One of my friends was telling me not to buy it now because the new imac will likely have an Nvidia rather than the Radeon. I don't have to buy it now but I'm just really impatient. What's your opinion on this? Also, any idea when the new imac 5K is gonna be released?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is it OK to buy an 5K imac 27" now?
- Thread starter vmflapem
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If ya want it/need it, get it...it will still last a good long while. There are Macs from 2012 still able to handle most things of todays needs. Specify your needs and you may get a better tailored answer.
I'm only gonna be using it for movies, youtubes, web browsing, and pdf reading. No fancy video/photo editing. Also, I might install bootcamp windows and play overwatch.
Neither Nvidia nor AMD have shipped their new generation laptop GPU chips, even after they ship them later this year, Apple may opt to wait for Intel Kaby Lake CPUs before they could release new models for the iMac product line.
So it comes to whether you need/want to buy it right now, or wait potentially half a year to see whether the new models will come out.
So it comes to whether you need/want to buy it right now, or wait potentially half a year to see whether the new models will come out.
Nobody knows for sure, including me, but it does seem like Apple will be leaning towards AMD anyway. But that's not necessarily a problem, the Nano was not a terrible card and some of their new stuff looks pretty interesting.
If you aren't gaming it won't make a blind bit of difference, your use case can be filled by an iPad with little difficulty so a 5k iMac will be fine for a decade unless your usage changes.
If you can wait, then you may be rewarded, but consider this. The versions of Kaby lake that the iMac will use, will not be out until 2017. The 2015 5k iMac is already on skylake, so we may not see much of an update (if any) this year. I'm personally very happy with my M395 5k iMac. Its a great machine
Usually in the October time frame, but as mentioned above, with Intel not having Kaby Lake ready, what will Apple do? Just update the dGPU?
Personally I'm waiting. If the new model doesn't offer me anything then I'll buy the current model at a discount. A lot of people overlook that. And if the new model does offer me something I want then I can buy that. Win win for me IMO. The only thing it cost me is time (which I'm fortunate to have).
So I would ask, is your time worth the wait? If not, just buy it now.
So I would ask, is your time worth the wait? If not, just buy it now.
A decade if it lasts that long. I had a 2007 iMac that would likely still be running if the hard drive didn't crash (5 years in) and not then not feasible to try to find an old version of OSX to install on it; then my 2012 27" iMac fried its motherboard last night - 3.5 years old and 6 months out of AppleCare.
Trying to decide if its worth buying the fastest processor wth the best video card available like I usually do to "future proof" in case the machine does actually last as long as its supposed to, or save some money and just get one that I plan to replace in 3 years.
Mostly office type work, but need to run Windows in Fusion all the time, as well as a processor heavy web-based software (estimating program).
So, I think that they will update the iMac, even though it will not be to Kaby Lake. I am thinking they will...
- Go from DDR3 RAM to DDR4
- Use a 400 series AMD GPU
- upgrade the SSD options or make the current ones less expensive
- Update the I/O ports to include USB 3.1 and Thunderbolt 3.
But, then again, all that is my hope. My 2011 Macbook Air is very long in tooth and when I buy I want to have those features...
To expand on this, I'd like to see a 1.5TB SSD introduced for the same price as the current 1TB upgrade. Would this be dreaming too much?
Buy a Samsung 850 EVO 2TB and install it in your iMac.
Boom! Now you a 2TB SSD iMac that costs less than a prebuild 1TB SSD iMac from Apple.
Yeah, I'd like to see larger SSDs and a lower price but I think that's a pipe dream, as this is Apple we're talking about.
If Apple offers a 1.5TB option anytime soon, it will cost an arm and a leg.
This is fortunate for third parties who perform the upgrades for fractions of what Apple charges.
The size is not what I want, but a more realistic price, though this is apple we're talking about. My only hope is that given the sliding marketshare lately, maybe they'll re-adjust the price structures to be a bit more competitive.
I'd hope so too, the word is out that they don't know what they're doing.
The Apple watch was 'supposed' to be the next big thing, what did they have before iMac, iPod, then iPhone, all of those things changed culture.
Now that the guy with all the good ideas is gone (dead), there's nobody else who can come up with them.
It's just a bunch of suits sitting around a table in a room who are only able to do what they've always done.
I stand by what I said before, I and probably any other Mac customers left at this point would want to see above all else only quality machines being made.
It used to be that it didn't matter what apple product you bought, they were all quality.
You could play darts with the lineup and whichever one you hit was worth the money.
The iMacs and so forth were always more expensive than their ugly (at that time) plastic counterparts but the user experience was far superior.
Apple used to use the catch phrase 'it just works'.
Now barely any of the stuff works, or at least works as it's supposed to.
How sad
The new iMac design is good but you can't put crap in it
[doublepost=1469706651][/doublepost]
1tb fusion with a nice 128gb SSD as standard in the lineup would be a good starting place.
now I don't believe that was a personal insult, I was merely providing commentary on the SSD, which is not a person.
The Apple watch was 'supposed' to be the next big thing, what did they have before iMac, iPod, then iPhone, all of those things changed culture.
Now that the guy with all the good ideas is gone (dead), there's nobody else who can come up with them.
It's just a bunch of suits sitting around a table in a room who are only able to do what they've always done.
I stand by what I said before, I and probably any other Mac customers left at this point would want to see above all else only quality machines being made.
It used to be that it didn't matter what apple product you bought, they were all quality.
You could play darts with the lineup and whichever one you hit was worth the money.
The iMacs and so forth were always more expensive than their ugly (at that time) plastic counterparts but the user experience was far superior.
Apple used to use the catch phrase 'it just works'.
Now barely any of the stuff works, or at least works as it's supposed to.
How sad
The new iMac design is good but you can't put crap in it
[doublepost=1469706651][/doublepost]
This is an option that will always be available to anyone, and while the evos are perhaps worth the money, they're slow little girl SSDs compared to the super fast SSDs in today's iMacs.
1tb fusion with a nice 128gb SSD as standard in the lineup would be a good starting place.
now I don't believe that was a personal insult, I was merely providing commentary on the SSD, which is not a person.
Last edited:
Wel,your 2007 could have been fixed for a few dollars with a new hard drive, hard drives die and 5-6 years is about average for how long they last so that's not unexpected.
Unlucky on the 2012, but if you take it into Apple it might well be under extended warranty for GPU failures see here for details,
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT203787
And if you are in the uk you should be covered under consumer law for 5 years.
Speed is relative and I doubt very much people would notice the speed difference between Apple's SSD and Samsungs. Of all the SSDs, samsung's EVO seems to be the one people go with for size, reliability and speed, so calling them a slow little girl ssd doesn't quite fit.
I'd like to see any sort of benchmarks that show the speed difference between the two, is it seconds, sub-seconds?
Also, your comment regarding slow little girls is very misogynist. I have two daughters who can run like the wind - I'm pretty sure they can out run you. Heck, they're stronger then most boys of their age (10). There was a push up contest occurring during their after school program. The boys were doing their push ups on their knees. I told my daughter to do her push ups one handed (without having her knees touch). So comments that insinuate that the female gender is weak is unnecessary and completely wrong
"Future proofing" a Mac is tough. Sure a fast processor and storage system help but that doesn't address new wifi and Bluetooth specs, USB types and speeds, TB types and speeds, and other additional tech that is added.
For me personally I'll want a new Mac for new features long before I feel the processor is a bottleneck.
Wifi AC for example, which is why I waited for my 2013 iMac. Technically I could have a faster CPU, GPU and SSD in a higher spec'd 2012 model but I wouldn't trade for it because I wouldn't need it.
Some people could say that about many things like PCIe SSD, 5k, TB2, etc all things a faster CPU can't futureproof you for.
It's not misogynist, I'm not a misogynist. Who said speed has anything to do with gender? That would be for everyone else to determine but I can tell you right now that gender does not relate to speed.
Maybe you would've been happier if I would've said a slow young boy SSD, but I wanted to represent the female gender.
Who is right and who's wrong when one says his/her / he/she. That is a question I advise anyone to look into. "Their" refers to a multitude of people so it cannot always be used correctly.
You're comparing >2000mb/s read speeds to about 500mb /s.
That would make it more than 3x as fast, 4x as fast.
You did.
good but you posted this:
(Emphasis added) How else can this be taken other then you introducing the idea that gender relates to speed?
Same issue, there's no.
My point is, regarding noticeable in real world usage, i.e., opening up MS Excel will take 2.1 seconds with Apple's SSD and 2.2 seconds on the EVO???. I don't know, which is why I'm asking..
Once again, you have shown that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Samsung 850 EVO 500GB has a better Random 4K Read than Apple SM0512G. This means that for most tasks, the Samsung 850 EVO 500GB is actually faster.
Apple SM0512G is faster in Sequential Read, but only matter if you perform certain tasks like transferring large files or editing very high resolution videos.
http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Samsung-850-Evo-500GB/Rating/3477
http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/25611/APPLE-SSD-SM0512G
Also, you are being very sexist.
[doublepost=1469716930][/doublepost]
In most tasks, the Samsung 850 EVO 500GB would be actually be faster than the Apple SM0512G because it has a better 4K Random Read. Only in tasks like transferring large files and editing very high definition video would be Apple SM0512G be faster because of its higher Sequential Read.
Once again, you are comparing Sequential Read which is not very important for a lot of users.
For most tasks 4K Random Read matters more.
The Samsung 850 EVO 500GB would be actually be faster than the Apple SM0512G in this case because it has a better 4K Random Read.
Last edited: