Does the latest editions of the 21.5" and 27" iMacs have equally strong (weak?) speakers?
the niggers at apple won't disclose... why the fuck?
>>53692394
who cares?
The iMac is one of the worst computers you can buy today.
>>53692930
another retarded NEET/Arch user spouting his retarded opinion.
>>53692969
Regular old windows user. The iMac has one of the worst cost to performance ratios ever, has limited upgrades, is difficult to service, and was designed for running crappy OS X.
It's a meme system for casuals that don't know anything about computers. Are you including yourself in this group?
Anyone who actually "needs" a Mac will go ahead and get the Mac Pro, which is still a shit decision, but slightly less so.
>>53693004
>Regular old windows user.
stopped reading
Please stay in /v/
>>53692930
I care, you fucking retard?
I asked the question, did I not, you retard?
>>53693004
>Windows user with a superiority complex
o i am laffin
>>53693028
>linux users are retards
>windows users are gaymers
>apple is run by niggers
This queer just can't be pleased.
>>53693076
>using the same insult twice
It's not worth my time to 1 vs 1 you.
>>53692394
Apple usually invests in good speakers, look at iPhone, iPad Pro or Retina Macbook ... so just going by that, I take iMac has pretty decent ones at very worst. You could just google the question and check some reviews and Jewtube videos, you know.
>>53693004
You sure sound like a typical user. Performance is more than hardware for one. Also how much would a high end 4K screen cost? Try 5K for extra kek.
iMac is probably Apples best priced piece of hardware next to iPhone SE.
>>53693155
just wanted to consult the /g/angstas before looking at some tech video by some 2 inchy gook
If you're going to buy an Apple product, buy a rMBP. The other products are replaceable by computers which cost less and perform better. You could even buy yourself a decent computer that works well with hackintosh for that price. You'd be missing out on facetime and messages but that software is replaceable as well.
I built myself a $700 "gaming" computer, and while I'm pleased at its performance with games I ended up finding out that I could easily install this system. The only issue I have is RAM consumption where even browsing /g/ alone is about 3-4gb down the drain, but RAM is cheap and the system works as if those weren't really being used
>>53693155
The only 5k screen is 1.6k or so, the most affordable iMac is 1.8k. Try setting up a better computer with mouse and keyboard for 200 bucks.
>>53692394
Nigga do you see speakers on that thing?
>>53693076
Hello kido, how's midle school going ?
>>53693186
The question is, why would you buy a crappy computer with an excellent monitor
>>53693155
>Apple usually invests in good speakers, look at iPhone, iPad Pro or Retina Macbook ...
None of these have speakers.
Just a heads up, this is what speakers look like. (First google image search result for “speakers”)
>>53693182
>even browsing /g/ alone is about 3-4gb down the drain
If you're talking about OSX, it pretty much loads whatever it can into RAM, once you need to use it, it unloads it right away. My old ass Air with 4GB was more responsive than Win 10 desktop with 8GB ram. Both running with 50+ tabs.
>>53693186
>The only 5k screen is 1.6k or so, the most affordable iMac is 1.8k.
Resolution isn't the only thing that differentiates screens.
>what is gamut
>what is SCR
>what is depth
>what are viewing angles
>what is AG coating
>what is FRC
>what is contrast stability
>what are deviations
>what is response time
>what are framerates
>>53693188
They are under firing, so nope. Some people say they're good and shit. I want to know if they're stronger than 5W each, on both of them, and if the 27" has stronger ones.
>>53693215
I would suppose so
The only thing I noticed in regards to performance is that when it gets over 4GB I try to open a new tab and it takes like a second, but it does fine afterwards.
That is using Safari, I don't know about Chrome. But Safari doesn't choke with websites the way Chrome does on basically any operating system.
>>53693215
>If you're talking about OSX, it pretty much loads whatever it can into RAM, once you need to use it, it unloads it right away.
What you are describing is called file caching and every major OS has been doing this since the 1990s.
Well, apart from the /v/ faggots that disable it because “OH GOD IT'S USING UP ALL MY RAM WOW WINDOWS IS SO BLOATED”.
>>53693199
The iMac has built in stereo speakers you dense fuck
>>53693241
>Measuring speakers based on their ‘watts’ (whatever that means) and nothing else
Normie general
See >>53693199
>>53693262
Please stop calling shitty chirpers “speakers”, thanks.
Have you actually ever listened to a speaker in your life? Do you even know what subwoofer is?
>>53693155
>Also how much would a high end 4K screen cost?
About $500. Leaving you with $1700 to build your PC to match the highest spec'd iMac's performance. For that money you could far, -far- outpace the Mac.
If you want to go with a 5k monitor you will spend about $1000. Still $1300 to build your PC, and you can -still- go far past the Mac's abilities for this price. The Mac has a freaking i5 and a GPU with 2gb of VRAM in it.
>>53693198
More like a "decent" computer with excellent monitor.
>i5-6500
>fast 8GB ram
>alright 1TB HDD
>shitty mobile AMD gpu
>great keyboard
>great mouse
This is perfectly fine for most tasks and faster than a lot computers, and just for 200 bucks. Buying the hardware without keyboard/mouse would be already 400ish if not more.
And if you aren't a massive poorfag, you can upgrade to a somehow decent GPU and baller ass PCI SSD. Really, the only downside is the upgradebility but for the price the shit is almost gifted to you.
>>53693186
>The only 5k screen is 1.6k
You have at least googled that before posting
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1142990&gclid=CIiGwsKQ3ssCFdgKgQodrkcOJg&is=REG&ap=y&m=Y&c3api=1876%2C92051677802%2C&A=details&Q=
$1,097 for 5k from a reputable brand.
>>53693236
To be fair I believe the iMac monitor is pretty good in most of the categories.
>>53693311
As far as I can tell, there are no specifications published on it at all from Apple, and only vague independent reviews that are mostly from pro-Apple “journalism” sites.
>>53693268
I guess I am a 'normie' then. What are you, some kind of fucking loser? Have you never had sex with a human being or something?
>>53693289
Are the speakers good though?
>>53693004
>tfw posting from a 2006 Mac Pro right now
>tfw 2009 iMac on the floor behind me
>>53693327
>Are the speakers good though?
No, they're fucking terrible.
Drop 200€ on a pair of used bookshelves and an amp. Maybe another 200€ on a used sub if you can get your hands on something reputable.
You'll thank me later and never look back.
>>53693236
It's excellent at all of that. Just read sum fucking reviews.
>>53693280
We talk about top end screens, also real 4K, not the consumer trash at 16:9 and 3840 x 2160. Besides, highest spec is always retarded.
Also show dem 1k 5K monitors.
>>53693342
>Just read sum fucking reviews.
Please link me to an independent review site that presents measurement data on the displays. I am actually curious to know what kind of hardware they ship.
>>53693340
Do understand that I'm not some kind of audiophile/ connoisseur. I want to know if they are stronger than 2x5W.
>>53693289
>This is perfectly fine for most tasks
A $300 shitbox I built from used crap on ebay is fine for "most tasks" if your definition of most tasks if le facebooking and looking up porn or whatever pleb shit people usually get up to with a computer. You go beyond that this hardware will quickly begin to show it's weaknesses.
And your $200 number is pretty stupid since the cheapest 27" iMac is $1800. You can get a "mere" 4k monitor for $600, and spend the rest of the $1200 to build a killer PC.
>>53693330
The old Mac Pros were decent systems, a hell of a lot better than what Apple is putting out now. Still prefer my z800.
>>53693356
>Implying this is about audiofoolery
This is about basic physics. You can't get full range sound out of something that's so small you can't even see it.
We're not even talking about sound being “good” or “bad”, we're talking about it being *there*. Display speakers literally do not have the capacity to reproduce like half the frequency range that a typical audio recording, music or otherwise, uses.
>>53693304
Yap, only got some shitty Dell from Amazon.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9870/hp-z27q-monitor-review-aiming-for-more-pixels/6
Seems pretty ghetto though,
>Some additional options would be nice though, especially DCI/P3, if only because the gamut is likely covered by this display anyway, but there is no way to set the panel to that range.
>the backlight is uneven, dropping as high as 20%
>>53693382
I picked this Mac Pro up for $250. That's a steal of a price if you ask me, I couldn't pass the deal up. It's 'just' a 1,1 but it's a damn fine machine. I love it.
I have windows 7 installed on another drive in it.
>>53693384
You can see them.
>>53693355
> independent review site
What would you consider an independent review site? Do they have to call it gay every two paragraphs?
>>53693361
Yeah, a Skylake i5 will struggle so bad with Photoshop.
>You can get a "mere" 4k monitor for $600
16:9 are useless for work, how much is a real 4k screen? Also it should be compared to the cheaper 21.5 Mac, no?
>>53693342
>We talk about top end screens, also real 4K, not the consumer trash at 16:9 and 3840 x 2160
kek
ok, if you insist, have a look at this:
http://www.amazon.com/LG-Professional-International-Calibration-Compatible/dp/B00P26X572
$1400 for a 31" Real 4k monitor.
5k monitor for around $1000 is already mentioned in this post
>>53693304
>Besides, highest spec is always retarded.
Hey applefag, stop eating so much shit with your hands. It's killing your brain.
>>53693384
see
>>53693407
What intelligent thing can you say now?
>>53693397
It's always about the price. I would have done the same thing.
>>53693416
>16:9 are useless for work, how much is a real 4k screen?
Brother, if you can't get any work done on the space provided by a 27" 3840 x 2160 screen I think you're never going to.
>>53693433
1400 almost buys you 4K or 5K Mac, thanks for proving the point.
>5k monitor for around $1000 is already mentioned in this post
Since DCI-P3 is lost on you, there is also
>the backlight is uneven, dropping as high as 20%
>>53693460
You can get work done with 800x600 too, that doesn't mean it's practically useless.
>>53693470
Just for contrast, the reviewer here bitches about 10-14% difference.
>http://www.alphr.com/apple/apple-imac-1
Why dont they put a fucking antiglare glass on it?
Its 2016 already, corning has the technology since 2014.
Typical mac fag cares about the speakers on a $500 monitor over anything else.
>>53693470
The HP monitor supports 10-bit color / Adobe RGB. This is already a crazy wide color gamut, DCI-P3 is far into the realm of diminishing returns. I'll gladly exchange it for a reduction in price.
Backlight unevenness is a little high, but the Mac monitor isn't too great in that regard either.
>>53693525
It's 400+ fucking nits, unless you put some serious lamps against it, there is no fucking glare to worry about.
>>53693532
>10-bit color / Adobe RGB
Is pretty much standard on that level, well it took Apple quite a while to get to 10bit, but yeah.
> DCI-P3 is far into the realm of diminishing returns.
Depends on the work you're doing. And well, how relevant price and benefits/downsides of All in One are for you.
>Backlight unevenness is a little high, but the Mac monitor isn't too great in that regard either.
Yeah but there is a difference between "ugh 20%" and "non great 10-14%". Depending on the picture, the former can be noticed pretty easy.
>>53693470
$1400 buys you a 31" monitor, which is quite a lot bigger than 27". If Apple were selling a monitor that size it would cost $3000.
>>53693578
4K at 31" wouldn't even have that great of a PPI and get's into "bit big for a monitor" territory (and it you move it too far away, you lose precision). Besides, it still displays less information than 5K.
Besides, we're assuming it matches the quality of the iMac displays.
>>53693569
Actually, reading a little more about DCI-P3 it is not as wide as I originally had though it was. It's about in the same size range as Adobe RGB, only covering a little different part of the spectrum.
However, it is the colorspace used for digital cinema and endorsed by SEMPTE, so this is a small edge for the Apple monitor. But not one I would be willing to pay hundreds of dollars for since if I were doing the kind of work where this matters I'd be using a dedicated pro monitor anyway.
>>53693612
>we're assuming it matches the quality of the iMac displays.
Bruh, all the monitors in this thread look amazing. All the shit looks amazing these days.
>>53693155
>Try 5K for extra kek.
Doesn't Dell make a better one?
>>53693416
>What would you consider an independent review site?
One that reviews many different displays, not just apple products.
An example would be tftcentral.co.uk, which is pretty much the best display review site in existence.
>>53693407
You can? I can't. Where are the 7" woofers?
>>53693616
Well, it's 20-25% more if I recall it right, though obviously the number looks better than the actual benefit.
Even if we assume that the HP screen is identical, it leaves 800 bucks for a better PC. 600 if you want the Apple peripherals. Perfectly doable but if it's mainly for videos and photos, even base Mac is perfectly enough, if you slap a PCI SSD on it, let's say you don't want to do it yourself ... so 2k. In that case you have 1000/800 bucks for a better PC ... although PCI SSD even without Apple tax is close to 200. Another 200 for i5. About 150 for MB/RAM. Leaves you with 450/200 for case/PSU and better GPU. Still somehow doable in the "non Apple peripherals" version but it won't be that much better either.
>>53693638
If compared to TN 1080p cancer.
>>53693686
No idea if it's better but the Dell I found was 1.6k on Amazon, so it'd better be.
>>53693698
This applies to all of them though. Though it's indeed hard to get precise stats from most.
>http://www.alphr.com/apple/apple-imac-1
Pretty shitty writing but got at least some stats yo.
>>53693698
>You can? I can't. [funny remark]
k
>>53693778
>Colour accuracy is much improved on last year’s model, too. While the 2014 iMac achieved a Delta E of 1.8, this year sees that figure drop to 0.7. Flick between the iMac’s various preinstalled colour modes – sRGB, Adobe RGB, DCI-P3 – and you can expect a finely honed, colour-accurate performance whatever application you’re working in. The panel whips up 99.9% of the sRGB gamut, 86.1% of the Adobe RGB gamut and every corner of the DCI-P3 gamut, bar the most intense shades of blue and cyan.
Holy shit this article is terrible. And lol, that pretty much confirms it
>display is only sRGB gamut
That alone explains the price difference, it's not even wide gamut.
I could not see any other numbers that were even remotely reputable and/or noteworthy, except maybe:
>brightness reaches right up to a slightly silly 466cd/m2
Wow, that is WAY too fucking bright. Reference target is 120 cd/m2. I keep my displays at 50 cd/m2
>muh brightness war
>and contrast hits a ratio of 1,166:1, which is very good indeed.
They can't be serious, can they? That's actually pretty terrible as far as static contrast goes.
Jesus christ this article is garbage. I might a well not even consider it a review. Here, look at what a display review SHOULD look like: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg348q.htm
Now fuck off with your marketing crap.
>>53693686
>>53693814
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEjeVjq5irk
Still pretty lacking but seems like the Dell is bit better indeed. Only need to build a PC with keyboard and mouse for 500-200 bucks now.
>>53693268
>Do you even know what subwoofer is?
Have you ever listened to good speakers? A decent 3 way pair negates the need for a sub.
>every post about displays and bullshit/ meaningless fighting
The thread is about audio wattage. Should I take it, /g/ is hopeless at concentrating on the main topic?
>>53693983
>YouTube review
I don't even need to click on this to know that it won't be nearly as detailed, well-written or scientific as I'd expect from a proper review.
>>53694009
Even down to 30 Hz?
>>53694067
Yes. My homemade pair's low/mid drivers are rated for 20hz (I think, might be a bit less or more) definitely under 30 though.
>>53694131
>rated
Can you feel this file? http://nand.wakku.to/30.flac
