can't compare to desktop prices either. And yes, I know that screen is 5k and not 4k. For a fair price considering the specs, that screen should cost around 1400USD, which is ridiculous. They are simply taking advantage of the fact that there are few 5k screens available and, like DELL, are pushing prices into the astronomical segment. But it's going to be bought anyway, people love big numbers. 5k > 4k, even if 4k is perfectly fine. Hell, I'm sitting here happily on my 1080p panel. And sorry, but if you're talking about the Macbook with the Core M priced at 1300USD, that's ridiculous aswell. Look up ASUS Zenbook. Same specs bring you around 800USD iirc. But I think that Macbook was 11 or 13-inch, if we take the 15-inch i7 one which is 2500USD, I will gladly remind you that my G551JM costed less than half and is only slightly bigger. And excluding the GPU, they are same spec-wise. I'm excluding the GPU because you can't game on a MAC. If the G551 had no GPU, it would cost even less. Sorry man, Apple products ARE heavily overpriced. Maybe this iMac is not AS overpriced as Apple's prices in the past, but it's still overpriced.

I was referring to products from the original article and trying to compare apples to apples. (no pun intended) So well, 5k screens are stupidly expensive, and 5k iFruit is just a tiny bit more expensive than such monitor, at least compared to the prices from Poland. That has nothing to do with the fact that you can get 4k monitor way cheaper (and that's what I'd do - get a gaming PC, 4k screen and still have some money left). Similar with laptops - 13" MacBook is a joke, and I wouldn't buy or recommend it to anyone. Yet, while G551JM is a cool laptop, it's significantly heavier, thicker, and lacks high-dpi display. We'd have to wait for M370X benchmarks too. It doesn't make ASUS laptop a bad choice, but we can't really compare them. My girlfriend has G751JT, which is a great gaming laptop with insane bang-for-buck ratio, but it weighs 2x more than MacBook Pro, putting it in different class. The closest thing I can think of is the new Razer Blade with QHD screen, which costs pretty much the same - $2.7k for 512GB option, but should offer better performance at a little smaller form factor. There's an offering from ASUS too - ROG G501JW - 16GB, highdpi, GeForce 960M, thin, light, etc, but also costs a lot. MSI GS60 which is unusable because of overheating, and Gigabyte Aorus, which is really thin and light, hgih-dpi, but also costs quite a bit. Again, I'm not arguing if you have to buy high-dpi light gaming laptop, but I'm arguing against comparing different classes.

Not bad specs for the Macbook pro. The mobile i5s are not bad CPUs many Apple users use them to edit and render videos. What makes no sense to me is from my understanding Mac OSX is OpenGL based so why did they go with an AMD based card in the MacBook pro? Since AMD has had not so great OpenGL support in the past. Or is AMD improving OpenGL? Also if anyone is going to purchase the MacBook pro with the intent of doing gaming on it then I would recommend at least getting the Quadcore i7 based one if there is going to be one.

Not bad specs for the Macbook pro. The mobile i5s are not bad CPUs many Apple users use them to edit and render videos. What makes no sense to me is from my understanding Mac OSX is OpenGL based so why did they go with an AMD based card in the MacBook pro? Since AMD has had not so great OpenGL support in the past. Or is AMD improving OpenGL? Also if anyone is going to purchase the MacBook pro with the intent of doing gaming on it then I would recommend at least getting the Quadcore i7 based one if there is going to be one.

AMD's OpenGL engine is improving a lot faster than Nvidia's for Mac Os X OpenGL performance. Nvidia does have CUDA which helps out a lot though. I had the choice of a 290x and the 970, I went with the 970 due to power requirements but if that were not the case then I would easily do the 290x. I'm more surprised they picked AMD over Nvidia even with Maxwell out with power concerns.

AMD's OpenGL engine is improving a lot faster than Nvidia's for Mac Os X OpenGL performance. Nvidia does have CUDA which helps out a lot though. I had the choice of a 290x and the 970, I went with the 970 due to power requirements but if that were not the case then I would easily do the 290x.

Ok. Thanks for the information.

Another thing I'll say and this is more a case with osx86 boxes and Mac Pro towers, Nvidia cards are a lot easier to install than AMD cards are. Pretty much it's plug and play with Nvidia cards. Nvidia is constantly updating their drivers for Os X, and their Open GL engine. Where as development for the Open GL engine for AMD gpus comes from Apple instead.

I was referring to products from the original article and trying to compare apples to apples. (no pun intended) So well, 5k screens are stupidly expensive, and 5k iFruit is just a tiny bit more expensive than such monitor, at least compared to the prices from Poland. That has nothing to do with the fact that you can get 4k monitor way cheaper (and that's what I'd do - get a gaming PC, 4k screen and still have some money left). Similar with laptops - 13" MacBook is a joke, and I wouldn't buy or recommend it to anyone. Yet, while G551JM is a cool laptop, it's significantly heavier, thicker, and lacks high-dpi display. We'd have to wait for M370X benchmarks too. It doesn't make ASUS laptop a bad choice, but we can't really compare them. My girlfriend has G751JT, which is a great gaming laptop with insane bang-for-buck ratio, but it weighs 2x more than MacBook Pro, putting it in different class. The closest thing I can think of is the new Razer Blade with QHD screen, which costs pretty much the same - $2.7k for 512GB option, but should offer better performance at a little smaller form factor. There's an offering from ASUS too - ROG G501JW - 16GB, highdpi, GeForce 960M, thin, light, etc, but also costs a lot. MSI GS60 which is unusable because of overheating, and Gigabyte Aorus, which is really thin and light, hgih-dpi, but also costs quite a bit. Again, I'm not arguing if you have to buy high-dpi light gaming laptop, but I'm arguing against comparing different classes.

Nono wait I was comparing the specs on the G551 to the iMac, not the Macbook. And purely in terms of hardware. My point was that they are indeed charging a lot for that screen, just like DELL does, and on top of that there's still a hefty price tag for the hardware aswell as far as I can figure. The Macbook is of course in a different class, where it has competitors like the Zenbook. That G501JW seems very interesting, and it's not that expensive if you compare to a macbook for example. And it's quite light as you said. Ps. haha love the iFruit GTA reference.

Nono wait I was comparing the specs on the G551 to the iMac, not the Macbook. And purely in terms of hardware. My point was that they are indeed charging a lot for that screen, just like DELL does

A "cheap" 27inch 5K screen without a computer already costs around 1650 €, the iMac is 800 € more. I'd say that it's not overpriced.

A "cheap" 27inch 5K screen without a computer already costs around 1650 €, the iMac is 800 € more. I'd say that it's not overpriced.

A pretty good 5k screen for HP is actually 1300$. But now that I think about it, it's pointless to speculate like this. It doesn't matter if they charge 1650EUR for the screen and the 800EUR difference for the hardware or vice-versa. The end-result is still an overpriced product since you can't exactly purchase one without the other.

The end-result is still an overpriced product since you can't exactly purchase one without the other.

I think that you haven't quite grasped what the concept of an All-in-One computers is.

I think that you haven't quite grasped what the concept of an All-in-One computers is.

I have actually. And I also know the term 'overpriced'. Usually seen when an 'Apple' logo is present, this being no exception. Are you sure you understood my statement correctly?