Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Seriously, did anyone buy an iMac for the screen?

Yes the screen is fantastic and the reason for my purchase. It isn't really any faster than my 2013 iMac (which I have kept). The 2013 (i7/780M) might even edge out the 2015 (i5/395) in some tasks (encoding) and some games, but my needs are very light. I enjoy the sharp text on my other devices (iPhone, iPad, rMBP), so it seemed natural to go retina on the iMac as well.

I feel like force touch in OS X has potential, but needs more development to be a compelling feature.
 
I bought for both. Screen for my photography and the performance to edit my photos in Lightroom.

I don't play on Mac or Pcs, but I might install Steam and play a few cheap indie games.. should run smooth!!
 
Aevan, I know we crossed swords a few times and I don't like your defense for Apple in general and for a product that Apple claims to be the 'ultimate desktop experience' on their website when it lacks severely in some characteristics (GPU, heat dissipation system --> noise, usb3.1/-c, tb3, ssd standard, absurd prices for higher-speced components). And I don't like your posts dismissing the iMac's suitability for gaming. Gaming IS an important use case for computers, point. If gaming is of no concern to you, fine. You're missing something nice, but let the gamers express their concerns, fears and experiences.

However, I agree that the rev.2 RiMac has its strong sides as well: best CPU (if you pay the price), fast ssd (if you pay the price) and excellent screen. It's in human nature to shout wrt problems and to give rather silent recommandations for good things (if at all). It's sad and I agree that we should be appreciating the good things more often and louder. Supporting feedback will improve things even more.

Many people here and elsewhere say that the Retina screen is amazing. I wanted to check that myself and I went to a local shop 2 months ago, they had a RiMac and a non-Retina 27" iMac. I put a 5K photo onto the screen of both and the difference was incredible. I knew I would have to get one.

I'm soon going to order my RiMac to replace my mid-2010 iMac. Its performance and beauty will impress me and will give me joy, but it will not blind me against the shortcomings of the rev.2 iMac and the general lack of dedication Apple shows towards its (desktop) computer division. MacPro? Thunderbolt screen? Mac mini? It's all iPhone, iOS, Apple Music nowadays. A part of me will be rather unhappy.

Just because you repeat your points in each of the threads where people try to figure out whether the technical shortcomings are relevant or not in their specific situation, doesn't make those shortcomings go away.

To close, a quote from the movie 'Next' (2007):
"There's an Italian painter, named Carlotti, and he defined beauty. He said it was the summation of the parts working together in such a way that nothing needed to be added, taken away or altered."
 
Depending on what work you do, but if you are a working with video/illustrator/photo - I would say the 5k retina iMac maxed out BTO is the best computer on the market for that purpose.

The screen is amazing - best on the market.
Performance on the machine through adobe products is barely any slower than the top of the line Mac Pro - in many cases much faster, since the iMac has higher ghz processors and Adobe doesn't take full advantage of multiple cores.
looks of the imac, if thats something you care about.

And it doesn't seem like the iMac have any problems pushing those 5K pixels, especially after upgrading to El Capitan.

I have the maxed out 5k 2014 model with 1tb Flash drive, I don't think theres any noticeable difference to the newest retina imac worth spending my money on. I have to say that still after 1 year of usage Im still reflecting over how an amazing machine this is and what a good investment this was for me as an illustrator/video artist.

and btw, I do play some games from time to time, like League of Legends, Hearthstone and Diablo 3. None of the games have any problems running in maxed out graphic settings and 2500 pixels - I got 60fps constantly. Maybe games like Battlefield and such isn't able to perform as great as with a gaming PC - but you dont buy the Maxed out iMac if games are the main purpose, that would be a stupid investment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strawbale and driftless
AlifTheUnseen said:
Just because you repeat your points in each of the threads where people try to figure out whether the technical shortcomings are relevant or not in their specific situation, doesn't make those shortcomings go away.
Click to expand...

Well, I can agree with that. The problem is when people make statements that simply match reality (again, their right to do so - but so is mine to comment). I've read everything here, from claims that there is no practical improvement on a 2015 iMac compared to a 2012, to claims that Apple sucks since Jobs died because he would put a GeForce 980M in the iMac. Figuring out technical shortcomings is one thing, dismissing an entire product because of some benchmark score is another. I guess I'm kinda sad that tech enthusiasts became what they are today. They used to be fascinated by technology, today they seem to be constantly let down because of wrong expectations.

So - say that you're disappointed that, I don't know, M295X throttles while gaming or that the new 1Gb Fusion Drives have only 24Gb SSD space (and Apple should really have pointed that out clearly). But say that it is crap and everything is going downhill - for a computer with so many great things going on - well, that's certainly your right. But so is mine to tell you that I think you're wrong. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlifTheUnseen
maflynn said:
But you did say its slow


Also what do you mean by 27k - I'm missing something there.
Click to expand...
I guess my post isn't being read the way I thought it would be.

I was going for if the screen were to be some crazy high resolution and slow the screen doesn't matter.
 
Hmm I'm in the process of purchasing a new 5k iMac, which will hopefully be the computer I hold onto for 5+ years. If there was a 1440p option with a large enough delta in price I would probably go that route. However the price would have to be pretty large which in reality would make the iMac unrealistically cheap.

Regardless at this point it's not a very fair question. People buy the 5k iMac because it's the only option they have on a new 27" iMac. So it's only reasonable to expect people to ignore screen quality while pointing out other issues they might have.
 
I actually have a coworker who bought a 27 inch iMac with retina display, hoping one day if he does need a faster machine (which he expected to happen fairly soon) he will solely use it as a good-old display using thunderbolt. I'm not sure if that's a standard practice, but he said after he punched the numbers it was about the same price anyway.

Aside from him, I think more and more people find retina (or high-resolution? what's the word here?) display to be a standard feature even among the workstations, hence not much questions. After seeing my editor working on the retina MBP, I personally wanted a retina display on my iMac too. But at the same time, I'm not sure how many people will justify/support their purchase using only one reason.
 
Last edited:
Rian Gray said:
I actually have a coworker who bought a 27 inch iMac with retina display, hoping one day if he does need a faster machine (which he expected to happen fairly soon) he will solely use it as a good-old display using thunderbolt. I'm not sure if that's a standard practice, but he said after he punched the numbers it was about the same price anyway.

Aside from him, I think more and more people find retina (or high-resolution? what's the word here?) display to be a standard feature even among the workstations, hence no much questions. After seeing my editor working on the retina MBP, I personally wanted a retina display on my iMac too. But at the same time, I'm not sure how many people will justify/support their purchase using only one reason.
Click to expand...

If only it has target display mode. I'd stick it in my PC 980 GTX.
 
I bought the Retina 5k iMac 27" when it first came out in late 2014 purely for the display. I haven't regretted it so far.
 
I never have and most likely never will as long as there is a L.A.-freeway width bezel along the bottom. That aspect is like seeing a 2 foot tall bumper facia on the front of a nice car. No thanks.
:eek:
 
The screen is fantastic. The 5K iMac is a fantastic machine. I can't see having any other machine for video, photography, and other creative activities. The fan does kick in when I do video rendering but it is not loud and workflow is fast.

I don't know what the OP's point is other than to rehash tired threads. It seems like most of the people who start threads which have no purpose other than to vent do not own or cannot afford a 5K iMac. Perhaps tearing down the 5K iMac makes them feel better.
 
maflynn said:
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.
Click to expand...

I haven't had any issue with the GPU. I can't address the HDD issue as I have a SSD, which is the way to go with the 5K iMac.
 
driftless said:
I haven't had any issue with the GPU. I can't address the HDD issue as I have a SSD, which is the way to go with the 5K iMac.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and if I take the plunge on the 5k iMac, I'll be going with the SSD myself :)

My comments were directed towards the 4k iMac which has only an iGPU
 
maflynn said:
Agreed, and if I take the plunge on the 5k iMac, I'll be going with the SSD myself :)

My comments were directed towards the 4k iMac which has only an iGPU
Click to expand...

If you pick up a 5K iMac you will enjoy it. I am hoping that 2016 is the year that we see more external SSD's as well.

Right, I wasn't thinking of the 4K iMac.
 
driftless said:
If you pick up a 5K iMac you will enjoy it. I am hoping that 2016 is the year that we see more external SSD's as well.
Click to expand...

You can buy up to 2TB SSDs now, along with say, OWC Thunderbay 4 mini and go to town with tons of (expensive) external SSD :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back