21.5" 4K 2017 iMac worth it or not?

[Sid The Kid]

Hello,

I know it's impossible to upgrade RAM in the 2017 21.5" 4K iMac without opening the iMac. But I would like to know why people who do not do stuff like gaming, music stuff, video editing, editing pictures... should upgrade RAM? Let's say you only use the iMac for normal everyday web browsing, YouTube, Facebook, emails... why would you need more RAM?

I read that RAM can still be exhausted or broke so maybe that's the reason? Apple can repair it someday no? Like THEY will tear the iMac apart and do the RAM stuff. I'm sure it's expensive but doable.

And I'm pretty sure the person should buy the high-end 21.5" iMac if he wants the 21.5"? What about the Radeon PRO 555 with 2GB video memory?

The top-of-the-range of 21.5" is the one with Radeon Pro 560 with 4GB video memory.

But the iMac with those specs:

• 3.4GHz quad-core 7th-generation Intel Core i5 processor, Turbo Boost up to 3.8GHz
• 16GB 2400MHz DDR4
• 512GB SSD
• Radeon Pro 560 with 4GB video memory

costs (with AppleCare Protection Plan + all taxes applied) 2993,95$

while the base model 5K display iMac with 3.4GHz quad-core 7th-gen Intel Core i5 processor, 8GB of RAM, 512GB SSD, Radeon Pro 570 with 4GB video memory will cost 3200$

Still strange to say that it's impossible to upgrade RAM (by user) in a almost 3K computer (21.5") while you can in the 27". And the difference of price is only 206$ between both.

Why would someone need to add more RAM? Maybe thinking long-term? Or in case it breaks? Still... Apple can repair it.

PRICES ARE IN CANADIAN DOLLAR

Thank you

 

[960design]

Apple has the baseline iMac 27", upgraded to 16GB of Ram for $1999US or about $2500CA without taxes and AppleCare pro plan.

I would recommend the 27" for just about anything.

I had the 21" 4k and it was great, but the 27" 5k is really amazing. Dual browser windows open 'full size' is pretty amazing. I use it for development, so the extra screen area is a must.

 

[kindaichi81]

Not worth it at all, baseline 27'" iMac has a better value.

 

[czacha]

You should buy 21.5'' only if you don't have enough room on your desk otherwise go with 27'' .. you can even stay with 8GB if you like

 

[294307]

If you don't need or want the extra screen space or don't have enough room on your desk for a 27-inch display, then a 21.5-inch iMac is a good option. Both 21.5-inch 4K and 27-inch 5K iMacs offer good performance so you won't be disappointed in that regard.

As you've mentioned, you can't upgrade the memory on a 21.5-inch iMac without the iMac being taken apart. If you find yourself needing more memory in the future, you will need to take it to an Apple Authorised Service Provider and that won't be a cheap upgrade. You'll be paying for both parts and labour - it could cost over $300 CAD. You could also do it yourself, but that comes at a risk of damaging the machine and/or voiding your warranty.

Apple's warranty is in addition to any legal rights you might have as a consumer in Canada. If Apple are required by law to repair products beyond the first year, then you can always make a claim with Apple under Canadian consumer law. It's rare for memory to just spontaneously fail, but in many parts of the world - such as the EU and Australia - companies can't just systematically refuse to repair goods after their one year limited warranty ends.

 

[robeddie]

I bought the 21.5 but with 16gb ram, which I consider kind of the bare min going forward, though currently, even with premiere pro edits I still don't use all 16gb, I DO use more than 8.

As to those who say get the baseline 27 inch, I do agree ... if the space is not a problem. For a couple extra hundred bucks, you get a better video card (though it could be argued that's a wash, since it has to drive a bunch more pixels than the 21.5 top end), and ram that can be much more easily, and affordably upgraded on your own.

 

[kindaichi81]

I bought the 21.5 but with 16gb ram, which I consider kind of the bare min going forward, though currently, even with premiere pro edits I still don't use all 16gb, I DO use more than 8.

As to those who say get the baseline 27 inch, I do agree ... if the space is not a problem. For a couple extra hundred bucks, you get a better video card (though it could be argued that's a wash, since it has to drive a bunch more pixels than the 21.5 top end), and ram that can be much more easily, and affordably upgraded on your own.

iMac 27" looks a lot nicer than the 21.5". better value for bucks for the money paid vs the spec get.

 

[lowkey]

iMac 27" looks a lot nicer than the 21.5". better value for bucks for the money paid vs the spec get.

i disagree. For me, using Cubase with live vst plugin fx and instruments, CPU is the most important factor. An i7 is necessary for that as Cubase [and Logic when i occasionally use it] are both multithreaded and make great use of the hyper threading.

Here in Australia it costs $2839 for the 21.5" 3.6 i7/16GB/1TB Fusion. The 27" 4.2 i7/16GB/1TB Fusion costs $3769. The 21.5" turbo boosts to 4.2GHz, the 27" to 4.5Ghz, so theres not a lot in it. I don't really see the extra screen real estate being worth the $900, but some might.

The 2017 21.5" iMac is WAY better than the 2015 model it replaced.

 

[robeddie]

The 2017 21.5" iMac is WAY better than the 2015 model it replaced.

That ... could not be truer. I've wanted a new iMac for a couple of years and wanted the 21.5 screen size, but could not bring myself to buying one with the integrated video card. The upped specs, and specifically the 4tb Radeon 560 offered in the top end 21.5 made the purchase decision an absolute for me.

Rarely has there been that kind of jump from one generation to the next, particularly in GPU capabilities.

 

[alien3dx]

That ... could not be truer. I've wanted a new iMac for a couple of years and wanted the 21.5 screen size, but could not bring myself to buying one with the integrated video card. The upped specs, and specifically the 4tb Radeon 560 offered in the top end 21.5 made the purchase decision an absolute for me.

Rarely has there been that kind of jump from one generation to the next, particularly in GPU capabilities.

Been using windows Mac and linux. 16 GB is overkill.

8 GB is average okay. SSD only work good on startup not much less .. If need more power graphics,buy base line and add e gpu support like razor core, akito ..

To me , as long I can code in react native, run simulator iOS and some web browsing and play Spotify is enough.

 

[294307]

I wouldn't suggest using an eGPU solution instead of getting a higher-end iMac just because you need more graphics performance. Right now, you just end up spending more - it can cost upwards of $1,000 just for the external housing and power supply alone, and that's not including the GPU.

 

[alien3dx]

I wouldn't suggest using an eGPU solution instead of getting a higher-end iMac just because you need more graphics performance. Right now, you just end up spending more - it can cost upwards of $1,000 just for the external housing and power supply alone, and that's not including the GPU.

if you buy latest iMac yes it not worth but my current country pricing and e gpu much worthy for future.. don't want to paid 10 grand myr just for iMac not worth.. better egpu

 

[Appleaker]

It’s better value to get the 5K model, but the 4K is still an amazing machine, much better than the 2015 model, it is now a viable competitor to the 5K.

 

[kschendel]

For browsing, email, youtube, etc, and assuming that the 21.5" model is a given for whatever reason, I see no reason to go beyond the base model CPU / GPU. 8 Gb memory will probably be OK, and if that changes in the future, you could always open it up (yes, a hassle, but doable) and add RAM. 16 Gb would be more prudent if the user is the kind who opens a zillion tabs in browsers while simultaneously watching multiple youtube videos and editing a bunch of photos.

For this sort of usage, I would expect a Fusion drive to perform entirely adequately, and even the much-scorned 1 Tb fusion would likely be fine. (Of course, pure SSD is "better", if you're willing to make the cost / space trade; it would be faster and have no spinning parts to fail. SSD's fail but not mechanically.)

There's no point in spending money on CPU clock increases for this sort of usage, it's a complete waste. I very much doubt that it's worth upgrading the GPU either, although I suppose that's a little more arguable.

 

[Andres Cantu]

For people who have their iMacs closer to them due to eyesight, the 21.5" makes sense, since the 27" would mean having to move your head a lot to see content in the edges.

 

[robeddie]

For people who have their iMacs closer to them due to eyesight, the 21.5" makes sense, since the 27" would mean having to move your head a lot to see content in the edges.

True, but also think about this way: Historically speaking, a 21.5 inch desktop screen is fairly large. Maybe not for you youngin's but for old folks like me, who remember the days when a 17" monitor was 'big', this is more than enough space.

At a normal desk like mine, the monitor is maybe 3 feet from my face. I remember the days when the biggest tv's were 25 inches and the whole family would watch it on the couch from across the room. So having 21.5 inches of screen 3 feet from my face is actually pretty sufficient imo.

 

[SaSaSushi]

True, but also think about this way: Historically speaking, a 21.5 inch desktop screen is fairly large. Maybe not for you youngin's but for old folks like me, who remember the days when a 17" monitor was 'big', this is more than enough space.

I remember those days, lol. Not only was a 17 inch or larger screen considered big but the gigantic CRT monitors took up most of the desk space.

 

[OldMike]

I remember those days, lol. Not only was a 17 inch or larger screen considered big but the gigantic CRT monitors took up most of the desk space.

And forget about how much they weighed haha!

I have to agree, though, that the 27" iMac seems to be a much better value. After upgrading the RAM to 16GB (for just a little less than what it would cost to add 32GB RAM to the 27" - totaling 40GB RAM), the 21" iMac just gets too close to the price of the better spec 27"...

Also concerning eGPUs and the iMac - it is my understanding that an eGPU would drive an external display and not the iMac's screen - losing some of the benefit of paying the price for the beautiful display on the iMac. Correct me if I am wrong on this point.

 

[alien3dx]

It’s better value to get the 5K model, but the 4K is still an amazing machine, much better than the 2015 model, it is now a viable competitor to the 5K.

my 3 years old laptop cannot render 4k.. even 1080i movie als

And forget about how much they weighed haha!

I have to agree, though, that the 27" iMac seems to be a much better value. After upgrading the RAM to 16GB (for just a little less than what it would cost to add 32GB RAM to the 27" - totaling 40GB RAM), the 21" iMac just gets too close to the price of the better spec 27"...

Also concerning eGPUs and the iMac - it is my understanding that an eGPU would drive an external display and not the iMac's screen - losing some of the benefit of paying the price for the beautiful display on the iMac. Correct me if I am wrong on this point.

I'm using old external samsung display 21 inchi.. Color may no so accurate no need E-GPU for that.

 

[robeddie]

And forget about how much they weighed haha!

I have to agree, though, that the 27" iMac seems to be a much better value. After upgrading the RAM to 16GB (for just a little less than what it would cost to add 32GB RAM to the 27" - totaling 40GB RAM), the 21" iMac just gets too close to the price of the better spec 27"...

Also concerning eGPUs and the iMac - it is my understanding that an eGPU would drive an external display and not the iMac's screen - losing some of the benefit of paying the price for the beautiful display on the iMac. Correct me if I am wrong on this point.

Yea, the whole external gpu thing seems like a Rube Goldberg contraption. And people talk about it, but I don't hear anyone actually doing it.

It's like people boasting about the incredible potential bandwidth of usb-c. That's great, but show me someone who's really leveraging that IO capability to the max.

 

[Ylan]

And forget about how much they weighed haha!

I have to agree, though, that the 27" iMac seems to be a much better value. After upgrading the RAM to 16GB (for just a little less than what it would cost to add 32GB RAM to the 27" - totaling 40GB RAM), the 21" iMac just gets too close to the price of the better spec 27"...

Also concerning eGPUs and the iMac - it is my understanding that an eGPU would drive an external display and not the iMac's screen - losing some of the benefit of paying the price for the beautiful display on the iMac. Correct me if I am wrong on this point.

I guess you are quite correct when it comes to your use case. Some software might however be able to take advantage of more than one GPU for rendering etc. i.e. not for driving a second screen.

Humbly, Ylan

 

[Salaryman Ryan]

I agree with the others regarding the value proposition. Upselling seems to be an Apple sales strategy in all of its products.

 

[Spudlicious]

True, but also think about this way: Historically speaking, a 21.5 inch desktop screen is fairly large. Maybe not for you youngin's but for old folks like me, who remember the days when a 17" monitor was 'big', this is more than enough space.

At a normal desk like mine, the monitor is maybe 3 feet from my face. I remember the days when the biggest tv's were 25 inches and the whole family would watch it on the couch from across the room. So having 21.5 inches of screen 3 feet from my face is actually pretty sufficient imo.

Sounds reasonable to me, and didn't the original Mac have a nine inch screen? Amazing to think people used that diddly screen for WP, DTP, everything.

 

[jerwin]

Sounds reasonable to me, and didn't the original Mac have a nine inch screen? Amazing to think people used that diddly screen for WP, DTP, everything.

The original mac didn't have scsi, but wasn't there a scsi monitor adapter available for the mac plus? I recall seeing one at a Washington Apple Pi flea market.

edit:

along these lines:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1989-Scuzzy...tage_Computers_Mainframes&hash=item20d730607e

http://lowendmac.com/2013/scuzzygraph-and-scuzzygraph-ii/

 

[robeddie]

Sounds reasonable to me, and didn't the original Mac have a nine inch screen? Amazing to think people used that diddly screen for WP, DTP, everything.

Yep, and now we have people saying only kids and people with no space on their desks should even consider tolerating the 'tiny' 21.5 inch screen.

Oh how so quickly we become spoiled.