Configuration of new iMac

Discussion in 'iMac' started by tom0511, Nov 1, 2014.

  1. tom0511 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    #1
    I am new to this forum as I am new to iMac, I just know that I will get one as the rest of my digital world is Apple already and I am 100% satisfied. I am only struggling what to order.

    Here is my starting point: currently, I am running a 5 year old budget windows pc which is about to die in the near future. I am doing basic computer stuff (emails, web, documents/ spread sheets) and I recently started to do photography. All photo work is on hobby level but still using lightroom and Photoshop.

    I considered to go for the iMac 5k, but for whatever reason I do not have a good feeling, even though I could afford it, also maxed out. I just want to avoid doing beta-testing for Apple.

    So my current take is to go for a late 2013, 27".

    What do you think, would the 1.999 basic config + 3TB FD meet my needs? I don't want to oversize (I typically do not tend to waste my money), but I also want some decent performance.

    And how about the difference to the iMac 5k? Would it be disappointing not to go for it, considering where I'm coming from?

    Thanks for your help, guys!
     
  2. Steveatesh macrumors regular

    Steveatesh

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2014
    Location:
    North east England
    #2
    Hi, I'm in exactly the same position with the same use type. My photography is a hobby but now is the main use on my computer, plus some business use.

    I've used a PC for years and have decided to try Apple. The new Retina was the way I went because the main way we interface with the computer is the screen, and first reports are extremely good for photographs.

    I did think about the early adopter thing but I quickly discounted it based on Apples reputation and the fact retina technology is not new, just new to iMac. Plus all of the reviews were especially covering how good the retina is for photography as you can get a large RAW file fully on screen. It was the potential for photography work that clinched it for me.

    Anyway, I went for the base model Retina but am taking it to 16 Gig RAM myself. I believe this will be sufficient for my use and I didn't have a fortune to spend on a new computer anyway.

    Whatever you decide it's a good problem to have and I hope you get sorted :)
     
  3. tom0511 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    #3
    Thanks Steve. I just wonder if I would be doing fine with the 1.999 late 2013. Maybe I'll wait if there will be any black friday deals on either of both non-retina or retina. Even though I do not expect to see any sale on the riMac...
     
  4. Brian Y macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    #4
    They probably won't put the retina on sale. But personally, if you're thinking of getting the middle one, there's only $300 difference between the retina and the regular one. Two things:

    - That's a lot of screen for $300
    - The graphics card is better in the retina
    - The retina will hold it's value much better, so you'll probably get that $300 back when you sell it.

    If you were thinking about the base $1799 iMac, then i'd say the retina isn't worth the difference, but if you're thinking of the $1999 with the extra on a fusion drive - it's a no brainer IMO.

    It may also be worth checking the refurb section. For the same price as the $1999 model you could get last year's one with a fusion drive and i7 CPU.
     
  5. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #5
    Configuration of new iMac

    Couple of points...

    This isn't a new model like 9.0. This is an improved model like 9.1. The only new parts are the panel, card, and how they connect.

    It's not a question of if but when retina is an ignored spec because that's all anything will be

    My favorite and heaviest use for retina isn't photo or video, it's actually text. For the first time since displays were invented, they are finally on par with paper for clarity.

    Spec for spec, the retina model is only a few hundred more than the low res.

    The only reason I'd skip retina here is if budget couldn't support it. Easily worth saving a few months more to make the upgrade.
     
  6. Col Vandal macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #6
    I think the older iMac would be fine in your case, but adding the 3TB fusion puts you close to the base retina. Would you "need" to max out the retina? Probably not in your case. So, for $100 more you get a faster processor, faster base GPU and either an SSD drive or a 1TB fusion, plus a retina display. The value is definitely in the retina or possibly a refurb.
     
  7. tom0511 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    #7
    Sounds quite reasonable, if the base riMac will perform just as smooth as the high spec late 13 would. Still got my doubts on that, but on the other hand, would Apple offer something which is not performing up to basic needs?

    You guys really make me think this over again... Thanks for that
     
  8. Col Vandal macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #8
    It's a tough one. I'm trying to make the same decision and I'm coming from a 2008 iMac. I'm probably a bit more demanding on my machine but am reading some of the barefeats tests and am still flummoxed, lol.
     

Share This Page