Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

madamelulu

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 15, 2014
35
0
I work in academics and am looking for a desktop as I need a bigger screen for writing. I currently have a mid-2009 MBP which I've upgraded to 8GB of RAM and installed an SSD drive, but still have problems with speed. I'd like my new iMAC to last for a while and was wondering if I should go with the 4K vs 5K. I was thinking 4K since the 5K initially seemed too big, but I've read that the 4K is lackluster for the price. My main wish is that this computer will last me a while with minimal upgrades. So my question, which computer should I get for mainly word processing with bibliographic software and multiple windows, and intermittent movie watching and photo editing. Do you think the 4K + fusion drive is sufficient or should I get the 5K with fusion drive since the 5K gives me the option to increase memory on my own at a later date.

I am flexible with price. I appreciate your thoughts.
 

Goody13

macrumors member
Jul 1, 2016
41
10
Plymouth, UK
I recently went through the same thought process over several months. I started off looking at the mid-range 21.5", but by the time I considered the screen quality, I decided the top 21.5" would be better.

Then I realised that I would have to upgrade the RAM, just in case 8GB wasn't enough so I eventually settled on the mid-range 27" on the basis that it was better and I could see if 8GB was enough and then upgrade the RAM myself at a later date.

I am.very happy with my choice, with 2TB fusion drive.

I have no real comparison to give you but hopefully my thought process will help your decision.
 

CWallace

macrumors G5
Aug 17, 2007
12,432
11,384
Seattle, WA
I prefer the desktop area of the 5K model. The 5K also has Skylake CPUs whereas the 4K is on the older Haswell process so performance is a bit better.
 

cynics

macrumors G4
Jan 8, 2012
11,959
2,156
The usage that you mention plus the fact your goal is more screen real estate I'd look into the 27" models. If you're working out of multiple windows it's just so much more pleasant to have that space available.

Nothing you describe sounds taxing enough to warrant the performance bump but the RAM upgradability, dedicated GPU and the generational processor bump will give you slightly more future proofing with the 27" models.

If you go with the fusion drive I suggest 2 or 3 tb versions like you initially were looking at. They have a significantly larger SSD portion than the 1 tb version. Or go with all SSD if you budget permits.
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,735
I work in academics and am looking for a desktop as I need a bigger screen for writing
I'd opt for the 5k, because you get that larger screen you mentioned

Do you think the 4K + fusion drive is sufficient or should I get the 5K
Both are fine machines, but for your money, I think you get more computer with regards to the 5k model. You get a newer processor (skylake), you get a dGPU which will handle anything you throw at it, and most of all you get a gorgeous 27" display. That's hard to pass up imo.
 

Apple fanboy

macrumors Ivy Bridge
Feb 21, 2012
56,616
55,296
Behind the Lens, UK
I work in academics and am looking for a desktop as I need a bigger screen for writing. I currently have a mid-2009 MBP which I've upgraded to 8GB of RAM and installed an SSD drive, but still have problems with speed. I'd like my new iMAC to last for a while and was wondering if I should go with the 4K vs 5K. I was thinking 4K since the 5K initially seemed too big, but I've read that the 4K is lackluster for the price. My main wish is that this computer will last me a while with minimal upgrades. So my question, which computer should I get for mainly word processing with bibliographic software and multiple windows, and intermittent movie watching and photo editing. Do you think the 4K + fusion drive is sufficient or should I get the 5K with fusion drive since the 5K gives me the option to increase memory on my own at a later date.

I am flexible with price. I appreciate your thoughts.
Just pick on which screen size you prefer.
The problem with 5K is no one is broadcasting in it, so your unlikely to get any internet movies in 5K to watch.
TBH your lucky to find much 4K content!
So just decide if 21" or 27" is better for your needs. Both will last you a good number of years based on your usage.
I use my late 2012 iMac (hooked up to another screen) for photo editing, and general internet, word processing stuff, and I'd imagine this should be good for another 2-3 years.
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,735
so your unlikely to get any internet movies in 5K to watch.
You know its funny, but I never considered the 5k iMac for watching 5k content, perhaps because I generally use the iMac for other purposes. I think the 27" alone is a great reason to get the 5k :D
 

Apple fanboy

macrumors Ivy Bridge
Feb 21, 2012
56,616
55,296
Behind the Lens, UK
You know its funny, but I never considered the 5k iMac for watching 5k content, perhaps because I generally use the iMac for other purposes. I think the 27" alone is a great reason to get the 5k :D
Size isn't everything!
I have a two monitor set up so 27" would be too big for my little office.
I have the 21" and a 24" for photo editing.
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,735
Size isn't everything!
For me it is, in the sense that I tried the 21" and felt it a bit confining. I have a 24" Apple Cinema Display and after spending almost 2k (on a 4k iMac), I'd be left with a machine that seemed smaller then what I already was using (MBP + ACD). I wanted the increased screen real estate and I have no regrets. To each his own, as one size does not fit all. :)
 

Apple fanboy

macrumors Ivy Bridge
Feb 21, 2012
56,616
55,296
Behind the Lens, UK
For me it is, in the sense that I tried the 21" and felt it a bit confining. I have a 24" Apple Cinema Display and after spending almost 2k (on a 4k iMac), I'd be left with a machine that seemed smaller then what I already was using (MBP + ACD). I wanted the increased screen real estate and I have no regrets. To each his own, as one size does not fit all. :)
People never go down with screen size. They always go bigger for desktops anyhow.
27" is the most common size on desktops these days.
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,735
People never go down with screen size. They always go bigger for desktops anyhow.
27" is the most common size on desktops these days.
No, as it seems to impact their work and expectations. Though I know a few people at work who had a 15" laptop and went down to a 11 (or 12") and love it. Personally that's just to small for me, but I think they're the exception to the rule :)
 

IngerMan

macrumors 68020
Feb 21, 2011
2,016
905
Michigan
I just came from a 2007 20" iMac, Going to the 27" was a great thing for me. I have an elliptical machine in my office and watch TV while I workout through my cable provider via the internet. I also love splitting the screen and viewing and working in full mode 2 different applications.
 
Last edited:

Fishrrman

macrumors Penryn
Feb 20, 2009
29,054
13,085
I couldn't do with anything less than a 27" display any more.

Have actually been thinking about moving up to 40" with the next Mac I buy (probably the next generation Mac Mini…)
 

cynics

macrumors G4
Jan 8, 2012
11,959
2,156
Just pick on which screen size you prefer.
The problem with 5K is no one is broadcasting in it, so your unlikely to get any internet movies in 5K to watch.
TBH your lucky to find much 4K content!
So just decide if 21" or 27" is better for your needs. Both will last you a good number of years based on your usage.
I use my late 2012 iMac (hooked up to another screen) for photo editing, and general internet, word processing stuff, and I'd imagine this should be good for another 2-3 years.

Well to be fair 5k monitors weren't designed for consuming 5k content, although they could. Their primary purpose its for 4k video editing since you can have the entire 4k video in native resolution on the screen still leaving room for your tools.

I think we are misrepresenting the use of 4k vs 5k here. It should be 21" vs 27".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samuelsan2001

Apple fanboy

macrumors Ivy Bridge
Feb 21, 2012
56,616
55,296
Behind the Lens, UK
Well to be fair 5k monitors weren't designed for consuming 5k content, although they could. Their primary purpose its for 4k video editing since you can have the entire 4k video in native resolution on the screen still leaving room for your tools.

I think we are misrepresenting the use of 4k vs 5k here. It should be 21" vs 27".
Agree. I doubt most people would see the difference between 4K and 5k. However you'd be hard pressed to find someone who couldn't tell the difference between 21 and 27".
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,735
Agree. I doubt most people would see the difference between 4K and 5k. However you'd be hard pressed to find someone who couldn't tell the difference between 21 and 27".
I didn't buy my iMac because it had a 5k display, I bought it because it was 27" I don't do anything that really requires 5k, and given my old eyes, I don't even run the resolution at the default setting but scaled to make the text bigger
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.