iMacs have always been the cheapest way to get a full-powered machine from Apple. Any cheaper, and you have a MacBook with an integrated graphics card, or a Mac mini, with a generally inferior everything. But with this recent Apple desktop update, Apple has evened the playing field at all price points, something that more than a few customers may be annoyed about.
Previously, all iMacs had a dedicated graphics card, the main power advantage over the similarly priced MacBooks. Now, that is no more. With the new iMacs, Apple has made it so no Mac under $2,000 has a dedicated graphics card. All MacBooks, Mac minis, and the $1,199 and $1,499 iMacs now use the integrated NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics processor. The other, more pricey iMacs use a dedicated card.
Especially in this economy, this move is an odd one from Apple, and a sneaky one as well. It is positioning the new iMacs as a significant increase in value, moving the 24″ version down a whole price point. However, by placing a laptop graphics card in a desktop computer, they somewhat negate that value increase. In fairness, I have not seen tests comparing the new integrated chips to the old dedicated ones. It is possible that they are indeed faster (and they have been no slouch in the MacBooks,) but I somehow doubt that integrated graphics can beat dedicated graphics at the same memory amount.
Product [iMac Tech Specs]
Adam,
Help me understand a couple of things. How is Apple making an odd move by giving consumers access to a 24" base level computer at a reasonable price? And why is it sneaky? They come right out and tell you what the specs are. It's not like Dell and HP don't sell base level desktops with integrated graphics chips. And let me educate you a little – the nVidia is a dedicated graphics chip that uses shared memory. That's signicifcantly different than an integrated chip from the old days.
Consider also the target market for the iMac – this is a basic household computer – not a gamer – not a video professional – but a computer for Mom and Dad and the kids, or Grandma (when you finally pry her hands off the old 486 Gateway she's been trying to make work for the last 8 years).
People who give a hoot about dedicated versus integrated graphics will not be looking at that version of the iMac – and guess what? There is a reasonably priced iMac w/ a 512 video card and 1 TB drive for those folks.
In a world where prices on everything seem to be rising – I'm pretty disappointed that you have to rail on Apple for actually giving someone access to an incredible machine for a pretty good price.
The best part of your article is that you admit that you've never used a Mac w/ the nVidia chip – nor have you EVEN SEEN THE COMPARISON TESTS!!
I'd be more surprised but, before I wrote this, I thought I'd try to find out a little more about you. Clicking your name reveals that you spend quiet a bit of time and energy writing peices for this site that are basically pessimistic or downright negative toward Apple. Let's sample some headlines:
- Why does Apple hate numbers?
- What happened to free apps on the App store?
- How the Safari 4 interface can be improved
- Apple take a huge step forward in Windows app design, step back on the Mac
- The new mac mini better have some amazing tech upgrades
etc etc.
Now I don't expect a kiss-up fanboy – and you certainly have every right to complain, or detail your problems w/ an application (even if its in beta) – but perhaps the next time you sit down to write one of these peices you (a) have some real experience or data to back up your complaint and (b) check yourself and see if you aren't taking a negative slant on things just so that you have something to write about.
Complaining about integrated graphics is a long standing tradition.
So few people (5% – my estimate) have any need for anything above the integrated graphics that it is pretty wasteful to include them in every computer.
So, besides gamers (not casual gamers) and video professionals, who benefits from a full on graphics card?
I have owned/used many a computer with integrated graphics and never once noticed that it had any effect.
My problem with it is this; the Mac Pro is now so dang powerful that it's overkill for anyone other than high end 3D video producers. The iMac is the all-encompassing computer. It's not just a basic household computer, it's the business option. It's the education option. And it's the option for the Mac user who wants a very powerful computer without going overboard (in power and budget). A lot of us do want the power of a dedicated GeForce GT or ATI card without having to pay nearly $2,000. There's obviously no BTO option to upgrade the GeForce 9400M on the $1,200 and $1,500 computers.
I agree that that makes sense on the low end model; you have to cut corners somewhere to get the computer that cheap. But from $1,500 up, there should be a better graphics processor (and obviously Apple knows it's better and necessary, or they wouldn't have put it in the higher end models, and they wouldn't have gone this long without it).
Plus, it's about lifespan. You buy a Mac with the belief that it's going to last you a few years, and I suspect it won't be long before games, especially, will contain the warning "Requires an NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 or higher."
I understand the iMac with a removable dedicated graphics card cannot be upgraded anyway, thus defeats the purpose.
iMacs have never been upgradeable. That's why it's best to have a good card in there to being with. I'm not saying the iMac will be slow or anywhere near unusable. The point of the article, which many of you seemed to overlook, is the fact that Apple has never used integrated/shared graphics in any iMac except for the $999 version, which they don't have anymore. By putting it into not just one, but TWO low-end models, it's questionable how much "better" these iMacs are relative to the price. I, for one, would like to get a nice graphics card for $1500.
I'd love to get a dedicated graphics card as well for $1500 – problem is – if you compare the iMac to other all-in-ones – none of them have it.
The Dell, Sony and HP offerings at the base level all rely on integrated graphics. Jumping up to the mid or high end gets you dedicated video – but only Dell goes as high as a 512 card.
I think that Apple's done a very good job of competitive positioning of their machine w/ other offerings.
Compare the new iMac with the old iMac. The old iMac had a dedicated card. New one doesn't. That's really all that matters is that that feature regressed.
I think the criticism is fair, though the 9400 is much faster than Intel's integrated graphics systems.
I'm a big Apple fan, but I'm starting to get a bit dismayed by Apple's stubborn reluctance to price competitively. And yes, I have checked Dell.com and HP.com and configured similar systems. Because that's the kind of nerd I am. Apple's MacBook tends to be $200 – 400 higher than a similarly configured PC. The Mac Pros and MacBook Pros have been roughly $300-600 higher. That's not insignificant.
Love Apple, weary of the high prices. I buy refurbished, which helps quite a bit.
Bot
Cheap Mac Fanbot
MicroZealous,
Normally I respond to the content of the article or to the comments, but this time I am responding to the style and quality of your writing.
What a wonderfully written response. You were forceful without being overbering, clear without being petty, and elaborative without being pedantic. Kudos to you.
Cheers, John
The GeForce 9400M performs somewhat better than the ATI Radeon 2400XT that used to inhabit the $1199 model. But it might not be quite up to par with the 2600PRO that was in the previous $1499 model.
While I agree that it would have been nice to see a better GPU in the $1499 model, it's not the 2600PRO was much to write home about either. I think most casual users (non-gamers) will welcome the 24" screen and not care about the slight drop in graphics performance, whereas serious users will go up to the GT120 or GT130-based iMac anyway.
I vaguely remember that Nvidia's latest cards are OpenCL compatible. So, when Snow Leopard ships, would that mean that this integrated Nvidia card, will have far more possibilities than the old discrete ATIs? Is that the other shoe that hasn't dropped?