I agree, I don't think anyone should be opting for the base 21.5", unless money is a serious concern. With the education discount, the high-end 21.5" is $1399-great deal if you ask me.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
21.5" - 8GB or 16GB?
- Thread starter virginblue4
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree, I don't think anyone should be opting for the base 21.5", unless money is a serious concern. With the education discount, the high-end 21.5" is $1399-great deal if you ask me.
The superdrive was definitely an unreliable part, for sure, and for all optical drive related problems simply not having that internal optical drive meant less problems, but in terms of reliability with the rest of the computer it had a very little effect. The optical drives used were incredibly thin and took up practically no space as it stood. It was also not exactly a heat generating component compared to the gamer-laptop-PC style graphics board, or the 3.5" hard drive.
Plus they made it much thinner than the thickness of that drive, more than canceling out whatever effect simply having something in that area would take up. The 27" iMac doesn't appear to do much of anything to fix the heat issues; they have a similarly heat-generating video board, a similarly heat-generating 3.5" Hard drive, a similarly heat generating desktop CPU and desktop north and south bridge chipset chips. These generate heat. They removed the optical drive and replaced it with more thinness than it took up to begin with, so no, I'm not confident that they will have fixed the thermal issues with the 27" iMac. However, with the 21.5" iMac switching to 2.5" hard drives (5400RPM drives at that) thermals will go way down, similarly those machines don't appear to use the gamer-laptop PC boards that the 27" has used and still uses; so, laptop drive, laptop graphics, presumably laptop north and south bridge, the only real heat-generating thing to worry about is the CPU, which I think is still a desktop variant and not a mobile variant. Still though, that ought to not be a problem.
Screen issues I'll wait to form an opinion until they come out and not only I can see them, but others can review them and, most importantly, until the service bulletins on GSX indicate no known issues. Then I'll celebrate the improved screen.
It depends on what you do. If you're a gamer, then yes, the 256MB of VRAM will enable you to have run a greater number of games by the time it's naturally time to replace the computer. However, if you're a light user, then the ability to stay current with the OS is the single best way to future-proof it and five of the last six OS upgrades have doubled the minimum RAM requirement. The only reason why this one didn't was because it wasn't that large of an update in terms of features that required more RAM; unusual for Apple. They only kicked out ATI Radeon X1xxx cards, the NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT, and the Intel GMA 950/X3100 cards because there were no 64-bit OS X drivers for them and there wasn't ever going to be, and given that Mountain Lion abandoned the older 32-bit kernel in favor of only having the 64-bit kernel (Lion and Snow Leopard both had both kernels where Leopard only had the 32-bit and where Mountain Lion only has the 64-bit), so 64-bit drivers were needed. Otherwise, that's the only reason why video cards were an issue this time. Usually with OS upgrades, video cards have no bearing on minimum system requirements. Ultimately, if one is buying a 21.5" iMac, since they can't upgrade the RAM later and given that the RAM WILL correlate in some way or another to the maximum lifespan of the computer, it should be maxed at the time of purchase. Similarly, I would ALSO get the best video card offered as well as the best storage option (GeForce GT 650M and 1TB Fusion respectively) as those also can't be changed later. Though, history shows that RAM will affect the ability to run a new OS more than any other attribute save for generation (which is irrelevant to this discussion anyway).
Last edited:
Except that the OP did state that gaming was one task he wanted to do, in which case I feel a better cpu and the 650m will see benefits to him NOW rather than a POSSIBLE pay off 4-5 years down the track.
Why spend the extra money on something that MIGHT benefit you in a few years time, vs something that will benefit you today.
Ideally you would get the better CPU, GPU, RAM and a fusion drive but if the OP is talking about buying the base 21.5" it sounds like he is on a tight budget. So if all he can afford is a 21.5" with an upgrade to 16gb of ram, I still feel that going for a high end 21.5" with the base 8gb of ram would see him enjoy the compter more.
I'm looking at getting a new iMac with edu discount to upgrade from my current iMac 2GHz, 4Gb C2D Alu from 2007.
I've been been looking at 21.5" base at £937 and other 21.5" at £1099, now is the extra £136 worth it for minor but 2.5 to 2.7 and graphics 640 to 650, for me who is a basic iLife, surfing, iTunes, office, printing user?
I plan on casual/moderate gaming, which is why I'm considering the higher end 21.5" with the better graphics. I would definitely get the higher end model if you plan on using the machine for the next 4-5 years, so that way the performance can hold up as much as possible over time. I'm also maxing out the 21.5" with the i7 CPU, 16GB, and the 1 TB Fusion Drive.
First off, no one knows what Apple will charge for CTO options. Secondly, the OP said "some gaming" and I highly doubt that the difference between a GeForce GT 640M with 512MB of VRAM and a GeForce GT 650M GT with 512MB of VRAM. To be fair, the higher-end model should be considered regardless as the only drive option is the 5400RPM 2.5" 1TB drive, whereas on the higher-end model, he can elect to go with a Fusion Drive or an SSD, which more than any other upgrade will make everything (gaming included) faster. Third off, the $200 it'll likely cost more than pays off in terms of offering extra time in which the machine is viably useful. If the OP can't afford it, then the OP might as well save up until he can. A 21.5" iMac is a serious purchase; it's not like an iPod nano where you just make it spur of the moment with little worries that you made the wrong choice. You should buy it with confidence that the word "upgrade" will nary cross your mind in the next four years.
The reason to upgrade to the higher model isn't the GeForce GT 640 to GeForce GT 650 bump, or at least, it shouldn't be the main reason as it doesn't offer too much of a difference compared to the option of having something other than a 1TB 2.5" 5400RPM hard drive. The drives option is the reason to go with the higher-end model. Fusion or SSD drive, doesn't matter which, but one of the two of those in place of the 5400RPM 1TB drive in a DESKTOP is a must, even for casual use. You may buy the minimum for casual use, but even for casual use it will only last you so long. The more money you put into any computer purchase, the longer it will last you. But yeah, the graphics bump is nice; you will essentially have the same graphics power on the high-end 21.5" iMac as you do on the low-end 15" non-retina MacBook Pro, and if you're only playing so many games (it is a Mac after all), that's really not bad.
This, by the by, is the way to buy a 21.5" iMac, if the funds will allow. If it won't, then I'd say sacrifice the processor bump. RAM and boot drives make much more of a noticeable difference than processor these days, especially if you're upgrading from something old.
Can't argue with you on the SSD front. They are fantastic at improving a computers performance in so many areas.
Yeah, I'm considering getting one for my friend's 15" MacBook Pro "2.2/2.4"/"Mid 2007" generation because he's starting to complain about it being slow and I know that if properly upgraded, that machine will be just fine, but I'm not sure which one to get.
I swapped a 256GB Crucial M4 SSD for the HDD in my early 2008 MacBook Pro 2.4 GHz and it's zippy. Less than $200 for what feels like a brand new machine.
I suppose funds will allow, just don't tell the wife!
I like the idea of the fusion drive tbh, how much does everyone think the upgrade to a 1Tb fusion will be on the high end 21.5"?
For me to spend, the base, £937 is a lot (although hoping to sell my current iMac from 2007 for around £300-350), but as said, you may as well stretch a little more as can't upgrade later, and for me it will, hopefully, last me 5 years as my current one has
Well the things I'm not positive on is which flavor of SATA does the Mid 2007 have, what SSDs are available for that version of SATA, and if I have to go one version of SATA higher than what that MacBook Pro supports, will it work? NewEgg lists them as SATA II and SATA III and I've only followed it by the actual speed. Also, MacTracker is of the impression that the Mid 2007 and Early 2008 (and Late 2008 for the 17" for that matter) use 1.5Gbps, whereas the first few Unibody revs use 3Gbps and I want to make sure that's accurate before getting one.
My guess is that it will be exactly the same as it is on the higher-end Mac mini, if not extremely close in price, given that the hard drive being used in both cases is the same. Not sure about the SSD portion.
To be honest, purchasing the 21.5" model any other way would seriously be a waste of finances and time. I say go big or go home! i agree, RAM and Fusion Drive will take the computer a long way, but it's nice to splurge on a CPU upgrade if funds permit, never know when it might come in handy.
Didn't know Mac Mini had option of fusion. Just checked on UK store and to go from the included 1Tb standard HDD to a 1Tb fusion costs £200!!!
Wow that's expensive, didn't expect that much, not sure I want to spend that much just for a little faster, it's not even more storage space...
You're incorrect! Fusion drive is exponentially faster than the standard 5400 rpm drive, and also has the added benefit of capacity. Get it! It'll be worth the investment.
This is one of the threads I was talking about.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1483477/
Of course this is all conjecture at this point. But it seems apple, by only having one fan, must be pretty confident in their redesigned cooling system for these machines.
Well I can imagine it is faster, is there any benchmarks from the mini currently with/without the fusion?
Also the fusion is still 1Tb though isn't it? I thought it was seen as one drive?
I think it's a lot of money, £180 for the "same" Storage but faster, I can imagine the resale value will increase though.
Do you think they've used a 5400 for the heat, to create less of? Why have they not stuck with 7000 speed?
Buying a machine with no upgradeable RAM is one thing.
Getting it from Apple, who are notorious extortionists with RAM prices? If it were anyone else, I might consider such a machine. Buying said machine from them, I cannot justify. No matter how thin or pretty it is.
Seeing as how I'm a 27" dude, it won't be an issue. Still, this isn't a good trend. It could spread to other products in the line-up.
Getting it from Apple, who are notorious extortionists with RAM prices? If it were anyone else, I might consider such a machine. Buying said machine from them, I cannot justify. No matter how thin or pretty it is.
Seeing as how I'm a 27" dude, it won't be an issue. Still, this isn't a good trend. It could spread to other products in the line-up.
It's not "just for a little faster" it's for a LOT faster. The hard drive is the bottleneck component in any modern day system. Making it so that the hard drive in such a machine is only used for accessing the not-used-as-often-files speeds up the system dramatically and is well worth the 200 pounds.
They were pretty confident in their last design too. Look, it's really down to what components generate what kind of heat and what is changing from 2011 (as far back as late 2009) to 2012. In the 21.5" iMac, it seems like the whole thing (save for maybe the CPU) is scaled down to use laptop components, in which case, that machine may now finally have enough cooling to be as reliable as, say, the Mac mini. However, in the 27" iMac, the only thing that has changed was the removal of the optical drive (which wasn't that thick at all to begin with) (which, if anything should've been replaced with another fan), the removal of the optical drive fan, and a reduction in thickness that more than makes up for whatever benefit in heat dissipation the removal of those components could've provided. Otherwise, same repeat heat offenders in there and now they have less room for air to be dissipated through. Fine, they put in stuff to passively improve heat dissipation. Great. On something like an rMBP, that's fantastic and even necessary. On an iMac, something using mostly desktop components, that's just not enough. Apple needs to stop giving these things anorexia because they are desktops and desktops (a) needn't be thinner and (b) need room for airflow [(c) they should have easier/better expandability, but I feel like that's an argument that will be lost on most here].