Late 2013 iMac's spec bump in early 2015?

[andy9l]

It is cute you say this. You realize riMac lost Target Display Mode right? That could be a legit reason to think it is a step backwards. You realize that a mobile GPU is never going to touch a full fledged GPU on performance and of course you will get stuttering on 4K. And no, I'm not a troll or a paid shill. I own 5 Macs and my own custom built PC. I also rarely respond to fanbois, but this whole "retina is obviously better" mentality of late discounts the drawbacks to it. It's an awesome tech, but I don't think replacing everything is a win-win.

The iMac has always run mobile hardware, at least to my knowledge. It is, ultimately, a MacBook Pro on a stand.

The 5K iMac is running the best mobile hardware of any iMac yet, and thus is theoretically the best iMac yet. It outperforms the low-end Mac Pro and costs almost the same (with a 5K display vs. no display).

You are right - you can always build a higher-spec desktop that should outperform an iMac. That has always been the case. In the context of Apple, though, the 5K iMac seems to be a good value, high performance Mac.

 

[yjchua95]

The iMac has always run mobile hardware, at least to my knowledge. It is, ultimately, a MacBook Pro on a stand.

The 5K iMac is running the best mobile hardware of any iMac yet, and thus is theoretically the best iMac yet. It outperforms the low-end Mac Pro and costs almost the same (with a 5K display vs. no display).

You are right - you can always build a higher-spec desktop that should outperform an iMac. That has always been the case. In the context of Apple, though, the 5K iMac seems to be a good value, high performance Mac.

The iMac's processor isn't mobile hardware.

It runs on desktop CPUs.

 

[redheeler]

The iMac has always run mobile hardware, at least to my knowledge. It is, ultimately, a MacBook Pro on a stand.

The 5K iMac is running the best mobile hardware of any iMac yet, and thus is theoretically the best iMac yet. It outperforms the low-end Mac Pro and costs almost the same (with a 5K display vs. no display).

You are right - you can always build a higher-spec desktop that should outperform an iMac. That has always been the case. In the context of Apple, though, the 5K iMac seems to be a good value, high performance Mac.

An iMac is not a MacBook Pro on a stand, that would be a Mac mini. An iMac has a desktop CPU and HDD. The reason for the mobile GPU is simple. Lack of space and insufficient cooling.

But that doesn't mean the mobile GPU is a slouch, it is one of the best ones on the market and equivalent to higher power mid-range desktop GPUs. Apple knows it will suite most users fine, but not heavy gamers who should just build their own gaming PC with high-end graphics cards.

 

[andy9l]

The iMac's processor isn't mobile hardware.



It runs on desktop CPUs.

Didn't realise that, always thought they were under-clocked/mobile versions of the desktop variants. Thanks!

 

[yjchua95]

Didn't realise that, always thought they were under-clocked/mobile versions of the desktop variants. Thanks!

In fact, the retina iMac has an option for an i7-4790K, allowing for overclocking.

 

[redheeler]

Didn't realise that, always thought they were under-clocked/mobile versions of the desktop variants. Thanks!

Only the low-end 21.5'', which is basically a Macbook Air on a stand. The others have desktop CPUs.

 

[steve62388]

It is cute you say this. You realize riMac lost Target Display Mode right? That could be a legit reason to think it is a step backwards. You realize that a mobile GPU is never going to touch a full fledged GPU on performance and of course you will get stuttering on 4K.

Lol. That is so condescending.

You realize riMac lost Target Display Mode right?

I don't know the percentage of Mac users who operate more than one monitor but I'm guessing it's incredibly small. Maybe less than 1%? So losing TDM wouldn't be a biggie for most people.

You realize that a mobile GPU is never going to touch a full fledged GPU

What you say is true, but I don't see Apple moving to a desktop GPU in the iMac anytime soon, maybe one day if desktop and mobile parts converge. Such is life.

 

[yjchua95]

It is cute you say this. You realize riMac lost Target Display Mode right? That could be a legit reason to think it is a step backwards. You realize that a mobile GPU is never going to touch a full fledged GPU on performance and of course you will get stuttering on 4K. And no, I'm not a troll or a paid shill. I own 5 Macs and my own custom built PC. I also rarely respond to fanbois, but this whole "retina is obviously better" mentality of late discounts the drawbacks to it. It's an awesome tech, but I don't think replacing everything is a win-win.

You sure haven't seen a retina MBP with just a single Iris Pro, or a 2GB GT 750M card driving a 4K display at 60 Hz without stuttering at all...

 

[parisi2274]

I'm in the same boat as most of you in this thread...

I am currently working off a 2009 iMac (picked it up March 2009), and I think its time to put it out to pasture...

I was looking into getting the 27" non-r iMac with the base 8gb memory (going to upgrade to 16gb on my own.) with 512gb flash storage.

I was looking at the 5K iMac, but it just seems like complete overkill to me, so I'll be going with the non-r...

I'm just so leary, cause I do not want to get this new iMac and then in like 2 months time, the line gets a nice spec bump.

 

[andy9l]

Late 2013 iMac's spec bump in early 2015?

I'm in the same boat as most of you in this thread...



I am currently working off a 2009 iMac (picked it up March 2009), and I think its time to put it out to pasture...



I was looking into getting the 27" non-r iMac with the base 8gb memory (going to upgrade to 16gb on my own.) with 512gb flash storage.



I was looking at the 5K iMac, but it just seems like complete overkill to me, so I'll be going with the non-r...



I'm just so leary, cause I do not want to get this new iMac and then in like 2 months time, the line gets a nice spec bump.

Not trying to persuade you, or convince myself or anything like that, but this is my 2 cents to your situation:

I've just pulled the trigger on a i7, 512GB, 8GB (will be 24), m295x coming from a 2010 iMac (2.8 i5).

When you spec up a non-retina vs. a retina there is such a negligible price difference. It works out as getting a 5K screen and better graphics+processor for about £320. A no-brainer, in my eyes.

You will ALWAYS be waiting for spec bumps if you go down the route of 'maybe the next one will be better for me'. But if you look back at the past 5 years, there hasn't been any outstanding jumps in performance in any given release (year-on-year comparisons, not a 2009 vs. 2014 comparison). The 5K display is one of the biggest steps, in my opinion.

In March 2015 they aren't going to release an iMac that outperforms a fully-loaded 2013 Mac Pro, for example. It just won't happen. Based on historical evidence, the next refresh will more than likely be another minor performance bump that will only be noticeable when you're pushing the machine to its limits.

Obviously it's your money, your decision. No-one here can or should convince you to buy anything. Whichever iMac you get will be a significant performance jump from your 2009.

 

[Alesc]

I'm in the same boat as most of you in this thread...

I am currently working off a 2009 iMac (picked it up March 2009), and I think its time to put it out to pasture...

I was looking into getting the 27" non-r iMac with the base 8gb memory (going to upgrade to 16gb on my own.) with 512gb flash storage.

I was looking at the 5K iMac, but it just seems like complete overkill to me, so I'll be going with the non-r...

I'm just so leary, cause I do not want to get this new iMac and then in like 2 months time, the line gets a nice spec bump.

I've changed my 2007 alu iMac for the last 2013 fifteen days ago: I'm very happy with my new machine (i7, 24GB RAM, GTX 780M, FD 3TB).
It is very fast, super silent and the screen is really beautiful (pitch, brightness, contrast and evenness).
Despite its gorgeous and innovative screen, I didn't go for the Retina because of its youth: graphical performances and heat, see the differents tests online (The Verge test conclusion for example). I've tested 3 different machines in Apple Stores, the Retina screen is magic, but when you put them into high definition mode (more space), the Yosemite GUI is really laggy (when you switch between different spaces, when you activate Mission Control, when you are displaying HD photos and scrolling in iPhoto, etc.). I will take the Retina in 1 or 2 gens, when Apple will learn how to move flawlessly so many pixels.

And I doubt Apple will renew the 27" non Retina iMac soon... If they renew it a day (and that is not sure, the high-end is now the Retina), it will be with the Intel Broadwell architecture, Q3 2015 I've red...

You can go for the Late 2013 or for the Retina without fear

 

[maflynn]

I suspect because this iMac is so new (compared to other Macs), this will be the last to make it to Broadwell. I'd guess late 2015, but I have no real clue.

 

[steve62388]

You can go for the Late 2013 or for the Retina without fear

This is terrible advice. There is a reason MacRumors' buyers guide says 'Caution' and 'Don't Buy' when a model has not been updated for a long time. I would agree with you if Apple dropped their prices on the 2013 models, but why you would buy a 15 month old unit at full price is beyond me?

I've changed my 2007 alu iMac for the last 2013 fifteen days ago: I'm very happy with my new machine (i7, 24GB RAM, GTX 780M, FD 3TB).
It is very fast, super silent and the screen is really beautiful (pitch, brightness, contrast and evenness).

That's a given, your previous machine was over six years old.

Yosemite GUI is really laggy (when you switch between different spaces, when you activate Mission Control

This appears to be a bug in Yosemite. There are plenty of posts here reporting the same on many different models.

 

[Alesc]

This appears to be a bug in Yosemite. There are plenty of posts here reporting the same on many different models.

That's what Retina's buyers say...
Have you seen this post? It's not only Mission Control who is laggy with the 14 megapixels of the Retina...

This is the Lightroom performance I'm getting on both my maxed out iMac 5Ks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sczrtlZKZQM

I've chosen the fieldproven choice and will get a Retina later: I won't be a beta tester at full price

My advice is not worst or better than yours. Everybody will find the machine who fits his needs. I have chosen to not buy the Retina and I am perfectly happy with the Late 2013

And with the refurb or the AOC program, the late 2013 is affordable (I had 13% off).


EDIT: just a link to Barefet test (Late 2013 iMac vs Retina iMac)
The late 2013 and the Retina are very very close in terms of performance... The only real difference between both is the screen. Like I said, a matter of choice

 

[fastlanephil]

I'd guess that the iMac will be updated around June 2015 if Broadwell for the desktop is shipping in sufficient numbers. I'm sure it's going to be pretty much a ASAP thing for Apple.

I don't expect the new iMacs to standardize around the current iMac Retina graphics platform anytime soon. I think the iMac Retina will still be a separate product category with the next refresh of the iMac and and the iMacs might get Broadwell but not the iMac Retina.

The iMac Retina could be first to get the Skylake processors for the desktop depending on what happens at Intel and Skylake it's self.

 

[andy9l]

Late 2013 iMac's spec bump in early 2015?

I don't expect the new iMacs to standardize around the current iMac Retina graphics platform anytime soon. I think the iMac Retina will still be a separate product category with the next refresh of the iMac and and the iMacs might get Broadwell but not the iMac Retina.

Interesting you think that. I'd guess the other way, personally, and say the non-retina would be lucky to see another update. They are already so similarly priced. I'd expect a slight drop in prices at next refresh, but only component updates for the retina until they eventually drop the non-retina as it is today.

I'm going on the history of the MBP and the fact that Apple won't like having a 'non-retina' product hanging around a whole suite of retina ones. It looks bad, it looks old and it's not marketable.

But, who knows...

 

[tillsbury]

It is cute you say this. You realize riMac lost Target Display Mode right? That could be a legit reason to think it is a step backwards. You realize that a mobile GPU is never going to touch a full fledged GPU on performance and of course you will get stuttering on 4K. And no, I'm not a troll or a paid shill. I own 5 Macs and my own custom built PC. I also rarely respond to fanbois, but this whole "retina is obviously better" mentality of late discounts the drawbacks to it. It's an awesome tech, but I don't think replacing everything is a win-win.

Absolutely. I don't play lots of current bleeding-edge games and so don't need twin SLI industrial graphics cards. But also, I didn't pay several thousand dollars for a computer that I ever intend to switch off and use as a monitor alone. Seriously, how many people do that? I don't know whether I'll get stuttering on 4K, but I get not the slightest bit on 5k. Sounds a bit to me as if none of the 5 Macs you have is a high end retina imac. You might be impressed if you try one...

 

[fastlanephil]

Interesting you think that. I'd guess the other way, personally, and say the non-retina would be lucky to see another update. They are already so similarly priced. I'd expect a slight drop in prices at next refresh, but only component updates for the retina until they eventually drop the non-retina as it is today.

I'm going on the history of the MBP and the fact that Apple won't like having a 'non-retina' product hanging around a whole suite of retina ones. It looks bad, it looks old and it's not marketable.

But, who knows...

I think observing what Apple is doing with the mobile Macs and thinking the same changes will take place with the desktop Macs is not understanding that these are two distinct product catagories. A Retina MacBook Pro is more akin to a iPad Air than the iMac Retina 5K.

The iMac Retina 5K is really a separate product from the other iMacs even. I think it's going to continue to be one for some time. The reaon is the Mac Pro.

The Mac Pro isn't going to have 5K capability until Thunderbolt 3. Thunderbolt 3 will come with Intels Skylake processor which won't be a Xeon processor until probably late 2016 or early 2017.

There is no way that Apple would standardize the iMacs around a Retina 5k display until after the Mac Pro has 5k capability. Anyway I see no hurry for Apple to take the iMac line to 5K resolution because any benefits for the average user are not going to out way the additional cost of the display. Those benefits right now are clearer text. The graphic capabilities of 5K are aimed at graphic professionals and prosumers.

Also Apple isn't going to reengineer the iMac Retina 5K a few months after releasing it. You don't simply drop a new generation processor onto the logic board. On the other hand the other iMacs are over do for a refresh. I don't see much of a gain with Broadwell but Apple will toss in a few other goodies to excite consumers.

 

[redheeler]

I think observing what Apple is doing with the mobile Macs and thinking the same changes will take place with the desktop Macs is not understanding that these are two distinct product catagories. A Retina MacBook Pro is more akin to a iPad Air than the iMac Retina 5K.

The iMac Retina 5K is really a separate product from the other iMacs even. I think it's going to continue to be one for some time. The reaon is the Mac Pro.

The Mac Pro isn't going to have 5K capability until Thunderbolt 3. Thunderbolt 3 will come with Intels Skylake processor which won't be a Xeon processor until probably late 2016 or early 2017.

There is no way that Apple would standardize the iMacs around a Retina 5k display until after the Mac Pro has 5k capability. Anyway I see no hurry for Apple to take the iMac line to 5K resolution because any benefits for the average user are not going to out way the additional cost of the display. Those benefits right now are clearer text. The graphic capabilities of 5K are aimed at graphic professionals and prosumers.

Also Apple isn't going to reengineer the iMac Retina 5K a few months after releasing it. You don't simply drop a new generation processor onto the logic board. On the other hand the other iMacs are over do for a refresh. I don't see much of a gain with Broadwell but Apple will toss in a few other goodies to excite consumers.

If Apple was worried about the 5K iMac competing too heavily with the Mac Pro they wouldn't have released it in the first place. The Mac Pro will get its expected Haswell update in 2015.

As for the next Retina iMac update, I can see them skipping Broadwell and updating when Skylake becomes available for the iMac's processor. A 4K 21.5'' with Broadwell sometime in the first half of 2015 is plausible.

The display does benefit anyone who uses it. It reduces eye strain while increasing clarity. It also has a higher contrast ratio and better viewing angles.

 

[andy9l]

The Mac Pro isn't going to have 5K capability until Thunderbolt 3. Thunderbolt 3 will come with Intels Skylake processor which won't be a Xeon processor until probably late 2016 or early 2017.

There is no way that Apple would standardize the iMacs around a Retina 5k display until after the Mac Pro has 5k capability. Anyway I see no hurry for Apple to take the iMac line to 5K resolution because any benefits for the average user are not going to out way the additional cost of the display. Those benefits right now are clearer text. The graphic capabilities of 5K are aimed at graphic professionals and prosumers.

Also Apple isn't going to reengineer the iMac Retina 5K a few months after releasing it. You don't simply drop a new generation processor onto the logic board. On the other hand the other iMacs are over do for a refresh. I don't see much of a gain with Broadwell but Apple will toss in a few other goodies to excite consumers.

Maybe. My view is that with Apple, like many premium brands, it's about the marketing; and taking someone over to the in-store desk saying, "So this is basically that one, but worse." isn't going to fly well. The MBP got killed off so quickly by the rMBP, I'd be surprised if the same didn't happen with the iMacs.

The cost difference is getting towards negligible (£240 at the cheapest, closest comparison), given the marketed benefits - 5K screen, faster processor, faster graphics. I'd be surprised if the average 27" iMac buyer didn't fork out for the retina now. It's £1,759 vs. £1,999.

Whilst I agree that the benefits are limited for your average computer user, the reason I bought one wasn't for the retina - it was because my iMac needed replacing. That's the primary reason the 'average user' buys an iMac, or any new computer - their old PC/Mac is knackered. Then they're faced with £1,759 for an old iMac, or £1,999 for the all-new 5K iMac. Again, marketing kicks in. We all know how well Apple use prices to up-sell.

Updating the now-old iMac with a newer/better processor than the new iMac doesn't seem sensible either. You'd risk killing sales of the retina.

That's just my opinion. You might be right, I might be right. Ultimately, though, high-DPI desktop displays are going to continue to become more common. The iMac is one of those.

 

[fastlanephil]

If Apple was worried about the 5K iMac competing too heavily with the Mac Pro they wouldn't have released it in the first place. The Mac Pro will get its expected Haswell update in 2015.

As for the next Retina iMac update, I can see them skipping Broadwell and updating when Skylake becomes available for the iMac's processor. A 4K 21.5'' with Broadwell sometime in the first half of 2015 is plausible.

The display does benefit anyone who uses it. It reduces eye strain while increasing clarity. It also has a higher contrast ratio and better viewing angles.

Yes, the iMac Retina has some incremental display improvements besides better text clarity but not enough to sway the average consumer. People have to really SEE the difference and experience it in store.

I also think the iMacs might get 4K displays which the Mac Pro is capable of working with. And Apple IS very sensitive to keeping their product lines distinct. Hence the recent lobotomization of the Mac Mini. Apple has a long history of crippling their products to keep the lines separate. This is something that is the opposite on the Windows side but that's apples and oranges.

I'm currently just using my 2011 2.7GHz 27" iMac after selling my quad Mac Mini which I was using with the iMac with midi/audio over LAN via VE Pro 5 which was great for CPU performance but not great for my work flow style.

I'm sort of between the iMac and the Mac Pro for my needs. Working with a DAW, the more cores the merrier, so I was hoping to see a hex core iMac but that dosen't look likely until possibably Skylake. The Mac Pro would have to base on the hex core and there would have to be a hex core that would run cool enough as well as fast enough for the iMac form factor. But that's becoming increasingly unlikely with Apple's thinness craze, at least in the near to not to far future.

 

[powerslave65]

Apple Stores are too bright to critically assess all aspects of a high end display like the one on the riMac. . The store is perfect for showcasing the iMac as an object d'art.