Deals: Get Apple's 512GB 27-Inch iMac for Lowest Price of $1,699.99 ($299 Off)

I bought an iMac with 6 GB of RAM, 1 TB of storage, and 2 cores at 2.4 GHz for $2000.

It's remarkable how little Macs have improved over the last 14 years, because I bought that computer in 2007.

I think people give Intel too much crap for the limited improvement.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]

[TD]2007 iMac for $2000[/TD]
[TD]2021 iMac for $2000[/TD]
[TD]% Change[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Memory[/TD]
[TD]6 GB[/TD]
[TD]8 GB[/TD]
[TD]33% Improvement[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Storage[/TD]
[TD]1 TB[/TD]
[TD]512 GB[/TD]
[TD]50% Worse[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Compute[/TD]
[TD]2 x 2.4 = 4.8[/TD]
[TD]6 x 3.3 = 20[/TD]
[TD]316% Improvement[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Moore's Law says that today's iMac should be 2^(14/2) = 128x better, so yeah, by that metric, the compute hasn't improved by anywhere near as much as it should, but really? We want to blame Intel for how minor the improvements have been?

It seems you are equating GHz to performance. As you might say, that does not compute.

Note that a mid-2009 iMac with "2 x 2.3" gets a Geekbench 5 score of 547.
The mid-2020 "6 x 3.3" model you mention here gets a Geekbench 5 score of 6100.

People do not store as much of their data on their computers anymore.
A 2007 HDD and a 2020 SSD are also different in terms of speed and reliability.

I'm pretty sure you can get a used 2007 iMac for $100 if you really feel there isn't much improvement.

I bought an iMac with 6 GB of RAM, 1 TB of storage, and 2 cores at 2.4 GHz for $2000.

It's remarkable how little Macs have improved over the last 14 years, because I bought that computer in 2007.

I think people give Intel too much crap for the limited improvement.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]

[TD]2007 iMac for $2000[/TD]
[TD]2021 iMac for $2000[/TD]
[TD]% Change[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Memory[/TD]
[TD]6 GB[/TD]
[TD]8 GB[/TD]
[TD]33% Improvement[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Storage[/TD]
[TD]1 TB[/TD]
[TD]512 GB[/TD]
[TD]50% Worse[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Compute[/TD]
[TD]2 x 2.4 = 4.8[/TD]
[TD]6 x 3.3 = 20[/TD]
[TD]316% Improvement[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Moore's Law says that today's iMac should be 2^(14/2) = 128x better, so yeah, by that metric, the compute hasn't improved by anywhere near as much as it should, but really? We want to blame Intel for how minor the improvements have been?

Before I had the 2007 iMac, I had a 2002 eMac.


[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]

[TD]2002 eMac[/TD]
[TD]2007 iMac[/TD]
[TD]x Change[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cost[/TD]
[TD]$800[/TD]
[TD]$2000[/TD]
[TD]2.5x[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Memory[/TD]
[TD]256 MB[/TD]
[TD]6 GB[/TD]
[TD]24x[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Storage[/TD]
[TD]60 GB[/TD]
[TD]1 TB[/TD]
[TD]17x[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Compute[/TD]
[TD]1 x 800 MHz = .8[/TD]
[TD]2 x 2.4 = 4.8[/TD]
[TD]6x[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I realize I went from a budget model to a mid-tier model, but holy crap - across the board I got a computer that was many times better despite only being 5 years newer.

Such improvements just haven't happened since. It's not Intel's fault - Intel is doing way better than the other components. Memory and Storage just aren't improving like they used to...

Or maybe they are. I can buy comparable parts in much smaller form factors at much lower prices than before. See, for example, my Raspberry Pi. Maybe I should compare a current top end Raspberry Pi against the brand new iMacs...

The only way I would buy this is if it were an i9 with 1TB SSD, at least 16GB RAM, and costs $1499.

It's happening!
I guess new 27" is coming at WWDC for sure :)

You guess for sure? That's an oxymoron.

I'd choose this one over the new 24" M1 model

You guess for sure? That's an oxymoron.

It's definetely maybe :)