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

varian55zx

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
May 10, 2012
748
260
San Francisco
It is sounding like the 4k is not worth it? Should I spring for the extra and get the entry level 27 inch model.

I'm just using it for casual use mainly but want good performance and some amount future proofing.

Thanks for any help.
 
Worth is subjective, but I personally found that I was getting more value for 5k iMac. To be honest, casual use, both computers will be more then adequate. It all boils down to budget, and do you want a larger display.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kazmac
It seems like it's worth the extra $250 for me. I saw a video of the 4k booting and it seemed like it was booting incredibly slow.

For my uses I don't really see the need of any of the upgrades for the 27 inch, save the fusion drive. It seems like the 27 inch would be the better deal and I want to get the best value for my money possible.

My main concern, is will graphics run slowly on the 4k with the weaker graphics card?
 
Last edited:
I went with the 5k 27 inch because it was only $250 more then the 4k one, and seemed to be the much better deal.

I'm getting it on sale at a really good price so I thought I would take advantage of it.

The 4K one seemed to have a bad graphics card and you can't upgrade the ram.

I also saw a video of the 4K booting and it booted even slower than my late 2015 non-retina.

Does anyone else think I made the right decision?
 
I went with the 5k 27 inch because it was only $250 more then the 4k one, and seemed to be the much better deal.

I'm getting it on sale at a really good price so I thought I would take advantage of it.

The 4K one seemed to have a bad graphics card and you can't upgrade the ram.

I also saw a video of the 4K booting and it booted even slower than my late 2015 non-retina.

Does anyone else think I made the right decision?

Yes, you did. For 2015, at least, Apple is pushing most folks toward the 27". You saved money because you got a machine that works for you and that you can partially upgrade when you're ready to (RAM.)

I went with a 2013 non-retina 27" iMac because I wanted target mode and my budget demanded it.

Enjoy your iMac!
 
Yes, you did. For 2015, at least, Apple is pushing most folks toward the 27". You saved money because you got a machine that works for you and that you can partially upgrade when you're ready to (RAM.)

I went with a 2013 non-retina 27" iMac because I wanted target mode and my budget demanded it.

Enjoy your iMac!
I researched it a lot all last night.

The video of the 4K booting did it for me though. It was even slower than my non-retina late 2015.

I wanted to get my money's worth even if it meant spending more, and I think I did that best I could. The 5k has a much better graphics card. And the screen is bigger and better.

I wanted to get the 4K because it was only 400 more than my 21.5, then I realized the 5k was only $250 more in turn than that. $250 for a world of difference. It's dirty how Apple just gets you to spend more and more. Their profit margin on these products must be insane. But that's why they're the biggest in the world.
 
That's why I bought stock at the Apple store. I had it home and running within an hour. And I didn't think the 21" was worth it once you brought it up to a reasonable spec. Even the 27" with the non-fusion drive was slow to open apps. I ended up with 2tb fusion.

My kids all have older MBPs, and they all started to complain about how slow the machines were getting. I took a look and thought they were painfully slow. I couldn't see spending all this money and getting something like that, especially since the iMac is not easily upgraded. I ultimately put SSD in each of their macs and they are happy for now.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.