Hi, I'm debating whether to buy the standard iMac 3.2GHz with a customised 1Tb Fusion drive, or the Retina iMac 2.5Gz. I know the Retina has a great screen. To my understanding, this will be the same size as the other non-retina screens, same screen real estate in a retina view, but 4 times better. I mainly would watch movies on my screen, and I'm happy with my current 21.5" iMac (watching movies), so this isn't a deal breaker for my buying decision. My usage will be all day for multiple applications but mostly simple apps like multiple browsers, iTunes, Evernote, notes, Microsoft Word/Excel, Skype, GoToMeeting or video meetings, etc. A mix of "home" and "work". Speed and durability will be the deal breaker. Is the 3.2Ghz with a fusion drive very similar to the Retina? In some reviews, I'm actually reading that the standard 8Gb on the Retina is NOT ENOUGH - with basic apps like the above, it seems rather slow, and people recommended the 16Gb. This is something I read on a Google search today (other forum posts). Is it true? That makes me think, which is faster? Is Retina using up performance? I want to get the faster machine out of the two, the iMac 27" fusion or the iMac Retina. I need to pay around $350 more in my country (in Asia) for the difference. I would rather save money than get the amazing screen, BUT if the Retina is just faster/better for performance, I'd invest in the Retina for the bonus of the screen. If the Retina is SLOWER though (regardless of it having more video memory and a faster chipset), I'd definitely go for the iMac 27" standard with 1tb fusion. Please help me decide!!!! Is there a performance difference? Thanks in advance!