Seriously, did anyone buy an iMac for the screen?

[aevan]

The topic says it all. Because, by reading these posts, I get the impression the amazing screen is, like, the least important thing to a vast number of people here.

In a world where the competition is barely getting to 4K (and even if they are 4K, Windows programs rarely support hidpi mode and 4K in Windows is, basically, a joke at the moment) - Apple somehow managed to improve the best looking display in the world from last year.

90% iMac 5K posts are not about that screen, though. Or even the new Force Touch Trackpad. Nope. I asked new users to compare the new P3 screens to old ones and I got, like, 3 replies but I counted 12 (!!) different new iMac 5K topics that deal about GPU throttling, GPU heat and GPU fan speeds. 12 separate, multi-page topics (And I probably missed a few)!!

Wow.

 

[TechZeke]

I think it's because ultimately you are buying computer first and foremost. If it's not meeting your needs performance wise, then the screen is pointless especially if you are using for professional use. Plus, especially now, this is the only high performance iMac you can get right now, so discussing 5K is moot if you are planning to buy a new iMac anyway.

 

[aevan]

I think it's because ultimately you are buying computer first and foremost. If it's not meeting your needs performance wise, then the screen is pointless especially if you are using for professional use. Plus, especially now, this is the only high performance iMac you can get right now, so discussing 5K is moot if you are planning to buy a new iMac anyway.

Because "professional use" performance is measured in Unigine Valley and has everything to do with fan noise.

 

[matt9013]

No sense in having a nice screen if the iMac can't do what you need it to do at a good speed.

 

[aevan]

No sense in having a nice screen if the iMac can't do what you need it to do at a good speed.

Agreed. Good thing they are really fast, then. What is it that you need it to do, that it can't do at a good speed?

 

[matt9013]

Agreed. Good thing they are really fast, then. What is it that you need it to do, that it can't do at a good speed?

I don't have one. I was just trying to give an example that a good screen is awesome but doesn't matter if it can't do what you want it to do. I just choose speed as the example. Not sure how fast/slow the new iMacs are. Might have been a bad example.

 

[blueeggs]

Agreed. Good thing they are really fast, then. What is it that you need it to do, that it can't do at a good speed?

I got mine because of the screen alone. Its amazing. I already had a maxed out mid 2011 iMac, i7 3.4, 32gb ram, installed ssd inside, 6970m 2gb. Its still a screaming machine esp with the installed ssd. But I had to have the new one.

 

[aevan]

I don't have one. I was just trying to give an example that a good screen is awesome but doesn't matter if it can't do what you want it to do. I just choose speed as the example. Not sure how fast/slow the new iMacs are. Might have been a bad example.

Ok then. I agree, if the computer doesn't meet your performance needs, it matters little if the screen is amazing. But these iMacs are the fastest Macs available for most tasks (Mac Pros are faster in specialized multi-threaded apps but that's it) - and somehow, all people talk about is gaming benchmarks.

 

[matt9013]

Ok then. I agree, if the computer doesn't meet your performance needs, it matters little if the screen is amazing. But these iMacs are the fastest Macs available for most tasks (Mac Pros are faster in specialized multi-threaded apps but that's it) - and somehow, all people talk about is gaming benchmarks.

I agree, for me the biggest reason for buying a 4/5K iMac is the screen. It's just amazing and the best I've seen.

 

[whodatrr]

I'd be lying if I said it wasn't' a factor, but it certainly was not THE factor. Living with it for a couple days, it's not an earthshaking improvement over my 2012 2.5k, and I still have very good eyes. Then again, I haven't really played with it too much, as I've still yet to swap it our for my main work system.

I will say that it's a very fast machine, noticeable faster than my late 2012 i7. I tend to upgrade every 2.5 years and sell systems that are still under Applecare, so it was just about that time.

Still, nice screen. That will be the central screen of a 3 screen setup. This is the system I pay my mortgage with, and the screen I'll probably be staring at 10 or so hours a day. This is one area of my life where I'm OK with pampering myself.

 

[hfg]

I upgraded my Wife's 2010 21.5" iMac to a new 4K iMac simply for the easy-on-the-eyes screen. She really doesn't do anything but web surf, email, and viewing photos and videos ... but I wanted her to enjoy the easy to read screen as much as I do. I use a 5K iMac and a 4K cMacPro for photography, and really like the enhanced screens when reading text for extended periods. Neither of us are into gaming much.

 

[Buerkletucson]

The retina 5k was probably the the 1st or 2nd reason why I purchased the iMac.



Btw -if the 5K retina isn't enough wow for you......throw up a hot looking babe on that 5k and I guarantee you'll say WOW!

 

[maflynn]

The screen is nice, but what's the use of a beautiful screen if the GPU lilts under the pressure to push all those pixels or the 5400 rpm hard drive chugs as it retrieves data.

 

[redheeler]

The display was probably the main reason I ordered my 5K iMac on launch day. Coming from a 2012 15" Retina MBP I wanted a desktop, and the late 2013 iMac with its low pixel density just wouldn't do.

A year later, my 5K iMac continues to have one of the sharpest desktop displays on the market. It's stunning, no matter how close I sit to it.

90% iMac 5K posts are not about that screen, though. Or even the new Force Touch Trackpad. Nope. I asked new users to compare the new P3 screens to old ones and I got, like, 3 replies but I counted 12 (!!) different new iMac 5K topics that deal about GPU throttling, GPU heat and GPU fan speeds. 12 separate, multi-page topics (And I probably missed a few)!!

This forum is mostly used for questions, complaints and benchmarks. You won't often see a thread titled "The Screen on my new iMac is Amazing!"

 

[Wallabe]

One of the reason why I bought it is for the screen. I thought about buying a 4K TV and stick it in my gaming PC, but I ended up going with the 5k iMac.

 

[G.McGilli]

I wish they had a BTO option where I could have just got a screen with the same resolution as my Thunderbolt displays and saved $1000. A 5k screen is not going to help my audio production at all. I just needed a new Mac - and the fastest I could get - it just happens to come with a 5k screen.

 

[OSB]

I think the "screen as topic" just isn't that interesting -- it really isn't up for debate that it's amongst the best screens money can buy, so talking about that doesn't give rise to any meanigful exchanges. Whereas there are reasonable questions to be asked about the relative value of other aspects of the new models.

 

[Textureboy]

I bought mine for the beautiful screen and I wanted the top specs to manage it as well as my work.


However my screen is a dud with many stuck pixels so I will be getting another one...

 

[Joe1602]

The screen is nice, but what's the use of a beautiful screen if the GPU lilts under the pressure to push all those pixels or the 5400 rpm hard drive chugs as it retrieves data.

The GPU is nice, but what good is is a lightning fast GPU and SSD if the screen looks like crap and you can see pixelated text with everything you read?

Everything looks fantastic on that screen even if the processing speed is below average.

 

[Travisimo]

Everyone who buys a new 27" iMac is getting the same 5k screen, so it's not a deciding factor to consider. Therefore, it's logical to see many more threads about things that ARE a factor, such as the type of storage, amount of memory, processing and gpu power, and peripheral choices.

I love the screen, and it's certainly one of the draws of buying the new iMac, but honestly its 5k resolution is one of the least important things for me. The previous screens were already stellar on the iMac, so the form factor itself is much more important to me. And of course all of the debatable choices we all need to make regarding performance.

 

[monokakata]

I bought mine (late 2014) for the screen. I was using a cMP with a Dell U2711, and it was OK. Then I took a long trip with my rMBP. When I got back, the cMP was acting up and when trying to figure out what to do, I decided that I wanted a retina screen more than a repaired MP. I loaded it up with everything, figuring I'd be fine while waiting for the next new MP and a 5K monitor. And I have been fine.

I haven't regretted it. I don't game, but I give it lots of Lightroom, Photoshop, FCP X and sometimes Avid MC8. The fan speeds up sometimes, but it doesn't bother me.

Bottom line for me is that it's all about the screen.

 

[iemcj]

That's because in general the people that are buying it for the screen are actually working and using it and not posting in forums lol. I'm a professional photographer and have been for ten years, so the screen was a large reason I got this new imac. For 98 percent of people yep, they have no need for anything beyond the 1440p screen on the older imacs, it's complete overkill. But for someone like me who is a portrait and wedding photographer and I NEED to know EXACTLY how my images will look when printed? It's designed for guys like me, you lads are just along for the ride.

For most users, it doesn't make any actual difference. Little easier on the eyes when reading text, can sit a little closer to the screen when playing WoW. For a pro photographer or cinematographer who wants to edit 4k video, it makes a crazy big difference to us, that expanded color space is also quite helpful when calibrating our screens to how our labs print.

 

[iemcj]

Slow? lol in what way? Cuz it's not going to be gaming at 5k with ultra settings? If you're running lightroom or photoshop or final cut, this is one of the fastest rigs you can get, the macpro is just barely faster in some tasks (and slower in others). As a photo production machine, this is one of the best products in the world for that use. I've done only a limited amount of video work so far so can't comment on that too much.

 

[The Doctor11]

Slow? lol in what way? Cuz it's not going to be gaming at 5k with ultra settings? If you're running lightroom or photoshop or final cut, this is one of the fastest rigs you can get, the macpro is just barely faster in some tasks (and slower in others). As a photo production machine, this is one of the best products in the world for that use. I've done only a limited amount of video work so far so can't comment on that too much.

I think you missed the 27k part of my post. I am in no way saying it's slow. I love my 5k iMac and it's by far the fastest computer I've ever used.

 

[Dubadai]

While I didn't buy it only because of the screen, it was a big part of it. I wanted a desktop computer that didn't take up much space, ran OSX, and had the power that I needed. After running a Mac Mini with a 2560x1440 monitor for a few years, and then getting spoiled with a Retina Macbook Pro, the Retina iMac was the only option!

There is not one day that I regret paying the price for this computer, except for when my Fusion Drive went nuts when I was going to reformat the computer for El Capitan... Just wanted to blow my brains out.