Let's settle this once and for all (iMac Late 2013)

[Kjos]

riMac vs. Late 2013 (Haswell one)

Cons for riMac:

> a lot of noise issues with medium to heavy use
> 5k Display too much for the video cards to handle? (unconfirmed)

Pros for riMac:

> Sharper text and overall display

I don't own the riMac, I have the late 2013 Haswell one, this is what I've been hearing from most forum posts.

So would you guys say for someone looking for a new iMac, would you recommend the riMac or the late 2013 one? I would say late 2013 because a light but constant fan noise would be too annoying for me I think.

Thanks for reading guys!

 

[hamiltonDSi]

Don't be afraid to embrace new technologies. Go for Retina.
Most of the problems are software. Just compare the first gen rMBP running Lion and the another first gen rMBP running Yosemite. Most of the lag and choppy animations have been fixed.

 

[palebluedot]

Don't be afraid to embrace new technologies. Go for Retina.
Most of the problems are software. Just compare the first gen rMBP running Lion and the another first gen rMBP running Yosemite. Most of the lag and choppy animations have been fixed.

Huge con: Loss of Target Display Mode. For some "pixel density". To me, that's not worth it since you are investing in a high end Mac Mini attached to an awesome IPS display panel when you buy an iMac. you might as well be able to use that IPS panel for other machines, too.

 

[redheeler]

Huge con: Loss of Target Display Mode. For some "pixel density". To me, that's not worth it since you are investing in a high end Mac Mini attached to an awesome IPS display panel when you buy an iMac. you might as well be able to use that IPS panel for other machines, too.

My Mac mini went headless when I upgraded from a used 2010 to the retina. At first I loathed the loss of target display mode, but then I bought an HDMI display emulator for the Mac mini and was even able to get it to display in HiDPI. Using Thunderbolt Bridge also hugely cut down the lag. Has worked fine for me ever since, I even like having it in a window more than full screen at a resolution that would have to be upscaled since the Mac mini doesn't support 5K.

 

[palebluedot]

My Mac mini went headless when I upgraded from a used 2010 to the retina. At first I loathed the loss of target display mode, but then I bought an HDMI display emulator for the Mac mini and was even able to get it to display in HiDPI. Using Thunderbolt Bridge also hugely cut down the lag. Has worked fine for me ever since, I even like having it in a window more than full screen at a resolution that would have to be upscaled since the Mac mini doesn't support 5K.

That is a pretty cool solution. I still lament the loss of target display, because your solution would not work for someone who wants to hook up their work provided Windows laptop with mini-DP to an iMac.

 

[Yebubbleman]

riMac vs. Late 2013 (Haswell one)

Cons for riMac:

> a lot of noise issues with medium to heavy use
> 5k Display too much for the video cards to handle? (unconfirmed)

Pros for riMac:

> Sharper text and overall display

I don't own the riMac, I have the late 2013 Haswell one, this is what I've been hearing from most forum posts.

So would you guys say for someone looking for a new iMac, would you recommend the riMac or the late 2013 one? I would say late 2013 because a light but constant fan noise would be too annoying for me I think.

Thanks for reading guys!

Neither. With Broadwell just around the corner and with the retina iMac being the first rev of its kind, it makes more sense to wait for the next refresh to make a proper decision.

 

[largefarrva]

Retina iMac, and after seeing it perform in person I don't have any 2nd guesses. I made the right decision. Amazing display, gpu (295) is doing an excellent job for what I need it to do, and the fan noise isn't bad at all (I don't even notice it while gaming...unless I stop to pay attention and hear it).

 

[retinaimac]

love mine, but im impatient as hell and just had to have one now. no issues so far other than time machine displays funny on yosemite. no fan noise but i dont game either, just do alot of video streaming

 

[matreya]

I replaced a later 2012 27 inch iMac with a Retina iMac and love the improved text rendering and it seems a bit zippier as well, with a 512GB PCIe flash drive whereas the 2012 iMac had a SATA SSD.

I don't use the Retina iMac for gaming, just for playing 720p/1080p video, along with the usual uses (web browsing, email etc) but I've never noticed the fan being noisy.

That said, in my room I have 5 drive enclosures with fans and an aircon unit that would be noisier than the iMac.

 

[robgendreau]

Please. If you are into cutting edge gaming, consider something else. Not an iMac. Of any stripe. Ditto for fan noise. It's a small form factor that will have issues getting rid of heat. If it's critical, go buy a nMP. Or PC. Or a retina MBP.

If you do real work though, get a retina. It's the future. The issues, as they are with most every piece of hardware, are overstated here. The vast majority of those of us who use it are very very happy.

And sure there will be better stuff in the future. There always is. But do you wanna be staring an old fashioned screen while you wait?

 

[inhalexhale1]

riMac vs. Late 2013 (Haswell one)

Pros for riMac:

> Sharper text and overall display

This is really the deciding factor in these "late 2013" vs "riMac" threads. If the retina display is worth several hundred dollars to you, then get it. If not, there is no reason to buy it over the other one.

----------

And sure there will be better stuff in the future. There always is. But do you wanna be staring an old fashioned screen while you wait?

Yes, the 1440p screens are so old fashioned.


.......

 

[cincygolfgrrl]

2013 maxed out iMac for me

• 3.5GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7
• 16GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM
• 512GB Flash Storage
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX780M 4GB GDDR5

It's very fast. See the Geekbench 3 Single-Core benchmarks — touting the glories of the retina version but shows the 2013 iMac is faster than a Mac Pro.

My 2013 iMac is so quiet I don't have a clue about the fan; I've never heard it. It's good, solid technology, not ancient history as some would have you believe.

If you're on the fence, or can't justify the extra expense the 2013 iMac, especially with some upgrades is the second fastest iMac on the planet. Text and images are clean and clear; there are no gaps between pixels like the retina-at-all-costs proponents are insinuating.

If you need or really want a retina iMac, go for it. I'm sure you'll love it. Please don't discount the late 2013 iMac. If you get it you'll love it too.

 

[hjalte]

• 3.5GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7
• 16GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM
• 512GB Flash Storage
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX780M 4GB GDDR5

It's very fast. See the Geekbench 3 Single-Core benchmarks in this article touting the glories of the retina version. It's faster than a Mac Pro.

My 2013 iMac is so quiet I don't have a clue about the fan; I've never heard it. It's good, solid technology, not ancient history as some would have you believe.

If you're on the fence, or can't justify the extra expense the 2013 iMac, especially with some upgrades is the second fastest iMac on the planet. Text and images are clean and clear; there are no gaps between pixels like the retina at all costs proponents are saying.

If you need or really want a retina iMac, go for it. I'm sure you'll love it. Please don't discount the late 2013 iMac. If you get it you'll love it too.

Just what I needed to hear cincygolfgrrl. I'm getting real close at making a decision (that only took 2 weeks haha)

 

[Melodeath]

No one has mentioned yet that the Retina has a better/faster CPU (assuming you upgrade to the 4.0GHz option). That upgrade is not available with the 2013 iMac as far as I know. For me, that is the major deciding factor, but I would be using the iMac in my recording studio, not just for Facebook/Youtube, etc.

 

[cincygolfgrrl]

Just what I needed to hear cincygolfgrrl. I'm getting real close at making a decision (that only took 2 weeks haha)

Whatever you do it's a big investment that you'll be living with for a few years. Take your time.

 

[mmomega]

riMac vs. Late 2013 (Haswell one)

Cons for riMac:

> a lot of noise issues with medium to heavy use
> 5k Display too much for the video cards to handle? (unconfirmed)

Pros for riMac:

> Sharper text and overall display

I don't own the riMac, I have the late 2013 Haswell one, this is what I've been hearing from most forum posts.

So would you guys say for someone looking for a new iMac, would you recommend the riMac or the late 2013 one? I would say late 2013 because a light but constant fan noise would be too annoying for me I think.

Thanks for reading guys!

I plan on going from a the 2013 in my sig to a retina iMac within the next 1-2 months.
The retina screen is such a Huge difference for me.

I barely touch a game so that is not a deciding factor for me but I'll go for the max vid card just because the price is not that significant, might as well get it.

 

[cincygolfgrrl]

No one has mentioned yet that the Retina has a better/faster CPU (assuming you upgrade to the 4.0GHz option). That upgrade is not available with the 2013 iMac as far as I know. For me, that is the major deciding factor, but I would be using the iMac in my recording studio, not just for Facebook/Youtube, etc.

That's a multi-core process right? The 4.0GHz in the riMac is obviously a better choice for you if it is. But the 3.5GH i7 wouldn't be horrible.

 

[Melodeath]

That's a multi-core process right? The 4.0GHz in the riMac is obviously a better choice for you if it is. But the 3.5GH i7 wouldn't be horrible.

Agreed. CPU is always the limiting factor when it comes to audio work, so that would be my priority, personally. The Retina screen and better GPU are just bonuses.

 

[inhalexhale1]

I plan on going from a the 2013 in my sig to a retina iMac within the next 1-2 months.
The retina screen is such a Huge difference for me.

I barely touch a game so that is not a deciding factor for me but I'll go for the max vid card just because the price is not that significant, might as well get it.

I just didn't walk away with that "WOW" from the retina iMac. At least not in the same way as when the retina MacBook came out. The new iMac display does look better of course, but it feels incrementally better. Like the rest of the machine I suppose.

 

[AppleFan360]

I will be moving from the late 2013 iMac to the riMac mainly for the screen and faster CPU. I agree it's not a huge jump but I have the extra money so why not?

The late 2013 iMac is a solid machine and I almost hate to give it up but I'm a glutton for having the latest and greatest.

There really is nothing to "settle once a for all". It's a personal choice. For someone looking for a new iMac and price is not an issue, the riMac would be the best choice since it's the latest tech. For those who don't wish to spend the extra money, the late 2013 iMac is an excellent machine and worth the price.

 

[siddhartha]

The riMac display is much nicer. No question.

If it's just about speed/cost, you can go with a high-end 2013 non-retina, but if you want the display, it's a great one indeed.

I went through the same thinking process as many people here, and wound up with a maxed-out riMac. In my experience, the fan noise is a non-issue, the heat output remains to be seen if it's a problem at all (and I did opt for AppleCare), and it's a large chunk of change, so I wanted the latest available.

I upgraded from a 2011 21.5" iMac, and it's a great update. Windows 8.1 looks great, too-a little more growing pains, as it doesn't quite "get" the 5k screen, but it still looks/works well. I mostly game in the Windows environment, and I've had no problems.

I highly recommend the riMac, and feel strongly that the few display issues people are having will be ironed out with software updates. It doesn't give me the impression that the video card is underpowered at all with my usage. No-it's not the ultimate gaming machine, but it does just fine.

Most of my use is in Yosemite, and it works well. The minor (to me) graphical bugs in Yosemite/riMac will be fixed, I'm sure. Doesn't affect me at all right now.

Good luck with your choice! Either is a good one

 

[Fishrrman]

Yeb wrote above:
[[ Neither. With Broadwell just around the corner and with the retina iMac being the first rev of its kind, it makes more sense to wait for the next refresh to make a proper decision. ]]

Strongly concur.

OP:
You have a 2013 iMac, probably less than two years old.
You are not "outdated".

Don't buy the retina iMac yet, it's like buying a "first year" car.
Give them time to "work the bugs out", and let others take the arrows in their backs.

Hold out until Broadwell or Skylake.
I sense there will be some nice improvements by then....

 

[Chippy99]

Yeb wrote above:
[[ Neither. With Broadwell just around the corner and with the retina iMac being the first rev of its kind, it makes more sense to wait for the next refresh to make a proper decision. ]]

Strongly concur.

OP:
You have a 2013 iMac, probably less than two years old.
You are not "outdated".

Don't buy the retina iMac yet, it's like buying a "first year" car.
Give them time to "work the bugs out", and let others take the arrows in their backs.

Hold out until Broadwell or Skylake.
I sense there will be some nice improvements by then....

I agree with this.

I am also leaning in future towards a Mac Pro and nice 4k or 5k screen.

 

[teerexx52]

riMac vs. Late 2013 (Haswell one)

Cons for riMac:

> a lot of noise issues with medium to heavy use
> 5k Display too much for the video cards to handle? (unconfirmed)

Pros for riMac:

> Sharper text and overall display

I don't own the riMac, I have the late 2013 Haswell one, this is what I've been hearing from most forum posts.

So would you guys say for someone looking for a new iMac, would you recommend the riMac or the late 2013 one? I would say late 2013 because a light but constant fan noise would be too annoying for me I think.

Thanks for reading guys!

I have the base retina. Absolutely the best Mac I have ever owned. No problems at all with it

 

[Roller]

Yeb wrote above:
[[ Neither. With Broadwell just around the corner and with the retina iMac being the first rev of its kind, it makes more sense to wait for the next refresh to make a proper decision. ]]

Strongly concur.

OP:
You have a 2013 iMac, probably less than two years old.
You are not "outdated".

Don't buy the retina iMac yet, it's like buying a "first year" car.
Give them time to "work the bugs out", and let others take the arrows in their backs.

Hold out until Broadwell or Skylake.
I sense there will be some nice improvements by then....

I wouldn't consider replacing a late 2013 iMac with a retina iMac. For that matter, I probably won't replace my late 2012 for another year or so. However, I wouldn't hesitate to replace an older machine. That's what I did when I got a top-of-the-line retina iMac to replace my 2010 Mac Pro, and I've been very satisfied. No glitches whatsoever, and no "first year" issues for me. I could have waited at least six months for Broadwell or even longer for Skylake, but that would have deprived me of the best iMac I've used so far.