iMac late 2013 vs. riMac: Side-by-side comparison

[Kayan]

I just barely installed 32 GB RAM up from 8 GB on my RiMac and it's noticeably faster. Although 8 GB used to be plenty of RAM, these new 64 bit OS's sure have no problem eating through that. Everything is just snappy. I likely will never get close to using all 32 GB's, but now that I've maxed it, I never have to worry about upgrading it again in the future and I get to experience the fastest my computer can perform for the life of it. I'm very happy I upgraded RAM (though not from Apple).

 

[dandrewk]

That's the key. If I do the same task on both iMacs, will the text be more readable on the Retina iMac if both are at 1280 x 720 resolution?

Also will 8GB of RAM be sufficient for what we do which is word processing, surfing the net, email, playing music, viewing photos. Basic stuff.

Jay

A static 1280 x 720 image should look the same on either display. As you said, the text will look remarkably sharper on the RiMac.

re: memory - your machine will use disk swapping a lot more with minimum ram. Even with an SSD drive, you will have slower performance. 8 GB doesn't cut it anymore when you want the best your machine can offer, even if you are only web surfing or playing music, etc.

The good news is RAM is much cheaper nowadays. Apple charges WAY too much when you buy from them, so it is MUCH cheaper to buy the lowest possible RAM they offer, then do the (very easy) upgrade yourself. The 8 GB will have 2 X 4 GB installed, which leaves you two vacant slots for more memory. If you bought two 8 GB sticks, you would have 24 GB, which should be plenty.

----------

... I likely will never get close to using all 32 GB's, but now that I've maxed it, I never have to worry about upgrading it again in the future and I get to experience the fastest my computer can perform for the life of it. I'm very happy I upgraded RAM (though not from Apple).

MacOS dynamically uses as much RAM as it can, so even at 32 GB you may see some disk swapping.

Run Activity Monitor in the background. At the end of the day, you may see "Swap Used" showing usage.

 

[forg0t]

The 2013 iMac is only a year old, and except for the screen the RiMac isn't a significant leap forward in technology.

RiMac has one of the best processors you can buy on a desktop right now. I'll argue the GPU is great, gaming aside. I don't think there are any laptops/AIO that support even 4k at 60hz, which the RiMac does even at 5k. Not even the powerful 970m/980m can accomplish this.

But i wasn't referring to the RiMac when I was commenting the age of the old iMacs. It's nearing 2015 and the next Intel refresh. The 970/980m will drop in price. You guys are complaining about the m295x and praising the 970/980m so much, wouldn't it be worth waiting for a few more months for the next refresh that may have what everyone wants? Seems like people are rebounding from their dissapointment of the RiMac to purchasing the top end 2013 iMac to save a little bit of money.

 

[firsmith]

even if you're not in love with the screen, there isn't a reason to buy a 2013 Mac when it's almost 2015 now.

especially at 2013 prices

 

[Kayan]

especially at 2013 prices

^This. Actually, if they would've discounted the 2013, I would've bought that over the RiMac. I guess I'm glad they didn't now that I have this beauty.

 

[Roller]

I frequently use OS X's manual zoom feature (modifier key + scroll) to enlarge text that I'm working on. On my non-Retina displays, the sharpness of the characters decreases quickly past a certain point, counteracting the advantage of their larger size. On my Retina iMac, I can zoom much more before sharpness diminishes. Of course, this may not matter at all to some people who are trying to make a decision on what to get.