iMac 27" or riMac 27"

[NEWDOWN]

The problem with benchmarks and data is that when you see bars and scores and percentage you often get the wrong impression. I can only give you subjective and anecdotal data - that I ran quite a few games and consistently got similar scores between the two cards. Sure, I ran Fraps while playing and checked the fps to see if there is any difference, but I'd hardly call that scientific. For me, they run the same. It is hard to compare things using benchmarks (although everything else is anecdotal, as I already said) because you can get the wrong impression.

However, I don't have any experience with the M295X so I can't tell you if there are any other differences. The non-retina iMac does run things a bit more smoothly in some apps due to the retina screen, but it's not a significant difference and forcing the 5K to run at 2560x1440 gives the same performance. So, would you call that a tie, or give the edge to the non-retina as it feels smoother, or to the Retina iMac as it feels almost the same but runs a 5K screen? No idea. I guess you'd have to try it before you buy it

One thing I can tell you is that I think the base Retina iMac and high-end non-retina iMac have very similar performance, that I think the screen is worth the small price difference because of that and the base model does not overheat (maximum temperature is around 80 degrees for the GPU and only while gaming)

I've read you have the base retina and you've said that there is no overheating and the performance is as good as the high-end non retina display? If it is like that it is clear that the riMac one would be my first option. I've been reading here many problems dealing with base riMac model so it is very important the information you are giving me now.

 

[Kjos]

I have the normal iMac 2013 edition.

I have had no issues what so ever, had for over a year. So I'm bias toward that.

 

[aevan]

I've read you have the base retina and you've said that there is no overheating and the performance is as good as the high-end non retina display? If it is like that it is clear that the riMac one would be my first option. I've been reading here many problems dealing with base riMac model so it is very important the information you are giving me now.

Well, as I said, performance is similar in hardware terms and in games at the same resolutions, however, you must take into account that OSX apps run at 4x the resolution and that some of them are slightly less fluid. Lightroom, for example, now shows previews at 4x the resolution when applying filters so it is less responsive (it's not the hardware, it's just 4x more taxing and it would be the same on a 2013 iMac if it could display it in such a resolution). Also, for example, Evernote can be a bit jittery on notes with large images, but I'd say this is due to optimisations (Apple's new Photos app runs really smooth for example). There are certain places where things are a bit less smooth, but that's to be expected - it is similar to Retina MacBook Pros, for example. Also, Yosemite added some of its performance related issues to all retina/hidpi devices.

I still think the iMac base model runs great, though. It is very responsive and does some serious work really well. It just came at a tough time when Yosemite is giving people headaches so some of them are attributing it to the new iMac's hardware. I wouldn't be objective if I didn't mention all this, but I honestly think the base iMac is quite capable in every way.

For me - it's really a no brainer - I'd get the Retina iMac base model over any other non-retina iMac. Performance won't be an issue, really.

Oh, one thing I can confirm is - no overheating. The GPU rarely goes above 50 degrees, and the i5 is also quite cooler than the i7. You hear fans only during heavy gaming. Not even hours of Zbrush work gets them up (in contrast to the MacBook Pro that starts humming minutes after starting the app).

 

[Aggie83]

I faced same decision recently. Went retina. Screen is so great on the eyes. I don't game or run 4K video editors. I surf, business apps, garage band, email etc. I chose i7, 512SSD, R9 290. Just the way I divided up the dollars I had to spend. SSD to keep things speedy. I7 to give me a bit of horsepower for whatever might come out in the next 2-3 years.

YMMV

 

[senseless]

Base model Retina pluses are it's cool and quiet operation. Performance is just fine.

I needed a file from my old iMac 27" and fired it up last night. I was amazed how comparatively bad it looked after getting used to retina.

 

[NEWDOWN]

After reading so many great opinions, thank you very much for all of you, my first option is going to be a retina but taking into account that the base model is right for my use, any recommendation to update? If you were thinking about updating some component according to my needs, in terms of future which one do you choose and why?

Again, thank you very much

 

[matreya]

After reading so many great opinions, thank you very much for all of you, my first option is going to be a retina but taking into account that the base model is right for my use, any recommendation to update? If you were thinking about updating some component according to my needs, in terms of future which one do you choose and why?

Again, thank you very much

Well, the base Retina comes with a Fusion drive. I opted for a 512GB SSD because I preferred not to have a mechanical drive inside my Mac (especially given Apple are currently using Seagate drives, probably because they're cheap)

I also opted for the 4.0GHz i7 and the upgraded GPU, although I don't actually tax the GPU with games or high end graphics apps.

 

[aevan]

After reading so many great opinions, thank you very much for all of you, my first option is going to be a retina but taking into account that the base model is right for my use, any recommendation to update? If you were thinking about updating some component according to my needs, in terms of future which one do you choose and why?

Again, thank you very much

It depends on your needs.

If you can afford a 512Gb SSD, it is a nice thing to have. However, I would not get the 256Gb SSD instead of the Fusion Drive. FD is quite a good performer, so, personally, I'd invest in something else.

Get the i7 only if you're doing multithreaded apps. For most apps you won't see much of a difference for anything but rendering or encoding. Again, it is a nice thing to have, but it won't make a night and day difference.

As for the GPU, get the upgraded one if you want to play most demanding games. Also, it doesn't have issues with Mission Control it seems. It also increases the system heat and gets the fans running more often.

Basically - it comes down to this: all the upgrades are nice, but you'll be fine without them. Personally, if I had to upgrade something, it would probably be the GPU. But you'll be fine with the base model as well.

----------

Well, the base Retina comes with a Fusion drive. I opted for a 512GB SSD because I preferred not to have a mechanical drive inside my Mac (especially given Apple are currently using Seagate drives, probably because they're cheap)

I also opted for the 4.0GHz i7 and the upgraded GPU, although I don't actually tax the GPU with games or high end graphics apps.

Lol, so you basically told him to upgrade.... everything

 

[andy9l]

iMac 27" or riMac 27"

Basically - it comes down to this: all the upgrades are nice, but you'll be fine without them. Personally, if I had to upgrade something, it would probably be the GPU. But you'll be fine with the base model as well.

I agree with aevan for the most part, especially this bit. The retina iMac build you originally posted would be fine for you.

Do you know how much data you currently have (in gigabytes/terabytes), and how much of it needs to be actually on your iMac? When I say "on your iMac" I mean on the internal drive, as opposed to on a network drive, for example.

Once you know this, you can make the Fusion Drive vs. 256GB SSD decision.

 

[NEWDOWN]

I agree with aevan for the most part, especially this bit. The retina iMac build you originally posted would be fine for you.

Do you know how much data you currently have (in gigabytes/terabytes), and how much of it needs to be actually on your iMac? When I say "on your iMac" I mean on the internal drive, as opposed to on a network drive, for example.

Once you know this, you can make the Fusion Drive vs. 256GB SSD decision.

I've got a 256 SSD in my Windows computer and now I have 120 GB free because I used the SSD for the most important data (Win, Office, Two or three games) and the other data is in another internal HDD but it could be in external HDDs without any problems. So a 250GB SSD would be enough for me. What I don't know is how many GBs need the most important APPs in Mac?

 

[andy9l]

Great.

In that case, it comes down to whether or not you think you might want to play any more demanding games on this iMac in the future. If so, the M295X is your best bet.

If not, the base 5K iMac with the 256GB SSD would be a brilliant machine for you, I have no doubts.

 

[NEWDOWN]

Great.

In that case, it comes down to whether or not you think you might want to play any more demanding games on this iMac in the future. If so, the M295X is your best bet.

If not, the base 5K iMac with the 256GB SSD would be a brilliant machine for you, I have no doubts.

The most "powerful" game I'm going to play in the computer will be Football Manager 2015 or games like that but always in the highest quality because for the other games I'll use a XBOX ONE, so I think that for those kind of games getting the base model would be enough for years, I suppose...

 

[andy9l]

The most "powerful" game I'm going to play in the computer will be Football Manager 2015 or games like that but always in the highest quality because for the other games I'll use a XBOX ONE, so I think that for those kind of games getting the base model would be enough for years, I suppose...

For Football Manager 2015, the base 5K iMac blows away the recommend system specifications for Macs. You'll have no problem running those types of games for years to come.

The game might not be optimised for retina, though - so it may run at 2560x1440. Nothing you can do about that I'm afraid. I played games on my old 5K iMac at that resolution and it looked great.

 

[kepler20b]

there is no reason why the m290x or m295x cannot handle any game coming out in the next 3 years at 1080p/1200p at medium settings as a bare minimum.


If I can play bf4 on 64man servers at 1080/1200p on medium settings without ever feeling throttling or fps drops then I am positive my m295x will suffice for the next 3 years. And if OLED isnt out by then, I will just keep waiting.

 

[aevan]

I've got a 256 SSD in my Windows computer and now I have 120 GB free because I used the SSD for the most important data (Win, Office, Two or three games) and the other data is in another internal HDD but it could be in external HDDs without any problems. So a 250GB SSD would be enough for me. What I don't know is how many GBs need the most important APPs in Mac?

Well, first of all, the entire OS X is roughly 8Gb, and I have around 25Gb of apps (and I have quite a lot of them - Adobe apps, Zbrush, Office 2015 Preview, iWork, etc). I'm guessing you won't go beyond 50Gb.

There is quite a heated discussion if a 256Gb SSD + External drives is better than a Fusion Drive on these forums. My advice is to get a Fusion Drive while andy9l will suggest a 256Gb SSD. Either way, you'll enjoy good speeds and plenty of space for everything you need (with a 256Gb SSD you'll need an external drive as well, so keep that in mind).

there is no reason why the m290x or m295x cannot handle any game coming out in the next 3 years at 1080p/1200p at medium settings as a bare minimum.

Definitely. I can speak only for M290X, but I can imagine that the M295X is even better. The M290X can run the latest games at 1080p and even 1440p. For example, I ran Shadow of Mordor and Dragon Age 3 both at high settings at 45-60fps at 1440p. And these are brand new hit games. Tomb Raider and Call of Duty Advanced Warfare run at average 60fps at 1440p. In fact, the only game that gave me trouble was Assassin's Creed Unity which ran at 25-30 fps at high settings @ 1080p. It was playable, but only just.

I'd say the new iMacs are more than capable of running this generation of multi-platform games. I play on my PS4 for the most part, but I'm glad my iMac can run PC games in style.

 

[andy9l]

iMac 27" or riMac 27"

So long as you are prepared for the 256GB storage limitation, then I would say the SSD is the way to go. There's no benefit in getting the Fusion Drive in your specific case.

A Fusion Drive would be best suited if you had the same budget limitations *and* a stronger need to store all of your data exclusively on the iMac.

I prefer to store the vast majority of my data on a network drive because it's infinitely more accessible and useful to me across all of my devices, around the globe. However, it wouldn't be a great solution if I was, for example, doing video editing through it.

FYI, I actually use a self-made Fusion Drive on my personal 27" iMac (256GB SSD / 1TB HDD), and a proper 1TB Fusion Drive on my 2013 27" iMac at work.

 

[cincygolfgrrl]

If you want to get a heated discussion started at MacRumors, question the performance differences between retina and non-retina iMacs.

Based on the OP's needs, either should work wonderfully.

It's an iMac; sit back and enjoy.

 

[MarcoCapa]

One week ago I placed an order in Apple store and choose iMac similar to no 1. on your list (but I get GTX 775M and 1 TB fusion drive). This Mac no.2 is base model. When I was in Apple store, even store staff strongly advised me against buying base retina model. I saw this with my own eyes, when I tried just to scroll large pdf file on base retina iMac and quickly got spinning beachball.

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6671419

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1801945/

I think that the spinning ball is a problem related to software.... On windows in parallels no problem on a rMBP... And also on quick view.... I suggest that the riMac problem is the same.... Maybe Apple should consider an update to software?

 

[Stan°]

Hey guys,

Hijacking OP's post quite a bit.. cause I am in a similar situation right now.. Between the RiMac and the iMac..

RiMac with:
- i5
- 295X
- 1tb Flash

versus

iMac with:
- i5
- 780M
- 1tb Flash

I really need the storage so I am putting the price no problem.
Where I am really struggling is whether I need that much power: I upgraded the GPU on the Retina because of everything I read, and to be apple to apple, I've been looking at the upgraded GPU on the non-retina iMac.

I don't play (besides the occasional x-plane), I don't use any heavy applications on a regular basis (might work on some GoPro footage or some photos but that's very seldom)...

Do I need this much of a computer?

I feel I could content myself with the non retina without the GPU upgrade.. but going to the Retina means GPU upgrade.

What do you think? I am also wondering if buying the late '13 now makes sense.

Any help appreciated.

If I need to open a new thread, please let me know.

 

[aevan]

I think that the spinning ball is a problem related to software.... On windows in parallels no problem on a rMBP... And also on quick view.... I suggest that the riMac problem is the same.... Maybe Apple should consider an update to software?

True - if there is a problem, it's the software. And I have no beachballs on my base iMac while reading PDFs.... In fact, I had them on my Retina MacBook Pro - but not on iMac.

And I find it really hard to believe Apple actually advised him against buying their latest iMac. Can anyone really imagine Apple making a next generation Mac then having their employees advertise against buying it and recommending the previous generation?

I think this is mostly a case of sour grapes.

 

[kepler20b]

Hey guys,

Hijacking OP's post quite a bit.. cause I am in a similar situation right now.. Between the RiMac and the iMac..

RiMac with:
- i5
- 295X
- 1tb Flash

versus

iMac with:
- i5
- 780M
- 1tb Flash

I really need the storage so I am putting the price no problem.
Where I am really struggling is whether I need that much power: I upgraded the GPU on the Retina because of everything I read, and to be apple to apple, I've been looking at the upgraded GPU on the non-retina iMac.

I don't play (besides the occasional x-plane), I don't use any heavy applications on a regular basis (might work on some GoPro footage or some photos but that's very seldom)...

Do I need this much of a computer?

I feel I could content myself with the non retina without the GPU upgrade.. but going to the Retina means GPU upgrade.

What do you think? I am also wondering if buying the late '13 now makes sense.

Any help appreciated.

If I need to open a new thread, please let me know.

if you are just web browsing/word processing, and once a month doing some editing or rendering, then you dont need i7 or 295x

 

[MarcoCapa]

True - if there is a problem, it's the software. And I have no beachballs on my base iMac while reading PDFs.... In fact, I had them on my Retina MacBook Pro - but not on iMac.

And I find it really hard to believe Apple actually advised him against buying their latest iMac. Can anyone really imagine Apple making a next generation Mac then having their employees advertise against buying it and recommending the previous generation?

I think this is mostly a case of sour grapes.

Oh it's a very pleasing sensation hearing someone with the same problem like me.... ( I have a rMBP from 2014 and I have the problem... A friend of mine has a first generation rMBP and doesn't have the beachball).... God save the spacebar
Probably they are trying to switch to something more expensive...
I suppose that this depend on the store sales...
Said that is not a very bad buy an upgrade in the video card... probably the worst part to upgrade in the riMac...

P.S. do you have a base riMac? How is in every day use with the common task?
This mac intrigues me, but I'm in a conflict between a mac pro and this....

 

[andy9l]

Stuck between a Mac Pro and a base iMac?! They're on completely different levels, for completely different purposes!

 

[aesc80]

if you are just web browsing/word processing, and once a month doing some editing or rendering, then you dont need i7 or 295x

Unless the poster works on 1080P vids, then running an i5 might make him cry a bit.

On a separate note, perhaps I'm not catching it on posts, but one reason why I choose an iMac over a riMac is because of target monitor display. I would have got a riMac quickly if it weren't for the fact that I couldn't use TMD with my rMBP. Maybe it's a minority reason, but for me, it was quite critical. Hope that helps, OP.

 

[kepler20b]

Unless the poster works on 1080P vids, then running an i5 might make him cry a bit.

On a separate note, perhaps I'm not catching it on posts, but one reason why I choose an iMac over a riMac is because of target monitor display. I would have got a riMac quickly if it weren't for the fact that I couldn't use TMD with my rMBP. Maybe it's a minority reason, but for me, it was quite critical. Hope that helps, OP.

no chance.

once a month he edits a few videos, you're telling me thats worth spending the 250$ that cuts down his compiling tasks for a few seconds? not worth it.

----------

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/3

no real world difference for a guy whose going to be doing editing work once a week maximum.