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

Buying first iMac, contemplating between 2 configurations...

O

onlyremainingname

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 9, 2018
22
3
CAN & USA
Been a long time Mac user, but have never owned an iMac, I currently have a 2015 MacBook Pro. I am now looking to have a desktop for my home office so I have narrowed my choice down to 2 options listed below. They are roughly the same price ($10 difference) on Apple Refurbished Store. Neither are in stock on Apple Refurbished Store right now, but I am waiting for one of these to show up again.
The 2015 has i7, but 2017 has better graphics. I use Adobe Audition frequently, Photoshop several times a month, Garageband (occasionally) and Photos (a few times a month). On rare occasions, I will play some old games like RollerCoaster Tycoon or Sim City. Other than that, I plan to use this computer as a hub for my big music library in iTunes and light use including email and safari.
Mac Geekbench shows that the 2017 model has a higher single core score, but the 2015 model has a higher multi core score. Which score is better to be higher?
The 2017 has better graphics, but 2015 model is i7?
Both are 21"

Thanks for your time.

2015 iMac

Processor
3.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 (Turbo Boost up to 3.8GHz)

Memory
16GB of 1867MHz LPDDR3 onboard memory

Storage
512GB Flash Storage 1

Graphics
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200


2017 iMac

Processor
3.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.8GHz

Memory
16GB of 2400MHz DDR4 onboard memory

Storage
512GB SSD storage1

Graphics
Radeon Pro 560 with 4GB of VRAM
 
Last edited:
onlyremainingname said:
Mac Geekbench shows that the 2017 model has a higher single core score, but the 2015 model has a higher multi core score. Which score is better to be higher?
Click to expand...

Well, multicore score can have a dramatic effect on software/processes optimised for multi-core, whereas single-core speeds up everything a bit. It depends not only on what software you are using, but what you are doing with the software, what plugins etc. how many tracks of audio, virtual instruments etc.

One thing you can try is, on your existing MacBook, run Activity Monitor, go to Window -> CPU usage to get the CPU bar graph window, then do some work and see how often you light up all of the bars to more than about half-way: that's when you might be seeing an advantage from the i7.

The 2017 i5 is probably going to be better all-round, especially when you throw in the better GPU - crudely speaking, the i7 is mainly of interest to people doing heavy video editing.

Not sure if its an issue with the 21", but in the 27", the i7 version can be noisier that the i5, which may be an issue if you're editing audio without your cans on.

Also, the 2017 has a brighter display and has two USB-C/Thunderbolt 3 ports in place of the 2015's Thunderbolt 2 ports - which can be an asset or a liability, depending on your point of view - but, unlike the 2016 MBP, it still has good old fangled USB3 ports as well so you'll only need to "dongle up" if you have external displays or Thunderbolt 1/2 devices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onlyremainingname
I don't always agree on the statement "just get the newer one", as history has shown that newer ones are not always better.

But, in this case, I think the 2017 would be a better pick due to the GPU.


Both has the same size SSD.

Based off of your stated usage, I think the lack of the i7 would not really impact you that much, and there could be some heat-related issues with the i7.

Both has 16GBs of RAM, which is important due to these models being not user-upgradable.


For general guidelines to questions like these, I list the following by priority:

#1 Priority - GPU, since this this usually the weak link for Mac longevity, I recommend getting the best one that you can for most Macs. GPUs on most Macs can not be swapped easily. External GPUs might change this, but right now, I still think it is best to prioritize this.

#2 Priority - Hard Drive, while usually easier to replace than the GPU, I still think just spending the extra amount and getting a SSD would be ideal. If you need the extra space, but don't want external storage, then get a 2TB Fusion Drive or larger. The 1TB Fusion was nerfed a few years ago, and now has a tiny 32GB SSD with it. The original 1TB Fusion Drive, and the current 2TB, and 3TB Fusion Drives have 128GB SSD with them.

#3 Priority - RAM, while I normally have this below SSDs, for the 21" iMacs, the RAM is not user-replaceable, so in your case, I would place it higher. Since both machines have 16GBs, you are okay there as 16GBs is higher than the recommended amount for Adobe Photoshop and Audition.

#4 Priority - Processor, This depends on the usage. I think the i5 would be fine for your usage. The i7 would be better, but there are some problems with the i7 iMacs. Even if you were doing a BTO iMac, I still would probably recommend the i5, as the i7 has been know to have heat-related issues, and can be noisy from what I have read about them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onlyremainingname
Thanks everyone for the replies, this was very helpful. I think the 2017 model is the one for me and I do believe 16gb will be enough ram for my usage, never been a problem. The only lingering thing in my mind is whether to stay or jump from 512gb or 1tb flash. 1tb flash would be nice, but it is a crazy $450 more on the refurbished store with all the other configurations the same. On one hand, I can easily connect another external hard drive for more storage, but maybe the 1tb models hold better resale value in the future.
 
Don't waste the money on the larger SSD.
You may never need that space... but you tossed away the cash, anyway.

IF the time comes when you actually NEED "more space", plug in a USB3 external drive (HDD or SSD). Will do just fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onlyremainingname
Get the 2017 model with 1TB Fusion Drive and 8GB DDR4.

It's much cheaper to upgrade the SSD and memory later.
 
Bad advice to open the iMac to upgrade the SSD. The OP should know that Apple will likely decline to work on his iMac if he brings it in for warranty work and they determine that the machine was opened.

OR the OP can be smart, and not open his iMac until his warranty is over, and make use of the iMac's extensive and super fast Thunderbolt 3/ USB-C expandability to add storage.
 
mreg376 said:
Bad advice to open the iMac to upgrade the SSD. The OP should know that Apple will likely decline to work on his iMac if he brings it in for warranty work and they determine that the machine was opened.

OR the OP can be smart, and not open his iMac until his warranty is over, and make use of the iMac's extensive and super fast Thunderbolt 3/ USB-C expandability to add storage.
Click to expand...

No, this does not void the warranty.

From the FTC:

The letters warn that FTC staff has concerns about the companies’ statements that consumers must use specified parts or service providers to keep their warranties intact. Unless warrantors provide the parts or services for free or receive a waiver from the FTC, such statements generally are prohibited by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a law that governs consumer product warranties. Similarly, such statements may be deceptive under the FTC Act.

Each company used different language, but here are examples of questionable provisions:
Click to expand...

    • The use of [company name] parts is required to keep your . . . manufacturer’s warranties and any extended warranties intact.
    • This warranty shall not apply if this product . . . is used with products not sold or licensed by [company name].
    • This warranty does not apply if this product . . . has had the warranty seal on the [product] altered, defaced, or removed.

“Provisions that tie warranty coverage to the use of particular products or services harm both consumers who pay more for them as well as the small businesses who offer competing products and services,” said Thomas B. Pahl, Acting Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.
Click to expand...

Section 102 (c) of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance (other than an article or service provided without charge under the warranty or unless the warrantor has obtained a waiver pursuant to section 102(c) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2302(c)). For example, provisions such as, “This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized ‘ABC’ dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine ‘ABC’ parts,” and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c), 15 U.S.C. 2302(c), ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of “unauthorized” articles or service. In addition, warranty language that implies to a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances that warranty coverage requires the consumer’s purchase of an article or service identified by brand, trade or corporate name is similarly deceptive. For example, a provision in the warranty such as, “use only an authorized ‘ABC’ dealer” or “use only ‘ABC’ replacement parts,” is prohibited where the service or parts are not provided free of charge pursuant to the warranty. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by “unauthorized” articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.
Click to expand...

From MacSales/OWC:

Unfortunately though, there exists a misconception among some users and even technicians that opening the machine voids the warranty.

We address this topic directly with customers via our support portals and are happy to inform you here of the same fact: upgrading your Mac does not void its warranty.

This consumer protection is owed to the little known Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975. Put simply, the act states that a company can’t require you to upgrade with only its own branded parts to retain the warranty. This important act protects your rights as a consumer and allows you to install upgrades with peace of mind confidence.

However, the warranty doesn’t cover any damage incurred while installing upgrades.
Click to expand...
 
Back to the same broken record. I didn't say it voided the warranty. I said that the OP should know that Apple will likely decline to work on his iMac if he brings it in for warranty work and they determine that the machine was opened. Then the OP can take his unvoided "warranty," put it in a frame and hang it on the wall, next to the framed Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. And then he can call @tubeexperience who I am sure will be happy to pay for his lawyer to sue Apple, as the OP stares at his broken iMac, all the while being extra thankful for having taken @tubeexpereince's advice.
 
mreg376 said:
Back to the same broken record. I didn't say it voided the warranty. I said that the OP should know that Apple will likely decline to work on his iMac if he brings it in for warranty work and they determine that the machine was opened. Then the OP can take his unvoided "warranty," put it in a frame and hang it on the wall, next to the framed Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. And then he can call @tubeexperience who I am sure will be happy to pay for his lawyer to sue Apple, as the OP stares at his broken iMac, all the while being extra thankful for having taken @tubeexpereince's advice.
Click to expand...

Apple would be violating the laws.
 
And have you heard of the fact that small claims court (certainly the place where everyone wants to be instead of just using their iMac) is just for minor money damages and cannot force anyone to do anything?

And the link you keep posting to the one small claims case that you have found in the country has nothing to do with Apple denying warranty work for opening an iMac.
 
mreg376 said:
And have you heard of the fact that small claims court (certainly the place where everyone wants to be instead of just using their iMac) is just for minor money damages and cannot force anyone to do anything?

And the link you keep posting to the one small claims case that you have found in the country has nothing to do with Apple denying warranty work for opening an iMac.
Click to expand...

That's what your iMac is, "minor money"
 
And I'll say again, the link you keep posting to the one small claims case that you have found in the country has nothing to do with Apple denying warranty work for opening an iMac.
 
mreg376 said:
And I'll say again, the link you keep posting to the one small claims case that you have found in the country has nothing to do with Apple denying warranty work for opening an iMac.
Click to expand...

As I said, this is covered by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
 
I don't definitively know the answer but:
tubeexperience said:
No, this does not void the warranty.

From the FTC:



Section 102 (c) of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act



From MacSales/OWC:
Click to expand...
I think @tubeexperience is correct.

mreg376 said:
Back to the same broken record. I didn't say it voided the warranty. I said that the OP should know that Apple will likely decline to work on his iMac if he brings it in for warranty work and they determine that the machine was opened. Then the OP can take his unvoided "warranty," put it in a frame and hang it on the wall, next to the framed Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. And then he can call @tubeexperience who I am sure will be happy to pay for his lawyer to sue Apple, as the OP stares at his broken iMac, all the while being extra thankful for having taken @tubeexpereince's advice.
Click to expand...
I also think that @mreg376 is correct.

While opening your Mac may not void the warranty in the US, if Apple decides not to approve a warranty on a Mac that had been previously opened by the user, then taking Apple to court could solve the issue.

This reminds me of a situation my wife was in about 10 years ago. She just bought a used Mazda CX-7 with low miles, but it had non-stop issues. One of the issues was the turbocharger shaft broke a month after purchasing the car. It still had all the warranties on the car, but I was wondering if Mazda might reject her warranty claim, as she had no maintenance records.

I did research, and I found many people with similar CX-7 issues that Mazda would not honor the warranty due to lack of maintenance records.

Many people claimed that they had records, but from other than Mazda Service Station shops, such as pep boys, and Mazda still rejected the claims, stating that it could not be verified that the other shops used the correct oil (weight, synthetic).

Luckily, Mazda did approve my wife's claim, and they replaced the turbo, along with many other major things that broken on the car until we traded it in for something else.
[doublepost=1531578903][/doublepost]Oh, I forgot to say that from my research, many people ended up taking Mazda to court to get their repairs paid for, as some of them would be over $6k.
 
vertical smile said:
I don't definitively know the answer but:

I think @tubeexperience is correct.


I also think that @mreg376 is correct.

While opening your Mac may not void the warranty in the US, if Apple decides not to approve a warranty on a Mac that had been previously opened by the user, then taking Apple to court could solve the issue.

This reminds me of a situation my wife was in about 10 years ago. She just bought a used Mazda CX-7 with low miles, but it had non-stop issues. One of the issues was the turbocharger shaft broke a month after purchasing the car. It still had all the warranties on the car, but I was wondering if Mazda might reject her warranty claim, as she had no maintenance records.

I did research, and I found many people with similar CX-7 issues that Mazda would not honor the warranty due to lack of maintenance records.

Many people claimed that they had records, but from other than Mazda Service Station shops, such as pep boys, and Mazda still rejected the claims, stating that it could not be verified that the other shops used the correct oil (weight, synthetic).

Luckily, Mazda did approve my wife's claim, and they replaced the turbo, along with many other major things that broken on the car until we traded it in for something else.
[doublepost=1531578903][/doublepost]Oh, I forgot to say that from my research, many people ended up taking Mazda to court to get their repairs paid for, as some of them would be over $6k.
Click to expand...

I'm not even that sure that Magnuson-Moss applies here. The logical extension of #tubeexperience's argument is that Magnuson-Moss allows you to do anything you want to a device, if you call it "upgrading," and the manufacturer is still forced to warranty the device's operation. Would this extend, for example, to yanking out the CPU, requiring the prying off of the cooling apparatus and, let's say, breaking various soldering points to "upgrade" the CPU? And then, because YOU said you did it correctly, would Magnuson-Moss require the manufacturer to warranty that device if the machine starts freezing up? I don't think so. I think that Magnuson-Moss does not prohibit a manufacturer from designating what is "user-upgradeable," within reason, and then Magnuson-Moss would prohibit the manufacturer from requiring the use of its own branded parts or service centers for upgrading. I think this is a rather subtle difference which seems to elude some people, and which makes the Apple refusal to work on opened machines a much more complicated issue than others here claim.
 
mreg376 said:
And then, because YOU said you did it correctly, would Magnuson-Moss require the manufacturer to warranty that device if the machine starts freezing up?
Click to expand...

Yes, unless the freezing was due to the upgrade itself.

If the freezing was due to a bad GPU, when the GPU was never even touched, then, imo, the warranty should still be honored.
 
vertical smile said:
Yes, unless the freezing was due to the upgrade itself.

If the freezing was due to a bad GPU, when the GPU was never even touched, then, imo, the warranty should still be honored.
Click to expand...

And you think that the decision as to whether the "upgrade" was done correctly is left solely to the customer? Not whether it should (I would love that), but whether any court would allow the customer, and only the customer to decide whether the work that the customer did is the cause of the problem? Should the manufacturer be required to spend time verifying the customers work? I don't see this happening, as a practical matter, with any manufacturer. Do you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back