Both of the 21.5 and 27-inch iMacs use SO-DIMMs, however the 27-inch model does allow for end user upgrades. Remove the power cable and there's a button that will pop out a little panel giving you access to the system's SO-DIMM slots. The 21.5-inch model needs to be taken apart to gain access to the memory slots unfortunately.

POST A COMMENT

23 Comments

View All Comments

  • dagamer34 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    My guess is we'll see updated Thunderbolt displays next year. Reply
  • EnzoFX - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    Did this newest one lose this functionality? Reply
  • coder543 - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    I'm curious too. Reply
  • frostyfiredude - Saturday, October 27, 2012 - link

    The old 21.5 does have the upgrade possible, sure is goofy that the new one doesn't. Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    This is the best value of anything that's come out of Apple today imho. The thinner design is nice, if not groundbreaking since they did remove a large optical drive and taper the edges a bit while the bulge in the middle remains. But in terms of performance per dollar for all in ones, the iMac was always pretty good and this keeps it there. 8GB as a baseline is a nice touch.

    Funny, their "new" hybrid SSD solution sounds just like Intels chipset supported SSD caching though.
    Reply
  • Kodongo - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - link

    I'm with you in thinking that the hybrid SSD is just a souped up version Intel's Rapid Store Technology. Reply
  • epobirs - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link

    It almost certainly has its origins there but Apple has made some interesting improvements on the concept that I'd hope Intel brings to the Windows world. (The new features may be Intel's 2.0 version and Apple paid for a period of exclusivity on it before it shows up elsewhere, ala Thunderbolt.)

    Because it operates at the file level rather than the sector level, it can be smarter about not having duplicate copies of items on both drives. So you get the full combined capacity of the two drives rather than having the SSD capacity be invisible tot he user. So, rather than a 1 TB drive with an SSD cache, you get a 1.2 GB drive that offers two performance levels depending on how frequently a file is accessed.

    This will hopefully be less flaky than the SRT setups I've tried to use.
    Reply
  • Zoomer - Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - link

    Yeah, more like ZFS. Reply
  • tookitogo - Friday, November 30, 2012 - link

    That's incorrect, it's not file-level. It operates on Core Storage blocks. (Which aren't the same as drive blocks, by the way.) Reply
  • web2dot0 - Saturday, October 27, 2012 - link

    Who cares if it's a "souped up" version of RST. The question is, is it better than RST and better than other implementations out in the market.

    That's the bottom line.

    Looks like their approach is sound and very interesting. If things go well, we are looking at a major breakthru in this whole "SSD caching" scheme.

    Vast majority of consumers are still running 5400pm or 7200rpm on their PCs/MACs.
    Imagine their disbelieve when they go to the Apple Store and see the iMac with Fusion drive in action with Ivy CPU. No brainer upgrade.

    A average consumer will be blown away by the speed increase that power users have enjoyed over the last few years. It may actually find SSD a practical on the desktop that all competitors have failed to do so with any mass deployment scenario.

    So to diminish Apple's accomplishments is petty and makes you look like sad.

    Let's see what the reviewers say and let the market speak before dismiss it as a after thought.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now