Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So if I persuade my accountant to allow the purchase of RiMac with upgraded CPU and GPU, do I need to use Thunderbolt for an external drive or is a USB 3 fine? I'm not running RAID or anything fancy. I'm thinking the 1tb Fusion will be good and then an external for other files. I have a Time Capsule at the moment as well that might be upgraded soon.

Again, I'm still waiting for some clear information on this thing. I tend to use my tech for awhile and just want to get the biggest bang for my $$. CPU seems worth it at this point. Jury appears out on the GPU.

You can't persuade bean counters lol I know I used to be one lol

Anyway, as I said in an earlier post, I'd go with the 295x and i7. 1tb fusion is fine. usb 3 is fine but not needed since you have a capsule already.

And after reading these posts I think I'm going to RMA mine back. Whew.
 
Thanks for the help! I'm waffling on the SSD. I like the idea of a 1TB drive because of space, but if I can fit everything I need on an SSD and then store the files on an external, that might be good as well. Just need a solid backup as well.

I would really recommend to get the ssd. People will say it's fine. Fine isn't great and in 2014 there is no reason to not be using an SSD as your main drive.
 
Kerfuffle is indeed an excellent word. Using spinning hard disks is also extremely last decade. Don't do it.
 
Give me full pci-e ssd speed

Please !

My rMBP SSD even faster ...
 
Last edited:
Give me full pci-e ssd speed

Please !

My r MPR SSD even faster ...

It is indeed rubbish. Although 700 is ok as a speed. And of course the screen makes up for everything.

We can't have it all. Just be thankful it doesn't come with windows and everything will feel right again...
 
And I'm not a hardware type but after having SSD, I can't imagine going back. Isn't there something with HDD that not only do they have mechanical parts but they become really inefficient on reads once you get to a certain capacity? So a 1TB on a HDD is not the same on an SSD because the SSD won't have the same issue. I could be making that up though.
 
Benchmarks are benchmarks. They give you an idea of performance, but thats about it.
A lot of benchmarks target maximum performance not necessarily usable performance. If you double the number of cores, then benchmark number almost doubles. If you use multi core optimized programs like video compression, then yes this benchmark # can be important.
I would hazard a guess that for 99% of the people, their Activity Monitor is hovering around 1% CPU utilization!
I have a 2009 iMac with 2T HD, 2010 MacBook with a SSD & HP Z15 with i7 & SSD.
Definitely recommend SSD. I'm looking at a Retina iMac, but still happy with my '09. I'd likely go with a 3T Fusion drive. I'd upgrade to the 4.0G i7. And at least 16G of ram. Mainly because I'll have it for years.
Some simple large file access benchmarking I've performed between these 3 machines, I'm surprised how close my 2010 MacBook compares to my 2014 Z15 "monster". The MacBook is more usable. Mainly due to OS X (&trackpad driver) and SSD. Its difficult to max the cores on the Z15.

But, goto Apple store & try an iMac out. Try to run your "workflow".
 
....after having SSD, I can't imagine going back. Isn't there something with HDD that not only do they have mechanical parts but they become really inefficient on reads once you get to a certain capacity? So a 1TB on a HDD is not the same on an SSD because the SSD won't have the same issue....

Generally a HDD becomes less efficient on *writes* as it fills up, due to increased overhead in finding free space. However reads typically outnumber writes by 5:1 or 10:1, so read performance is more relevant.

By HDD if you mean purely mechanical hard drive, I agree I wouldn't get one considering Fusion Drives are available in the Mac at the same capacity.

But the FD vs SSD tradeoffs are less clear cut. There's no question if you just have a little bit of regularly-accessed data that SSD is the best.

OTOH there is a significant financial cost to SSD and much more limited space. If you have to put frequently-used data on a slow, bus-powered external USB HDD, you could lose all the performance SSD gave you.

For high-bandwidth access to less-frequently-used data, there is also the hassle of moving it back and forth between external HDD and internal SSD. For library-oriented apps like Lightroom and FCP X, you have to analyze where the cache, library files, media files, etc are and the relative performance priority of placing those on fast vs slow storage.

There is a spectrum of data volume requirements. On the low end, SSD is fine. On the high end SSD also is best because most of your frequently-used data will be on a high-performance external drive array. But there's a large middle ground where the frequently-used data won't economically fit on internal SSD, yet the buyer doesn't need or cannot afford an external drive array. FD works well in this case.
 
(My first post here. Be kind)

Having previously been a deacon in the Church of Bill gates since the early 80s, I switched to the other side in 2005 and have been a happy convert since.

I ordered the Retina iMac (4GHz i7, 16GB RAM, M295X video, 1TB Fusion HD)the day it was announced and received it on Tuesday, 10/21. This machine is faaaasst. The screen is beautiful, and I have not heard the fan turn on yet even when running two VMware sessions at the same time while web browsing and transferring files to an external thunderbolt drive.

The only time I have noticed lag was moving a window inside a VMware Win7 session while it was installing updates. The movement of the window was a little "stuttery". However, the Ubuntu session also running at the same time suffered no problems. Ill chalk it up to Microsoft and/or the video drivers.

I can see this machine easily lasting me the next 5 years. Its that good.
 
I ordered the Retina iMac (4GHz i7, 16GB RAM, M295X video, 1TB Fusion HD)the day it was announced and received it on Tuesday, 10/21. This machine is faaaasst.
Hello and welcome! Can you please comment on Mission Control performance in this thread here?
 
OP - i was also very much looking forward towards the new imac. I currently have a '13 MBP with dell ultrasharp 27" display - i am really pushing this machine to the maxx, the poor dual-core processor can barely cope with my needs, let alone the intel integrated GPU. I have decided to wait until skylake, as the upgrade is rather substantial and my machine, although being utilised for some pro tasks- is actually ok for another year or so. In your case i think it would be perfectly justifiable to upgrade - these machines do seem simply awesome.

Ultimately - weigh u the pros/cons:

I feel skylake will be a rather big jump: TB1.3, HDMI 2+, pci-e 3, usb 3.1 etc
This may prove worth the wait, as these may be better optimised for 4k/5k.

Saying that, the current CPU is astonishing and the becnhmarks reflect this. And the screen is unlike anything the macs have got before.


We only have a couple of sets of numbers yet so things might change, but first indications are not too great. But isn't it better to judge off numbers because it is objective rather than subjective?
I think a mixture of artificial benchmarks and real world usage - hence i am eagerly awaiting anands and others' reviews.

A retina iMac (in any configuration) would be *vastly* faster and more pleasurable to use than your current machine.
Very good point - OP has 6yr old machine

OP. ur machine is old. And obviously u need a new one. U can spend the rest of ur life waiting for the perfect and satisfying set. But the problem is, u can always wait for +1 year. Cause the next model will be always nicer. This will never end.
if u need one. Now is the perfect timing. We r at the beginning of a new cycle. u will have at least one full year (or more) in full satisfaction that u are having the top of the line. I encourage u to pull the trigger (if ur current hardware giving u hard time)
My personal feelings for my needs are that skylake is worth the jump, and the added features are leaps ahead of current haswell. Intel has persistently attested skylake will not be delayed <it would be more shocking if intel next CPUs are not actually delayed> Intel has also indicated that broadwell will be geared towards laptops (2015 Q2) and skylake for desktops (2015 Q4).

I thought about waiting for full reviews and benchmarks before I jump the gun but I realized on Saturday that any new iMac I'd order would be ALOT better than this '08 iMac.

So I put in my order Sat night. I opted for CPU and GPU upgrade. If I can get the same 6 years out of it like my current one, I'd be extremely happy.

If you got the bucks, I'd recommend getting both upgrades to future proof it, at least for awhile.
Very good point, like the OP you seem like you have a valid need to upgrade, for me i can weight it out until skylake.
PS OP imac retain their value very well.

Maybe grab the 295x. Seems to be a monster!
From all the reviews i have seen, i would find it difficult not to justify upgrading to 295x - seems like a huge improvement

I think the "kerfuffle" is based on previous experience with Retina products.

Historically, the first generation of anything with a retina screen (aside from the iPhone 4) has shown that the screen was at least a generation ahead of the hardware required to use it.

The iPad3 was a slight step back in graphics performance (4x the pixels with only 2x the GPU power).

The original retina MacBooks were perceived as laggy with the Ivy Bridge integrated GPU, although we now know that was mostly due to software optimization.

So people might be saying that the next generation of iMac (broadwell) is the one to wait for.

HOWEVER, anecdotal reports from people who have actually used the new 5K mac indicate that it has no issues driving the display.

As an early adopter (release day) for both the Ipad 3, and rMBP; i feel the experience was not pleasant - yes at the time i was wowed by the amazing screens, but both machines were plagues with system freezes, crashes, and overall performance was sub-par.

The maxwell 980M GPU may be included in a silent refresh in early 2015 before they upgrade to broadwell/skylake.

OP if you could wait until after xmas, then maybe by that time we will have a much clearer picture of 5k imac - in terms of real world usage and benchmarks.

----------

(My first post here. Be kind)

Having previously been a deacon in the Church of Bill gates since the early 80s, I switched to the other side in 2005 and have been a happy convert since.

I ordered the Retina iMac (4GHz i7, 16GB RAM, M295X video, 1TB Fusion HD)the day it was announced and received it on Tuesday, 10/21. This machine is faaaasst. The screen is beautiful, and I have not heard the fan turn on yet even when running two VMware sessions at the same time while web browsing and transferring files to an external thunderbolt drive.

The only time I have noticed lag was moving a window inside a VMware Win7 session while it was installing updates. The movement of the window was a little "stuttery". However, the Ubuntu session also running at the same time suffered no problems. Ill chalk it up to Microsoft and/or the video drivers.

I can see this machine easily lasting me the next 5 years. Its that good.

Very jealous.
Could i ask if you have tried any 4K video -ie 4k clips on youtube - how the performance? thanks
 
Could i ask if you have tried any 4K video -ie 4k clips on youtube - how the performance? thanks

I live in the Dallas, TX area and subscribe to Verizon FiOS as a service provider. My subscription is 50Mbps/50Mbps, and while Im not always able to get these speeds, its still quite fast.

Due to the much higher bandwidth needs for 4k video, it takes a few seconds to buffer in Youtube. The video compression used by Youtube doesn't seem to be as sharp as those 4k TVs that are demoed at Best Buy and other retailers. Or maybe its not as sharp because its being upscaled to 5k. I don't know.

It seems to be more sharp than viewing HD video on my LED TV via FiOS digital TV signals. I have not compared it to viewing HD TV from an uncompressed terrestrial digital TV antennae.

All of the above is of course suggestive and based on my opinion. Im in my 40s and have just started to wear glasses, so everything is fuzzy anyway.
 
I live in the Dallas, TX area and subscribe to Verizon FiOS as a service provider. My subscription is 50Mbps/50Mbps, and while Im not always able to get these speeds, its still quite fast.

Due to the much higher bandwidth needs for 4k video, it takes a few seconds to buffer in Youtube. The video compression used by Youtube doesn't seem to be as sharp as those 4k TVs that are demoed at Best Buy and other retailers. Or maybe its not as sharp because its being upscaled to 5k. I don't know.

It seems to be more sharp than viewing HD video on my LED TV via FiOS digital TV signals. I have not compared it to viewing HD TV from an uncompressed terrestrial digital TV antennae.

All of the above is of course suggestive and based on my opinion. Im in my 40s and have just started to wear glasses, so everything is fuzzy anyway.

Thank you so much - this sounds promising. I remember when i got my rMBP, i used d/l helper on firefox to download a 4k clip, as the buffering was pretty rubbish (fibre broadband, london - 36 DLmbps, 10mbps UL :( )
The 13"rmbp struggled to play the 4k content - did look amazing though on the retina screen
 
My personal feelings for my needs are that skylake is worth the jump, and the added features are leaps ahead of current haswell. Intel has persistently attested skylake will not be delayed <it would be more shocking if intel next CPUs are not actually delayed> Intel has also indicated that broadwell will be geared towards laptops (2015 Q2) and skylake for desktops (2015 Q4).

If I had an iMac now or didn't need to feel that I'd need to pay $1000 or maybe more for a 'nice' monitor which I'd use for 1.5 years and then buy an iMac or buy a '13 iMac for just a few hundred less than the Retina or buy a Retina. I imagine skylake will come out Q4 '15 but that doesn't mean we will see them in iMacs as soon as they are released, it might be possible to get them in Q1 '16. And I also figure that if I get an iMac now then the next iMac I get will be even better than if I had waited ;) I generally buy a new computer ever 3 years so I'll be looking around Q4 '17 for my next computer.

And I know people think that the next refresh will be Nvidia but I'm guessing it will also be AMD. I'm guessing they went with AMD for a reason and I don't think that reason will go away in the next 12-18 months.
 
If I had an iMac now or didn't need to feel that I'd need to pay $1000 or maybe more for a 'nice' monitor which I'd use for 1.5 years and then buy an iMac or buy a '13 iMac for just a few hundred less than the Retina or buy a Retina. I imagine skylake will come out Q4 '15 but that doesn't mean we will see them in iMacs as soon as they are released, it might be possible to get them in Q1 '16. And I also figure that if I get an iMac now then the next iMac I get will be even better than if I had waited ;) I generally buy a new computer ever 3 years so I'll be looking around Q4 '17 for my next computer.

And I know people think that the next refresh will be Nvidia but I'm guessing it will also be AMD. I'm guessing they went with AMD for a reason and I don't think that reason will go away in the next 12-18 months.

Sounds very reasonable - or you could get a refurbished 13"imac to tie you over.

Some in this forum claim apple went with amd as the 980ms were not available in sufficient volume, however they also went the amd route with the nMPs, so I think you have a point, Apple is heading towards the amd route. What would be nice is I'd they had an option for nvidia. If there is enough demand they may do this, however I feel those of us who would be keen to pay the nvidia upgrade (and added apple tax) may be only a small minority of imac purchasers.
 
Sounds very reasonable - or you could get a refurbished 13"imac to tie you over.

Some in this forum claim apple went with amd as the 980ms were not available in sufficient volume, however they also went the amd route with the nMPs, so I think you have a point, Apple is heading towards the amd route. What would be nice is I'd they had an option for nvidia. If there is enough demand they may do this, however I feel those of us who would be keen to pay the nvidia upgrade (and added apple tax) may be only a small minority of imac purchasers.

I guess you mean 21" iMac ;) But also I've been spoiled by my rMBP which is why I'd look into buying a 4k monitor to wait for an updated iMac. I'd also pay extra for an Nvidia card but I thought I read there was a technical reason they went with AMD but I could be wrong. But yeah if I had a choice, I'd surely choose Nvidia but that doesn't make the AMD card bad.
 
I think a mixture of artificial benchmarks and real world usage - hence i am eagerly awaiting anands and others' reviews.

Absolutely, me too. I hope they are doing a review, they don't do every Mac release. But they wouldn't miss a Retina iMac would they?

The maxwell 980M GPU may be included in a silent refresh in early 2015 before they upgrade to broadwell/skylake.

Yeah, I have my doubts about that. From Apple's point of view why would their users need the 980m? The 980m will still be really expensive in early 2015 and Apple will be wanting to increase their margins on the riMac, which are probably less than usual because of the screen cost. Historically iMacs stick with one brand of GPU for several revisions (source:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac_(Intel-based)#Slim_Unibody_iMac). And what company would sign a production contract that only covers a couple of months?

I have posted some other thoughts on AMD vs Nvidia here:- https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=20201801#post20201801
 
Historically iMacs stick with one brand of GPU for several revisions (source:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac_(Intel-based)#Slim_Unibody_iMac). And what company would sign a production contract that only covers a couple of months?

I have posted some other thoughts on AMD vs Nvidia here:- https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=20201801#post20201801

I fear you right - apple really seem to be warm and cosy in bed with AMD

----------

I guess you mean 21" iMac ;)

My poor european brain constantly converting imperial to metric units - :p
 
I had a chance to play with an iMac 5k Retina in an apple store, without any games installed I just fired up apple maps and went into 3D mode around London and Manchester, I didn't see it glitch at all. I then loaded up iMovie and played around with some 4k video clips, and again no glitches at all. I can't comment on gaming performance but I have a good feeling that it's perfectly fine for everything except gaming.
 
When Ordering, Where Do You Select "SSD"?

When you place your iMac order at the Apple site, I don't see an option that includes "SSD."

Does it go by another name? /bracingly ignorant

Update: "Flash" = "SSD" Correct?
 
When you place your iMac order at the Apple site, I don't see an option that includes "SSD."

Does it go by another name? /bracingly ignorant

Update: "Flash" = "SSD" Correct?

Yeah it's called flash storage :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.