The 27-inch Apple iMac Review (2011)
by Anand Lal Shimpi on May 27, 2011 2:30 AM ESTFaceTime HD
Like the new MacBook Pros, the new iMac ships with a 1280 x 720 video/still camera mounted in the top bezel of the display. The FaceTime experience is pretty similar to what we saw on the MacBook Pro. The 720p video is encoded in real time (using Quick Sync) and sent at up to 2Mbps to its recipient. Image quality is pretty good assuming you have a well lit room and that you have the upload bandwidth to spare:
Photo Booth ships with the system and continues to capture at 640 x 480 by default. It's clear that Apple needs to do a better job of aligning updates to its software with its hardware release schedule.
Network Performance
Like the new 2011 MacBook Pros, the new iMac has an 802.11n WiFi adapter that supports up to three spatial streams. While Broadcom is responsible for the MacBook Pro hardware, Atheros provides WiFi in the iMac (at least for the 21.5-inch model).
As Brian correctly pointed out in our MacBook Pro review, Apple's Time Capsule and Airport Extreme have supported three spatial streams for a while - they just haven't had any clients that could use all three.
Each stream is good for up to 150Mbps, which brings the max negotiated speed of the new iMac up to 450Mbps:
In practice you get far less than that of course:
| 802.11n Network Performance Comparison | ||||
| 27-inch iMac (Mid 2011) | 15-inch MacBook Pro (Early 2011) | |||
| Peak Network Transfer Speed | 150Mbps | 133Mbps | ||
Not as tuned for low power consumption the new iMac actually achieves higher throughput than the MacBook Pro connected to the same Apple Time Capsule.
Range is also improved compared to the MacBook Pro's 3x3 implementation. I saw more APs available on the iMac, which isn't too surprising:
iMac WiFi  |
MacBook Pro WiFi  |
The benefits of better range and higher throughput are less important on a desktop, unless you're one of those people who carries your iMac to coffee shops (in which case, yay?).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
139 Comments
View All Comments
stm1185 - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
So basically to get rid of having a tower, which probably can take up floor space you don't use anyway, you get about $700 worth of desktop hardware and a $1000 monitor rolled into one at the price of $2000. Which does not seem that bad of a deal, except I could never see myself having a monitor that costs more then the computer used with it. It seems very backwards.For instance is the experience with having 2560x1440 resolution over 1920x1080 better then the experience that you get with $1600 worth of hardware over $700? I think I would say No.
MrBigglesw0rth - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
Did you stop to consider what youre going to get for that 900$ more hardware cost? The main thing would be an SSD, then double the RAM. After that, what? Better speakers? Another optical drive? Expensive headsets? Maybe $300+ for 15% better processing power? How about a new paintjob on your car?Dont be silly. The best investment would be something you look at constantly; the display. When youre looking at minimal computational gains over a vastly better viewing experience for 2-3 new computer builds to come.
Also, this isnt 1995 anymore. You can get 80% of the power for 20% of the cost. The largest cost in a good system today is a quality SSD and a quality screen, followed by the CPU, mobo/ram, etc.
aguilpa1 - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
Fine a display is important and that is why I have 3 of them at 5760x1080, 120Hz Alienware Optx23's but ONLY if the displays are independent of the system, meaning not built in whereby the computer becomes obsolete and then what??? How are you going to upgrade the motherboard on a proprietary and overpriced all in one? Proprietary junk will never be of great value no matter how pretty they are. It's been tried again and again.Keeping your old monitor that is still good to save money makes sense but not on an all in one unit. It never has and never will.
harshbarj - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
That is a good point! I have been running the same lcd now for 7 years and this is the 5th desktop to use this monitor. It was the first high end gaming 19 inch lcd on the market when I got it and even today it still looks great. Had I gone the imac way (which I would never as I play games) and bought an all in one, I would have needed to buy a new monitor with each new system.headbox - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
whatever. You can get a 23" widescreen display for barely over $100 now. You're just not in the crowd of people that can afford upgrades. All of these price criticisms always come from people that Apple doesn't market towards anyways: broke nerds. For MANY people, $2000 is not a big deal for a computer every 2 years (or less.)harshbarj - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link
Really? Best price on newegg is about $150 and that monitor is noticeably smaller in height than my 19 inch. Anyway why replace something that still works just fine? Seems kind of stupid to me!Also for MOST people $2000 is a big deal.
samirotiv - Saturday, May 28, 2011 - link
buddy, this is a 27 inch LED backlit IPS display. What you're talking about is a TN display.samirotiv - Saturday, May 28, 2011 - link
Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you. 2000USD is an investment. Some people have very basic performance needs, and can live with the same machine for 5 years. They value a good display, way more than a fast CPU. They attribute almost no importance to a GPU. A Mac takes almost no space, has almost no cables, no clutter. Some people value that.Besides, macs have a decent resale value too. But if I wanted a machine for myself, I wouldn't take a mac. I'd go for a custom built one.
utlragear - Monday, June 11, 2012 - link
Well it's not like blowing $2000 for an imac will get you major performance anyway. Apple only ships mdgrade hardware and it's always been that way. They pocket an extra $1000 off each isucker, and that can be PROVEN and broken down in itemized price lists. If one must, just build a PC for $700 that runs rings around an imac. Then hackintosh it and it will be faster than the one apple ships for $2000 by far. PROOF that they do exactly what I'm saying they do. But I can't see any reason to run an OS that is no better than win 7. If you want someone that has almost no cables get an ALL IN ONE PC. They are not like that because they are Macs. Macs are simply PC's anyway. There is NO value in it simply being apple. That statement will make some people mad, but sometimes when you break up someone's fantasies they also get mad.KoolAidMan1 - Sunday, May 29, 2011 - link
A 27" 2560x1440 IPS display with LED backlighting is going to cost a lot more than a 23" 1080p LCD with a TN panel.Shocking.