This is about as low for specs as they can get for Apple. Old & slow notebook processor + old & slow notebook hard drive + notebook ram. This is lowest price laptop material (which usually don't go *above* $500), priced at $1000 starting! LOL. Parts cost here is probably $150 aside from the screen.
I don't think anyone, especially anyone in education or business should ever consider using this product. You may as well get an intel NUC and get better or equivalent performance than even the $500 laptop with a much smaller footprint.
Given the tray price of an i5-4260U (according to ark.intel) is $315, I'm skeptical of your $150 mark. Even if they're double the actual price, we're still over your silly limit.
LOL yet another advertisement run for Apple by Anandtech. 20 bucks says this "article" was pre screened by an Apple rep.
People in internet land…. examine the BIAS in every article you read nowadays.. the internet is quickly becoming one giant commercial....don't let sites like AnandTech make you a fool.
and I quote :
"the new 21.5" iMac is a new way to access Apple's desktop ecosystem at a lower price than Apple's more powerful solutions without having to go with an older Sandy Bridge based hardware platform"
"It still includes the 1920x1080 IPS display which was found to perform quite favorably,"
LOL.
If apple desktop price metric is what this article seems to be favouring the “new" iMac for.... Ok, then... let’s have a look:
ANY quad core mac mini, which can be bought refurbished from Apple from $500 to $800
WILL ABSOLUTELY SMOKE the "new" 1099 imac in every department except wifi and maybe a few fps in graphics. Everything else will be a benchmark and real world performance SLAUGHTER in favour of the mini.
I mean not not even close…. in productivity, encoding or even web browsing for that matter.
the 2.6 mac mini quad core is still one of the highest performing systems apple ever built… with the exception of grpahics…. but anyone purchasing a budget system is not concerned with gaming FPS.
Furthermore,
The pricing for the old mini leaves 300 or MORE for DUAL 24" 1080p or GREATER monitors that can follow you to your next system upgrade...whereas the iMac display will need to be repurchased.
Anand, ill sum this article up for you before Apple PR had a look:
“Apple didn't upgrade the non retina 1080p display, replaced the internals with the cheapest hardware they had on hand and then slapped an 1100 dollar price tag on it.
That said, we here at AnandTech think you should buy this new product because we own a lot of Apple stock."
Hows that for Bias? *cough* ...the truth... *cough*
Really, Apple.
I thought new models were supposed to be an upgrade from the old one, this isnt even a sidestep...
I get that pretty much every tech company has its fanboys and its haters who are prone to posting idiotic comments on Internet forums, but the quality of the comments in this thread is for the most part downright appalling. (Thanks for taking the time to post your nonsense thrice, dsumanik.)
The new low end iMac is actually a very interesting move by Apple, because it marks the first time they have ever used a mobile CPU instead of a desktop one in an iMac. This required a new logic board layout due to the move to a single FCBGA multi-chip package for the CPU and PCH, and soldered LPDDR3 DRAM instead of SODIMM slots. I can only imagine that this will not be a one-off, and we can expect more of the same when the Broadwell based iMacs are unveiled.
While Apple may focus on maintaining higher ASP's and margins than other PC OEMs, factoring the "Apple Tax" by only considering two specs is asinine. This $1099 iMac comes with:
• an Intel Core i5-4260U CPU (dual-core + Hyper-Threading and GT3 graphics, i.e. aside from clocks, a top-of-the-line U-series die with a $315 tray price) • 8 GB of 1600 MHz LPDDR3 memory (which going by Geekbench actually has a slight performance advantage over the memory in the 8 GB Core i5-4570R models) • 2 Thunderbolt ports (Intel DSL3510L "Cactus Ridge" 4-channel controller) • Gigabit Ethernet and SDXC card reader with UHS-I support (Broadcom BCM57765) • dual-band, 3x3:3, 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac Wi-Fi and Bluetooth 4.0 with Bluetooth LE (Broadcom BCM94360CD module) • Cirrus Logic CS4206B audio codec, dual Analog Devices SSM3302 20 W amplifiers and stereo speakers • 720p USB webcam with Vimicro VC0359 ISP and dual microphones • a rather well calibrated, 21.5-inch, 1920x1080, IPS display with bonded cover glass. • a Bluetooth wireless keyboard and multi-touch mouse which list for $138 if purchased separately • Latest versions of OS X, iLife and iWork
The $599 mini (of which the latest iterations are actually IVB, not SNB as stated in the original post) has a slightly faster i5-3210M CPU, slower HD 4000 graphics, only 4 GB of DDR3 SDRAM, a single Thunderbolt / miniDP++ port, gains a FireWire 800 port, lacks ac Wi-Fi, only has one dinky little speaker, has an IR receiver, yet comes with no webcam, microphone, display, keyboard or mouse. And although the mini has lower idle power consumption, it actually draws more at max load without a display than the new low-end iMac does. If you wanted to add back in all the features of the iMac which the mini leaves out, you'd end up spending just as much if not more, and you sure as heck wouldn't end up with an all-in-one that can be pulled out of the box and plugged in via a single cable.
Also note that the $1099 iMac has 1 TB HDD, 1 TB HDD + 128 GB PCIe SSD (Fusion Drive), and 256 GB PCIe SSD storage options for an additional $50 - $250. While you could potentially roll your own upgrade with the mini for perhaps a little bit less money, you'll never manage to achieve the same performance as those PCIe 2.0 x2 SSD modules provide.
Comparing the mid 2014 iMac to other PCs, you'd have to be pretty ignorant to not comprehend that Apple generally uses higher quality / more expensive components, materials and manufacturing processes than much of the competition, and also spends a lot more time and money engineering their systems. Whether any of this is of value to a given consumer is entirely up to that individual, though, and it seems that many commenters here only value the biggest GHz's and GB's for the least possible $$$. Making purchases based solely on the price tag and a few prominently advertised specs is generally a sure-fire recipe for getting hammered when it comes to TCO. Go ahead and buy the cheapest inkjet printer you can find at a big box store and see how it works out for you over time. Whether this iMac is a better value than some other product in the long run will be entirely situation dependent, but being a Mac, it will likely depreciate at a much slower rate than other brands.
"But in an office environment or in schools the performance reductions may not be much of a concern when the computers are needed for simple web browsing and working with documents."
I'll never, ever, ever, take my kids to a school where they use $1000 computers to browse the internet and create word documents.
Agreed! Either the parent is getting royally ripped off, or the school has a huge issue with it's financial priorities. While i was in my last years at school (2005/2006) the computers in my boarding house were HP pentium 3 beige POS, that did their job just fine. You could type and browse to your hearts content. If you wanted something with more oomph, for lets say slightly less academic purposes, then you bought your own.
You've got a very valid point there. But as a student, can also say that good computer equipment creates interest in computers for children. You won't need an $1099 iMac, but giving them Windows XP won't really spark any interest.
A valid argument, from one person, and as one person, i can say it did nothing. When i was younger, i broke my wrist at school, and was given one of those crazy plastic apple looking apple touchscreen laptops. It was well above and beyond the normal computers in the it facility, but those comparatively obsolete pc's inspired my interest in computers more than the fancy apple laptop did. There was so much we could do on the pc's, there was very little i could do with my absurdly more expensive apple toy.
I've met apple users, most can't give a reason why it is better other than it is. I'd rather kids get interested in p's due to their versatility than apple products because of their image which is alas mostly the case, just take a look at the school ipad programs, they have little to do with real learning.
I think it's a reference to the eMate Newton OS product. Lovely device, but really not a good comparison to the differences between a Windows PC and an iMac running OS X. I can think of a dozen reasons why I'd prefer my kid to be using OS X and the bundled apps.
For schools it's a total-cost-of-ownership thing. Don't pass judgement until you understand all the associated costs. Windows PC's are not as cheap as you think they are.
Total cost of ownership is much higher on iMacs. You have to change both the PC and the monitor at the same time. Given that monitors last much longer, this is a huge added cost. Also, out of warranty repairs are much more expensive.
I do not say that iMacs break more often than other PCs (they use the same type of components such as CPU, hard drive, RAM). But when they do it's more expensive to repair/replace.
At some point this school will have to replace its iMacs. And it will be expensive to replace the integrated monitors which will probably still work great. All this because of a stupid IT decision to buy All In One PCs.
Well, I don't think either of us has made a compelling TCO argument. You say an iMac has the same components as a PC, yet is more expensive to repair. Perhaps. I know this new one has fewer pieces - like most consumer items now, there's just a couple of replaceable parts.
If I bought a monitor 8 years ago, would it have displayport or hdmi? Probably not. I do want to reuse monitors - but this summer I have to buy 50 hdmi to vga adapters to reuse old monitors with new systems. Adding those extra components lowers reliability which increases TCO.
But TCO includes many things. You can set up an iMac with just one cable - for power. There's less to go wrong. It uses low power - laptop - components. Less electricity, less heat. Perhaps cooler, so it lasts longer. Etc.
Total cost of ownership includes labor, software, setup, maintenance, power, etc. Windows PC's are much higher maintenance. Especially with software licensing even at educational discount. The iMacs tend to hold up better too over time than traditional $500 Dell's. Replacing an iMac image takes minutes unlike PC's. Security, apps, and all functions can easily be controlled by one Mac mini server which anyone can administer.
You are forgetting: a SSD instead of a slow 5400 RPM hard drive. I can not see myself working on a laptop or PC without an SSD anymore. So anything but the most expensive iMac's are out of the question.
Everyone says that Chromebooks and PCs are replacing cheap Windows laptops, but they are a very strong competitor to Apple too. Just 1 year ago I would recommend Macbook Air or iMac if they want trouble free computing. These days I tell people (with simple needs) to save their money and get a Chromebooks or Chrome pc instead.
Except it doesn't. The MBA won't run at 2.4GHz for extended times due to battery and thermal constraints, so by default the iMac will be about 70% faster; even more so if the 2.7GHz Turbo mode is available for single threaded applications. Also, the iMac sports an IPS screen, and a similar 23" model from ViewSonic is going to cost about $279 MSRP. You're not saving any money if you get the $900 base MBA here. Your ghetto iMac would cost $78 more.
However crappy macbook thermal is, MBA can handle 15W TDP just fine. And remember this one has 21" IPS panel. Last year I got dell 21" IPS monitor at $110.
TDP 15W would suggest at max load the battery of an 11" MBA would only run for 2.5 hours or less (the CPU alone would suggest a max of 2.5 hours). Anand has seen with a similar 2013 MBA about 4h under heavy usage. So while the MBA would be capable of seeing similar performance assuming the cooling is sufficient, it won't by dint of battery constraints. If you're doing desktop class stuff that boosts the CPU to 2.4GHz regularly, you will in fact not have to run for the mains two or three times a day (rather, you will always be on the mains!)
Also currently Dell's 20" IPS monitor is $199, their 23" is on sale for $189.
Well yes, but you have to factor in the cost of a fusion drive/SSD for any of these :)
Think this new model with a fusion drive works out roughly equal cost wise to the old starter model with a hard drive, and I'd definitely rather have the former. The mini just seems a bit neglected although it did at least get a modest price cut. (Not sure if that was UK or universal?).
It's legitimate to ask why you would buy one of these instead of an Air... I have an Air and I love it but I would expect way more performance from a desktop class computer... and with an mechanical drive this will be even slower.
This seems like a pretty brazen attempt to fleece schools and lower end consumers out of their money for a computer with an Apple logo on it
Your Air has a battery so cannot expect to run at 2.4GHz for any extended period of time. The iMac is also less thermally constrained, so you should see a 70% performance improvement over the base Air.
Also, the screen is 21", or about twice as big, IPS, so a good deal better viewing angle and brightness, and is 1080p, significantly higher resolution over the base MBA.
A laptop can be plugged into power and work for an extended period of time like it has been pointed out to you several times and just like many, many enterprise companies use laptops instead of desktops as workstations. Guess what? They do the exact same thing, they use this thing called a power plug. Look it up some time.
1.4Ghz base clock for a large desktop is pretty anemic. I wonder if they would be better served with AMD APUs, since battery life is not a concern and they have plenty of thermal dissipation.
I disagree. Often the tower can be either under the table or under the monitor. Anyway the volume of a PC tower in a classroom isn't worth the difference between an iMac and a PC.
Last time I saw iMacs in a classroom, there were 2 computer labs. One with PCs, and one with much more expensive iMacs. They also bought $50 external USB floppy drives because they were still used by many students. The Macs ended up being used only when the PC lab was full.
The CPU in the $1099 iMac is MORE EXPENSIVE than the one in the $1299 iMac! ($315 for the dual-core/HD5000 model vs. $255 for the quad-core/Iris Pro 5200 model.) And the move from a 1 TB hard drive to a 500 GB hard drive CERTAINLY doesn't save $260!
I know Apple gets quantity discounts, but I don't think any amount of quantity discount would reduce the dual-core chip to be cheaper than the quad-core chip. Unless it's actually using a heretofore-unannounced higher-power version of the i5-4260U that Intel is dumping to Apple dirt cheap?
Yeah, this move doesn't make financial sense, either to Apple or to the consumer.
You are right, it makes very little sense to put an expensive low power CPU in a iMac which is always connected to an outlet.
We all know that Apple buys processors in huge quantities. It could well be that the Macbook Air's are selling below estimations and the got a few million i5-4260U left in stock which they can get rid off this way.
its an oem only cpu so the single purchase price for it is pretty much "whatever we felt like writing down - as long as its high enough to be too expensive"
The oem purchase price is a different story on the other hand :)
You're forgetting that the $315 for the i5-4620U includes the PCH. The Z77 that Apple uses in conjunction with the i5-4570R has a $48 tray price. That still makes the combo in the cheaper iMac $12 more expensive, but there could be savings elsewhere. I'm thinking of whatever contract price Apple may have struck for LPDDR3, for instance.
We need SSD. This is 2014 and 2015 Apple needs to get rid of HDD for good. Or Offer both. But the new price range is great. It seems there is something in the pipeline.
If you looks at the MBA 13, you get 4GB more RAM, HDD instead of SSD and much larger and better IPS screen. I guess the margin for this iMac will be slimmer then MBA 13, but at least Apple gets to reuse as much component as possible.
LOL yet another advertisement run for Apple by Anandtech. 20 bucks says this "article" was pre screened by an Apple rep.
People in internet land…. examine the BIAS in every article you read nowadays.. the internet is quickly becoming one giant commercial....don't let sites like AnandTech make you a fool.
and I quote :
"the new 21.5" iMac is a new way to access Apple's desktop ecosystem at a lower price than Apple's more powerful solutions without having to go with an older Sandy Bridge based hardware platform"
"It still includes the 1920x1080 IPS display which was found to perform quite favorably,"
LOL.
If apple desktop price metric is what this article seems to be favouring the “new" iMac for.... Ok, then... let’s have a look:
ANY quad core mac mini, which can be bought refurbished from Apple from $500 to $800
WILL ABSOLUTELY SMOKE the "new" 1099 imac in every department except wifi and maybe a few fps in graphics. Everything else will be a benchmark and real world performance SLAUGHTER in favour of the mini.
I mean not not even close…. in productivity, encoding or even web browsing for that matter.
the 2.6 mac mini quad core is still one of the highest performing systems apple ever built… with the exception of grpahics…. but anyone purchasing a budget system is not concerned with gaming FPS.
Furthermore,
The pricing for the old mini leaves 300 or MORE for DUAL 24" 1080p or GREATER monitors that can follow you to your next system upgrade...whereas the iMac display will need to be repurchased.
Anand, ill sum this article up for you before Apple PR had a look:
“Apple didn't upgrade the non retina 1080p display, replaced the internals with the cheapest hardware they had on hand and then slapped an 1100 dollar price tag on it.
That said, we here at AnandTech think you should buy this new product because we own a lot of Apple stock."
Hows that for Bias? *cough* ...the truth... *cough*
Really, Apple.
I thought new models were supposed to be an upgrade from the old one, this isnt even a sidestep...
WTH are you blabbering about? You are trying to compare two different product lines, and refurbished at that.
And Anandtech's post was making a comment on the new lower priced iMac to the more expensive iMac. Where do you get this weird assumption that they're biased against Mac Mini's?
Please include Apple wireless keyboard and track pad, speakers, dual mics, web cam, a significant upgrade in graphics, and another thunderbolt port in your price calculations.
LOL yet another advertisement run for Apple by Anandtech. 20 bucks says this "article" was pre screened by an Apple rep.
People in internet land…. examine the BIAS in every article you read nowadays.. the internet is quickly becoming one giant commercial....don't let sites like AnandTech make you a fool.
and I quote :
"the new 21.5" iMac is a new way to access Apple's desktop ecosystem at a lower price than Apple's more powerful solutions without having to go with an older Sandy Bridge based hardware platform"
"It still includes the 1920x1080 IPS display which was found to perform quite favorably,"
LOL.
If apple desktop price metric is what this article seems to be favouring the “new" iMac for.... Ok, then... let’s have a look:
ANY quad core mac mini, which can be bought refurbished from Apple from $500 to $800
WILL ABSOLUTELY SMOKE the "new" 1099 imac in every department except wifi and maybe a few fps in graphics. Everything else will be a benchmark and real world performance SLAUGHTER in favour of the mini.
I mean not not even close…. in productivity, encoding or even web browsing for that matter.
the 2.6 mac mini quad core is still one of the highest performing systems apple ever built… with the exception of grpahics…. but anyone purchasing a budget system is not concerned with gaming FPS.
Furthermore,
The pricing for the old mini leaves 300 or MORE for DUAL 24" 1080p or GREATER monitors that can follow you to your next system upgrade...whereas the iMac display will need to be repurchased.
Anand, ill sum this article up for you before Apple PR had a look:
“Apple didn't upgrade the non retina 1080p display, replaced the internals with the cheapest hardware they had on hand and then slapped an 1100 dollar price tag on it.
That said, we here at AnandTech think you should buy this new product because we own a lot of Apple stock."
Hows that for Bias? *cough* ...the truth... *cough*
Really, Apple.
I thought new models were supposed to be an upgrade from the old one, this isnt even a sidestep...
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
61 Comments
Back to Article
Tikcus9666 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
5400 rpm drives in 2014, I'd expect at least a hybrid SSHD solutiondesignerfx - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
This is about as low for specs as they can get for Apple. Old & slow notebook processor + old & slow notebook hard drive + notebook ram. This is lowest price laptop material (which usually don't go *above* $500), priced at $1000 starting! LOL. Parts cost here is probably $150 aside from the screen.I don't think anyone, especially anyone in education or business should ever consider using this product. You may as well get an intel NUC and get better or equivalent performance than even the $500 laptop with a much smaller footprint.
Drumsticks - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Given the tray price of an i5-4260U (according to ark.intel) is $315, I'm skeptical of your $150 mark. Even if they're double the actual price, we're still over your silly limit.Tegeril - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Apple pricing outrage is invulnerable to logic and facts, unfortunately :\euler007 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
It's a MSRP for a product sold exclusively to OEM, I trust it as much as MSRP on clothing.A desktop i5 processor with twice the base clock runs about 200$.
dsumanik - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
LOL yet another advertisement run for Apple by Anandtech. 20 bucks says this "article" was pre screened by an Apple rep.People in internet land…. examine the BIAS in every article you read nowadays.. the internet is quickly becoming one giant commercial....don't let sites like AnandTech make you a fool.
and I quote :
"the new 21.5" iMac is a new way to access Apple's desktop ecosystem at a lower price than Apple's more powerful solutions without having to go with an older Sandy Bridge based hardware platform"
"It still includes the 1920x1080 IPS display which was found to perform quite favorably,"
LOL.
If apple desktop price metric is what this article seems to be favouring the “new" iMac for.... Ok, then... let’s have a look:
ANY quad core mac mini, which can be bought refurbished from Apple from $500 to $800
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals...
WILL ABSOLUTELY SMOKE the "new" 1099 imac in every department except wifi and maybe a few fps in graphics. Everything else will be a benchmark and real world performance SLAUGHTER in favour of the mini.
I mean not not even close…. in productivity, encoding or even web browsing for that matter.
the 2.6 mac mini quad core is still one of the highest performing systems apple ever built… with the exception of grpahics…. but anyone purchasing a budget system is not concerned with gaming FPS.
Furthermore,
The pricing for the old mini leaves 300 or MORE for DUAL 24" 1080p or GREATER monitors that can follow you to your next system upgrade...whereas the iMac display will need to be repurchased.
Anand, ill sum this article up for you before Apple PR had a look:
“Apple didn't upgrade the non retina 1080p display, replaced the internals with the cheapest hardware they had on hand and then slapped an 1100 dollar price tag on it.
That said, we here at AnandTech think you should buy this new product because we own a lot of Apple stock."
Hows that for Bias? *cough* ...the truth... *cough*
Really, Apple.
I thought new models were supposed to be an upgrade from the old one, this isnt even a sidestep...
Where’s the magic Tim cook?
Wolfpup - Friday, June 20, 2014 - link
It's a new product from a prominent tech company. They're not spending 50 pages on it for crying out loud.I WANT this article, I WANT articles from other PC makers when they release new products.
repoman27 - Saturday, June 21, 2014 - link
I get that pretty much every tech company has its fanboys and its haters who are prone to posting idiotic comments on Internet forums, but the quality of the comments in this thread is for the most part downright appalling. (Thanks for taking the time to post your nonsense thrice, dsumanik.)The new low end iMac is actually a very interesting move by Apple, because it marks the first time they have ever used a mobile CPU instead of a desktop one in an iMac. This required a new logic board layout due to the move to a single FCBGA multi-chip package for the CPU and PCH, and soldered LPDDR3 DRAM instead of SODIMM slots. I can only imagine that this will not be a one-off, and we can expect more of the same when the Broadwell based iMacs are unveiled.
While Apple may focus on maintaining higher ASP's and margins than other PC OEMs, factoring the "Apple Tax" by only considering two specs is asinine. This $1099 iMac comes with:
• an Intel Core i5-4260U CPU (dual-core + Hyper-Threading and GT3 graphics, i.e. aside from clocks, a top-of-the-line U-series die with a $315 tray price)
• 8 GB of 1600 MHz LPDDR3 memory (which going by Geekbench actually has a slight performance advantage over the memory in the 8 GB Core i5-4570R models)
• 2 Thunderbolt ports (Intel DSL3510L "Cactus Ridge" 4-channel controller)
• Gigabit Ethernet and SDXC card reader with UHS-I support (Broadcom BCM57765)
• dual-band, 3x3:3, 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac Wi-Fi and Bluetooth 4.0 with Bluetooth LE (Broadcom BCM94360CD module)
• Cirrus Logic CS4206B audio codec, dual Analog Devices SSM3302 20 W amplifiers and stereo speakers
• 720p USB webcam with Vimicro VC0359 ISP and dual microphones
• a rather well calibrated, 21.5-inch, 1920x1080, IPS display with bonded cover glass.
• a Bluetooth wireless keyboard and multi-touch mouse which list for $138 if purchased separately
• Latest versions of OS X, iLife and iWork
The $599 mini (of which the latest iterations are actually IVB, not SNB as stated in the original post) has a slightly faster i5-3210M CPU, slower HD 4000 graphics, only 4 GB of DDR3 SDRAM, a single Thunderbolt / miniDP++ port, gains a FireWire 800 port, lacks ac Wi-Fi, only has one dinky little speaker, has an IR receiver, yet comes with no webcam, microphone, display, keyboard or mouse. And although the mini has lower idle power consumption, it actually draws more at max load without a display than the new low-end iMac does. If you wanted to add back in all the features of the iMac which the mini leaves out, you'd end up spending just as much if not more, and you sure as heck wouldn't end up with an all-in-one that can be pulled out of the box and plugged in via a single cable.
Also note that the $1099 iMac has 1 TB HDD, 1 TB HDD + 128 GB PCIe SSD (Fusion Drive), and 256 GB PCIe SSD storage options for an additional $50 - $250. While you could potentially roll your own upgrade with the mini for perhaps a little bit less money, you'll never manage to achieve the same performance as those PCIe 2.0 x2 SSD modules provide.
Comparing the mid 2014 iMac to other PCs, you'd have to be pretty ignorant to not comprehend that Apple generally uses higher quality / more expensive components, materials and manufacturing processes than much of the competition, and also spends a lot more time and money engineering their systems. Whether any of this is of value to a given consumer is entirely up to that individual, though, and it seems that many commenters here only value the biggest GHz's and GB's for the least possible $$$. Making purchases based solely on the price tag and a few prominently advertised specs is generally a sure-fire recipe for getting hammered when it comes to TCO. Go ahead and buy the cheapest inkjet printer you can find at a big box store and see how it works out for you over time. Whether this iMac is a better value than some other product in the long run will be entirely situation dependent, but being a Mac, it will likely depreciate at a much slower rate than other brands.
RavenMoon - Tuesday, September 2, 2014 - link
For US currency, the $ sign goes before the number. ;)nathanddrews - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Yeah, WTFFor that price, you should get a 2GB 850M or 775M, SSD + 2TB drive, and an i7.
So are the 27" iMacs not getting updated with 4K displays like all the rumors suggested?
apertotes - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
"But in an office environment or in schools the performance reductions may not be much of a concern when the computers are needed for simple web browsing and working with documents."I'll never, ever, ever, take my kids to a school where they use $1000 computers to browse the internet and create word documents.
hughlle - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Agreed! Either the parent is getting royally ripped off, or the school has a huge issue with it's financial priorities. While i was in my last years at school (2005/2006) the computers in my boarding house were HP pentium 3 beige POS, that did their job just fine. You could type and browse to your hearts content. If you wanted something with more oomph, for lets say slightly less academic purposes, then you bought your own.val1s - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Total cost of ownership is a big concern with education markets. At my college there were 1-2 people for a few hundred macs.Frozenlight - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
You've got a very valid point there. But as a student, can also say that good computer equipment creates interest in computers for children. You won't need an $1099 iMac, but giving them Windows XP won't really spark any interest.hughlle - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
A valid argument, from one person, and as one person, i can say it did nothing. When i was younger, i broke my wrist at school, and was given one of those crazy plastic apple looking apple touchscreen laptops. It was well above and beyond the normal computers in the it facility, but those comparatively obsolete pc's inspired my interest in computers more than the fancy apple laptop did. There was so much we could do on the pc's, there was very little i could do with my absurdly more expensive apple toy.I've met apple users, most can't give a reason why it is better other than it is. I'd rather kids get interested in p's due to their versatility than apple products because of their image which is alas mostly the case, just take a look at the school ipad programs, they have little to do with real learning.
Tegeril - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
When did Apple make a touch screen laptop?Sharl - Saturday, June 21, 2014 - link
I think it's a reference to the eMate Newton OS product. Lovely device, but really not a good comparison to the differences between a Windows PC and an iMac running OS X. I can think of a dozen reasons why I'd prefer my kid to be using OS X and the bundled apps.TEAMSWITCHER - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
For schools it's a total-cost-of-ownership thing. Don't pass judgement until you understand all the associated costs. Windows PC's are not as cheap as you think they are.danbob999 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Total cost of ownership is much higher on iMacs. You have to change both the PC and the monitor at the same time. Given that monitors last much longer, this is a huge added cost. Also, out of warranty repairs are much more expensive.sligett - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Well, the 2006 (white) iMacs are still going strong in schools I work with. Eight years, and no repairs for most of them.danbob999 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
I do not say that iMacs break more often than other PCs (they use the same type of components such as CPU, hard drive, RAM). But when they do it's more expensive to repair/replace.At some point this school will have to replace its iMacs. And it will be expensive to replace the integrated monitors which will probably still work great. All this because of a stupid IT decision to buy All In One PCs.
sligett - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link
Well, I don't think either of us has made a compelling TCO argument. You say an iMac has the same components as a PC, yet is more expensive to repair. Perhaps. I know this new one has fewer pieces - like most consumer items now, there's just a couple of replaceable parts.If I bought a monitor 8 years ago, would it have displayport or hdmi? Probably not. I do want to reuse monitors - but this summer I have to buy 50 hdmi to vga adapters to reuse old monitors with new systems. Adding those extra components lowers reliability which increases TCO.
But TCO includes many things. You can set up an iMac with just one cable - for power. There's less to go wrong. It uses low power - laptop - components. Less electricity, less heat. Perhaps cooler, so it lasts longer. Etc.
Dug - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Total cost of ownership includes labor, software, setup, maintenance, power, etc.Windows PC's are much higher maintenance. Especially with software licensing even at educational discount. The iMacs tend to hold up better too over time than traditional $500 Dell's.
Replacing an iMac image takes minutes unlike PC's. Security, apps, and all functions can easily be controlled by one Mac mini server which anyone can administer.
nerd1 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
For reference, LG Chrome AIO computer has the same screen (21.5" 1080p IPS), celeron U processor and costs $329. Yes and it is maintenance-free.janderk - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
You are forgetting: a SSD instead of a slow 5400 RPM hard drive. I can not see myself working on a laptop or PC without an SSD anymore. So anything but the most expensive iMac's are out of the question.Everyone says that Chromebooks and PCs are replacing cheap Windows laptops, but they are a very strong competitor to Apple too. Just 1 year ago I would recommend Macbook Air or iMac if they want trouble free computing. These days I tell people (with simple needs) to save their money and get a Chromebooks or Chrome pc instead.
nerd1 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
MBA CPU plus 5400rpm mechanical HDD. Match made in heaven. And $1099.tipoo - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Really, it just makes the MBA look like a better value. Get the base model with the same CPU as this, get a monitor, presto, ghetto iMac.michael2k - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Except it doesn't. The MBA won't run at 2.4GHz for extended times due to battery and thermal constraints, so by default the iMac will be about 70% faster; even more so if the 2.7GHz Turbo mode is available for single threaded applications. Also, the iMac sports an IPS screen, and a similar 23" model from ViewSonic is going to cost about $279 MSRP. You're not saving any money if you get the $900 base MBA here. Your ghetto iMac would cost $78 more.nerd1 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
However crappy macbook thermal is, MBA can handle 15W TDP just fine.And remember this one has 21" IPS panel. Last year I got dell 21" IPS monitor at $110.
michael2k - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
TDP 15W would suggest at max load the battery of an 11" MBA would only run for 2.5 hours or less (the CPU alone would suggest a max of 2.5 hours). Anand has seen with a similar 2013 MBA about 4h under heavy usage. So while the MBA would be capable of seeing similar performance assuming the cooling is sufficient, it won't by dint of battery constraints. If you're doing desktop class stuff that boosts the CPU to 2.4GHz regularly, you will in fact not have to run for the mains two or three times a day (rather, you will always be on the mains!)Also currently Dell's 20" IPS monitor is $199, their 23" is on sale for $189.
tipoo - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
70% faster? Check the review, the MBA has no problem staying at turbo for a long time.tipoo - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Also the real iMac has a shit 5400rpm drive, not even a hybrid.Qwertilot - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Well yes, but you have to factor in the cost of a fusion drive/SSD for any of these :)Think this new model with a fusion drive works out roughly equal cost wise to the old starter model with a hard drive, and I'd definitely rather have the former. The mini just seems a bit neglected although it did at least get a modest price cut.
(Not sure if that was UK or universal?).
nerd1 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Fusion drive is a joke as well. You can just get 500GB SSD around $250 nowadays.michael2k - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Sure, for several hours before the battery runs out.madmilk - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
So plug it into a wall?Alexey291 - Saturday, June 21, 2014 - link
So I guess a wall plug is a device you've never heard of? Especially since we're comparing it to something that's ALWAYS plugged in...Jasconius - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
It's legitimate to ask why you would buy one of these instead of an Air... I have an Air and I love it but I would expect way more performance from a desktop class computer... and with an mechanical drive this will be even slower.This seems like a pretty brazen attempt to fleece schools and lower end consumers out of their money for a computer with an Apple logo on it
michael2k - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Your Air has a battery so cannot expect to run at 2.4GHz for any extended period of time. The iMac is also less thermally constrained, so you should see a 70% performance improvement over the base Air.Also, the screen is 21", or about twice as big, IPS, so a good deal better viewing angle and brightness, and is 1080p, significantly higher resolution over the base MBA.
nerd1 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
IPS monitors are dirt cheap. I got a 21" dell one at $110 from bestbuy last year.And of course you can plug in the power to MBA.
iwod - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link
e-IPS?sigmatau - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link
A laptop can be plugged into power and work for an extended period of time like it has been pointed out to you several times and just like many, many enterprise companies use laptops instead of desktops as workstations. Guess what? They do the exact same thing, they use this thing called a power plug. Look it up some time.tipoo - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
1.4Ghz base clock for a large desktop is pretty anemic. I wonder if they would be better served with AMD APUs, since battery life is not a concern and they have plenty of thermal dissipation.michael2k - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Since battery life and thermal dissipation isn't a concern, as you point out, the part should normally run at 2.4GHz all the time.makken - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
I was just about convinced that the "Apple Tax" has been eliminated, but then these things have to show up and remind us that the tax is not a myth.I built a far superior system for the same price 2 years ago (i5 3570k, 16GB ram, 128GB SSD + 2x 1TB HDD, 27" 1440p IPS display)
danbob999 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Agreed. Also most people buying iMacs do not lack space and would be better served with a stand alone tower + monitor.sligett - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Many if not most iMacs are in schools, and space *is* a concern. A NUC or Mac Mini may be a better choice, but not a tower.danbob999 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
I disagree. Often the tower can be either under the table or under the monitor.Anyway the volume of a PC tower in a classroom isn't worth the difference between an iMac and a PC.
danbob999 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Last time I saw iMacs in a classroom, there were 2 computer labs. One with PCs, and one with much more expensive iMacs. They also bought $50 external USB floppy drives because they were still used by many students.The Macs ended up being used only when the PC lab was full.
zero2dash - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
Form over function is and always has been Apple's MO.Pay more for less, who cares what's on the inside as long as the outside is shiny and thin.
nevertell - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
What's with the weird currency rates ? 899£ is a hell of a lot more than 1099$.MartinT - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link
The UK has stopped companies from playing the game of 'pretend there are no taxes', so prices including 20% VAT explain part of the difference.CharonPDX - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
I truly don't get this.The CPU in the $1099 iMac is MORE EXPENSIVE than the one in the $1299 iMac! ($315 for the dual-core/HD5000 model vs. $255 for the quad-core/Iris Pro 5200 model.) And the move from a 1 TB hard drive to a 500 GB hard drive CERTAINLY doesn't save $260!
I know Apple gets quantity discounts, but I don't think any amount of quantity discount would reduce the dual-core chip to be cheaper than the quad-core chip. Unless it's actually using a heretofore-unannounced higher-power version of the i5-4260U that Intel is dumping to Apple dirt cheap?
Yeah, this move doesn't make financial sense, either to Apple or to the consumer.
janderk - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link
You are right, it makes very little sense to put an expensive low power CPU in a iMac which is always connected to an outlet.We all know that Apple buys processors in huge quantities. It could well be that the Macbook Air's are selling below estimations and the got a few million i5-4260U left in stock which they can get rid off this way.
Alexey291 - Saturday, June 21, 2014 - link
its an oem only cpu so the single purchase price for it is pretty much "whatever we felt like writing down - as long as its high enough to be too expensive"The oem purchase price is a different story on the other hand :)
repoman27 - Saturday, June 21, 2014 - link
You're forgetting that the $315 for the i5-4620U includes the PCH. The Z77 that Apple uses in conjunction with the i5-4570R has a $48 tray price. That still makes the combo in the cheaper iMac $12 more expensive, but there could be savings elsewhere. I'm thinking of whatever contract price Apple may have struck for LPDDR3, for instance.iwod - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
We need SSD. This is 2014 and 2015 Apple needs to get rid of HDD for good. Or Offer both.But the new price range is great. It seems there is something in the pipeline.
If you looks at the MBA 13, you get 4GB more RAM, HDD instead of SSD and much larger and better IPS screen. I guess the margin for this iMac will be slimmer then MBA 13, but at least Apple gets to reuse as much component as possible.
dsumanik - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
LOL yet another advertisement run for Apple by Anandtech. 20 bucks says this "article" was pre screened by an Apple rep.People in internet land…. examine the BIAS in every article you read nowadays.. the internet is quickly becoming one giant commercial....don't let sites like AnandTech make you a fool.
and I quote :
"the new 21.5" iMac is a new way to access Apple's desktop ecosystem at a lower price than Apple's more powerful solutions without having to go with an older Sandy Bridge based hardware platform"
"It still includes the 1920x1080 IPS display which was found to perform quite favorably,"
LOL.
If apple desktop price metric is what this article seems to be favouring the “new" iMac for.... Ok, then... let’s have a look:
ANY quad core mac mini, which can be bought refurbished from Apple from $500 to $800
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals...
WILL ABSOLUTELY SMOKE the "new" 1099 imac in every department except wifi and maybe a few fps in graphics. Everything else will be a benchmark and real world performance SLAUGHTER in favour of the mini.
I mean not not even close…. in productivity, encoding or even web browsing for that matter.
the 2.6 mac mini quad core is still one of the highest performing systems apple ever built… with the exception of grpahics…. but anyone purchasing a budget system is not concerned with gaming FPS.
Furthermore,
The pricing for the old mini leaves 300 or MORE for DUAL 24" 1080p or GREATER monitors that can follow you to your next system upgrade...whereas the iMac display will need to be repurchased.
Anand, ill sum this article up for you before Apple PR had a look:
“Apple didn't upgrade the non retina 1080p display, replaced the internals with the cheapest hardware they had on hand and then slapped an 1100 dollar price tag on it.
That said, we here at AnandTech think you should buy this new product because we own a lot of Apple stock."
Hows that for Bias? *cough* ...the truth... *cough*
Really, Apple.
I thought new models were supposed to be an upgrade from the old one, this isnt even a sidestep...
Where’s the magic Tim cook?
Dug - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link
WTH are you blabbering about?You are trying to compare two different product lines, and refurbished at that.
And Anandtech's post was making a comment on the new lower priced iMac to the more expensive iMac. Where do you get this weird assumption that they're biased against Mac Mini's?
Please include Apple wireless keyboard and track pad, speakers, dual mics, web cam, a significant upgrade in graphics, and another thunderbolt port in your price calculations.
dsumanik - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link
LOL yet another advertisement run for Apple by Anandtech. 20 bucks says this "article" was pre screened by an Apple rep.People in internet land…. examine the BIAS in every article you read nowadays.. the internet is quickly becoming one giant commercial....don't let sites like AnandTech make you a fool.
and I quote :
"the new 21.5" iMac is a new way to access Apple's desktop ecosystem at a lower price than Apple's more powerful solutions without having to go with an older Sandy Bridge based hardware platform"
"It still includes the 1920x1080 IPS display which was found to perform quite favorably,"
LOL.
If apple desktop price metric is what this article seems to be favouring the “new" iMac for.... Ok, then... let’s have a look:
ANY quad core mac mini, which can be bought refurbished from Apple from $500 to $800
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals...
WILL ABSOLUTELY SMOKE the "new" 1099 imac in every department except wifi and maybe a few fps in graphics. Everything else will be a benchmark and real world performance SLAUGHTER in favour of the mini.
I mean not not even close…. in productivity, encoding or even web browsing for that matter.
the 2.6 mac mini quad core is still one of the highest performing systems apple ever built… with the exception of grpahics…. but anyone purchasing a budget system is not concerned with gaming FPS.
Furthermore,
The pricing for the old mini leaves 300 or MORE for DUAL 24" 1080p or GREATER monitors that can follow you to your next system upgrade...whereas the iMac display will need to be repurchased.
Anand, ill sum this article up for you before Apple PR had a look:
“Apple didn't upgrade the non retina 1080p display, replaced the internals with the cheapest hardware they had on hand and then slapped an 1100 dollar price tag on it.
That said, we here at AnandTech think you should buy this new product because we own a lot of Apple stock."
Hows that for Bias? *cough* ...the truth... *cough*
Really, Apple.
I thought new models were supposed to be an upgrade from the old one, this isnt even a sidestep...
Where’s the magic Tim cook?
zainichia - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link
Hi guys, just wanted to share this link: http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2014/06/imac-perfo...The benchmarks and accompanying comments give some important insights with regards to this discussion, i think