21" iMacs - expensive for what you get?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by fathergll, Oct 23, 2014.

  1. fathergll macrumors 65816

    Sep 3, 2014
    So the 27" Retina iMacs seem to be a very good deal but the 21" non retina iMacs are really pricy for anything decent. I am looking at $1,900 easily for anything with half decent specs(1TB Fusion, 16 GB Ram, discrete GPU)

    I'd think $1,500 for the above configuration would be a fair price but close to $2,000? I was really in the market for a 21" desktop but the price seems way high.
  2. dice23 macrumors newbie

    Oct 19, 2014

    The first questions you should think about are: What are you looking to do with this computer? What made you choose a 21" over a 27"? How much money are you willing to spend? Then it gets easier.
  3. iono11200 macrumors member

    Mar 9, 2012
    I recently purchased a 21" iMac mainly because I have a small home and a rather small desk and work area. Yes they are pricey but positively gorgeous computers. I'd say it all depends on how much room you have, your budget and what you are gonna do with it. My 21" is dead on perfect for my needs. The 27" while breathtaking is rather large and probably doesn't fit everyone's needs. Either way I think you'll be happy. I am. Nicest machine I've ever owned hands down.
  4. dingster1 macrumors regular

    Mar 1, 2008
    Another option is getting a refurbished model. Same warranty, save some money
  5. tillsbury macrumors 65816

    Dec 24, 2007
    How small a home do you have to have before 6" on a monitor becomes an issue?
  6. JustMartin macrumors 6502a

    Feb 28, 2012
    My iMac has to share a desk with the laptop and monitor I use for my day job. So, I did a lot of measuring and virtual arranging before deciding that the 27" was just too big. I'm pleased I went with the smaller model. When I saw them side by side in the store, it wasn't that the 21" seemed small, the 27" just appeared enormous.

    Difficult for a price comparison, but I don't think there's that much in it. If I price up equivalents to my 2012 model today, there's about £400 difference between the 21 and 27 non retina and the retina is about £250 on top of that. Some of that could be made back by getting the memory elsewhere.

    Mind you I'm talking absolute figures here, percentage wise the differences look more significant.
  7. fathergll thread starter macrumors 65816

    Sep 3, 2014
    Wanted something that I could do some light video editing on, some light gaming....maybe bootcamp with Windows 7.

    I kind of dig 21" monitors because sometimes I feel like Im hunting around too much with 27". IMO the 21" iMacs are $200 overpriced. The high end one starts at $1500 and thats with a 5400 rpm drive. That's ridiculous.


    The issue with the refurbs is getting one with decent specs. Trying to find a refurb with both a fusion/ssd and 16 GB Ram is extremely hard. Yes I want 16 GB of Ram....there is no way I am dropping $1500+ for a desktop limited to 8 GB ram.
  8. mojolicious macrumors 68000


    Mar 18, 2014
    Sarf London
    Yeah, the price differential between the most expensive stock 21.5" and the cheaper stock 27" is slim, when you look at what you get: the smaller iMac is 2.9GHz i5 quad (vs 3.2GHz); video is GeForce GT 750M (vs GeForce GT 755M, admittedly a marginal upgrade); plus another 5.5" of screen. And all for just $300.

    I also don't like Apple's assumption that 21.5" purchasers aren't bothered about performance. Is there a technical reason for the 3.5GHz i7 quad not being available in the smaller form factor?

    Re 'sometimes I feel like Im hunting around too much with 27': absolutely. I hate having to consciously move my eyes while using a computer, or watching TV, or going to the cinema. If I had a 27" display I'd just end up sitting a foot further away from it!

Share This Page