Should I get the 5k iMac or the maxed out non-5k?

[UniDoubleU]

I have spent the last couple of days (okay... more like two weeks)
To sum up:


* I have obsessed about this for a LONG time now!
* I want SPEED (my main reason for buying a mac)
* I am doing mostly office stuff (MS Office + Webbased)
* I do watch youtube + netflix + video files
* I rarely game, but when I do it's mostly Civ5 for several hours
* I am super concerned about and sensitive to fan noise (I almost always work in complete silence.... Yes I know. I am weird )
* I have really NO IDEA which iMac I should get
* The more I read, the more confused I get

Please help me Mac-Gurus. I can't take it anymore

OK, I wouldn't consider myself a Guru but I'll try. So first things first, yes I can see from numerous posts that you're having a huge dilemna indeed. So why do you need SPEED, and how much SPEED? The next bullet you're saying you do mostly office stuff which any Mac from 2012 should be able to handle well. Watching stuff wouldn't be taxing work either. Civ V is from 2010 so definitely not demanding, but having faster CPU helps. With i7 4790K upgrade the iMac would dominate Civ V.

Now onwards to noise, what is your current setup? I don't think there're many consumer computers that stay completely silent during gaming sessions, they definitely would while working on office stuff, same with any iMac. I don't really notice the fans on my iMac as my air-con is way louder! The fans will spin up on any Mac while gaming for sure, some are just more noticeable than others. If you're really sensitive then I recommend Bose Noise-cancelling headphones, a godsend for frequent travellers like me. Hell, if those things will drown out jet engines, I'm sure it'll work on fan noise also.

Yeah, what are you using and what do you REALLY NEED from an iMac would help in choosing a prospective iMac.

 

[inhalexhale1]

Thanks.

The display is a nice 'extra' for me.

If the speed of the two configs is pretty much the same, I would of course go for the 5k.

But if the non-retina would be significant faster, the display doesn't mean that much to me (especially after reading reviews that said that there isn't that big a difference for the normal user).

The decision comes down to how much that nice "extra" is worth to you. There is no reason to spend the extra cash on a maxed out retina, versus a maxed out non-retina, for hardware superiority. It's just incrementally better, and not worth hundreds of dollars IMO.

However, if you just can't live without 5k....well, then you only have the one option!

The base retina is inferior to a maxed out 2013 by the way.

----------

Please help me Mac-Gurus. I can't take it anymore

Here is a cost comparision.

There is a refurb 2013 iMac with the i7, 780m, 8GB RAM, and a 3TB Fusion drive for $2289 on Apple's store. The equivalent retina iMac would run you $3149!

 

[cincygolfgrrl]

The need for speed

I don't know if you've read any evaluations of the 5K v. non in any of the Mac-centric publications.

Jason Snell of sixcolors.com wrote this evaluation: http://sixcolors.com/post/2014/11/one-week-with-my-retina-imac/.
After reading his article I purchased a non-retina configured as close to his specs as possible. My non-retina specs at speeds that are 90% of the retina and, according to Jason, is the second fastest iMac on the planet for significantly less money.

Peter Cohen at iMore wrote an evaluation of all three current iMac models: http://www.imore.com/215-inch-imac-vs-27-inch-imac-vs-5k-imac-which-all-one-desktop-mac-should-you-get

Both Jason and Peter are long-time Mac journalists with reputations for providing accurate evaluations.

I'm sorry if I'm throwing another variable into your calculations.

 

[Serban]

the non retina after 1 year like i said the display gets stains
so if you don't mind to get it to apple store to fix this once a year than the perfect imac is the non retina i7 780M for you

 

[hjalte]

OK, I wouldn't consider myself a Guru but I'll try. So first things first, yes I can see from numerous posts that you're having a huge dilemna indeed. So why do you need SPEED, and how much SPEED? The next bullet you're saying you do mostly office stuff which any Mac from 2012 should be able to handle well. Watching stuff wouldn't be taxing work either. Civ V is from 2010 so definitely not demanding, but having faster CPU helps. With i7 4790K upgrade the iMac would dominate Civ V.

Now onwards to noise, what is your current setup? I don't think there're many consumer computers that stay completely silent during gaming sessions, they definitely would while working on office stuff, same with any iMac. I don't really notice the fans on my iMac as my air-con is way louder! The fans will spin up on any Mac while gaming for sure, some are just more noticeable than others. If you're really sensitive then I recommend Bose Noise-cancelling headphones, a godsend for frequent travellers like me. Hell, if those things will drown out jet engines, I'm sure it'll work on fan noise also.

Yeah, what are you using and what do you REALLY NEED from an iMac would help in choosing a prospective iMac.

I am not sure I need the i7. After reading an article on macworld it seems that it would be overkill for me (http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/m...-which-cpu-imac-macbook-buying-advice-3489917)

My current pc is an asus k7v53 laptop, with an i5 (dual core), 8GB ram and a GT 540M GPU. It's very silent. The fan does speed up when I am playing Civ5 though (which is ok), but besides that, it's super silent.

The i5/780M is about $600 cheaper than the i5/M295X. I am not sure if the Retina is worth so much extra.

----------

The decision comes down to how much that nice "extra" is worth to you. There is no reason to spend the extra cash on a maxed out retina, versus a maxed out non-retina, for hardware superiority. It's just incrementally better, and not worth hundreds of dollars IMO.

However, if you just can't live without 5k....well, then you only have the one option!

The base retina is inferior to a maxed out 2013 by the way.

----------



Here is a cost comparision.

There is a refurb 2013 iMac with the i7, 780m, 8GB RAM, and a 3TB Fusion drive for $2289 on Apple's store. The equivalent retina iMac would run you $3149!

Thanks. After crunching some numbers and putting everything in a spreadsheet I am nearing the conclusion that the non-retina is the best choice.

Unfortunately, we don't have an official refurb store here in Denmark

----------

I don't know if you've read any evaluations of the 5K v. non in any of the Mac-centric publications.

Jason Snell of sixcolors.com wrote this evaluation: http://sixcolors.com/post/2014/11/one-week-with-my-retina-imac/.
After reading his article I purchased a non-retina configured as close to his specs as possible. My non-retina specs at speeds that are 90% of the retina and, according to Jason, is the second fastest iMac on the planet for significantly less money.

Peter Cohen at iMore wrote an evaluation of all three current iMac models: http://www.imore.com/215-inch-imac-vs-27-inch-imac-vs-5k-imac-which-all-one-desktop-mac-should-you-get

Both Jason and Peter are long-time Mac journalists with reputations for providing accurate evaluations.

I'm sorry if I'm throwing another variable into your calculations.

Haha, you did, but it actually helped a lot.

I am pretty sure a i5 is plenty for me. I don't do any 3D stuff and the video encoding is also very limited (I do some camtasia recordings from time to time, but that's more or less it).

I wouldn't mind spending the extra couple of hundred bucks on an i7 CPU if it would make a significent difference.

But from what I can read from you article (and http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/m...which-cpu-imac-macbook-buying-advice-3489917/) it doesn't seem it would make that big a difference for me.

----------

the non retina after 1 year like i said the display gets stains
so i you don't mind to get it to apple store to fix this once a year than the perfect imac is the non retina i7 780M for you

Yeah, I am not sure I understand fully what those "stains" are.
Sorry if you already mentioned it

 

[SmallDane]

As you know from this thread, I am returning my Retina iMac because of noise. But here I just want to comment on my experience with the retina display. I was not that impressed. For every day usage I noticed very little difference from my old non-retina iMac (27" mid 2011). I'm sure there are some applications where the retina display really shines. I just didn't notice it.

I hope this doesn't confuse you even more. Remember, that this is a very subjective thing.

 

[redheeler]

As you know from this thread, I am returning my Retina iMac because of noise. But here I just want to comment on my experience with the retina display. I was not that impressed. For every day usage I noticed very little difference from my old non-retina iMac (27" mid 2011). I'm sure there are some applications where the retina display really shines. I just didn't notice it.

I hope this doesn't confuse you even more. Remember, that this is a very subjective thing.

I have a 2010 to compare it to and I'm surprised you were able to go back at all. The 2010 has a comparatively lousy display for just about any task. The off-axis viewing angles are much worse, yellowing much worse, and of course it's not retina which alone makes a huge difference. Not to mention the fan comes on a lot more often.

 

[hjalte]

As you know from this thread, I am returning my Retina iMac because of noise. But here I just want to comment on my experience with the retina display. I was not that impressed. For every day usage I noticed very little difference from my old non-retina iMac (27" mid 2011). I'm sure there are some applications where the retina display really shines. I just didn't notice it.

I hope this doesn't confuse you even more. Remember, that this is a very subjective thing.

Not at all. I kinda had the same experience when looking at it in the store. Better yes, but not that much better.

However, in here, everyone is talking about how awesome it is and how "once you go retina, you never go back", so I thought I was missing something

At this point, I don't think the risk/value is worth it and I'll go for the maxed out non-retina instead.

 

[CWallace]

For me, the retina display has really made a positive difference in working with Yosemite. That OS seems designed for retina and when I installed in on my 2013 27" iMac, I found eye fatigue after a time (I spend hours in front of my machine every day).

With the retina iMac, that fatigue is now gone. I find it easier to read web pages and PDFs / documents and the OS UI no longer looks slightly blurry.

 

[phpmaven]

Thanks.

The display is a nice 'extra' for me.

If the speed of the two configs is pretty much the same, I would of course go for the 5k.

But if the non-retina would be significant faster, the display doesn't mean that much to me (especially after reading reviews that said that there isn't that big a difference for the normal user).

IMHO, anyone who thinks that the display doesn't make that much of a difference needs to get their powers of perception checked. As others have said, any reading of text is now such a pleasure and much of the eye strain is now gone. For me, it's a night and day incredible difference. Having said that, if you have looked at them both side by side and don't see what all of the "hoopla" is about, then your choice is obvious. Buy the non-retina version and go get your sight checked.

 

[cincygolfgrrl]

, if you have looked at them both side by side and don't see what all of the "hoopla" is about, then your choice is obvious. Buy the non-retina version and go get your sight checked.

My local Apple Store put them back-to-back. Tough to tell the difference. Having said that my 2013 iMac meets my needs.

 

[phpmaven]

My local Apple Store put them back-to-back. Tough to tell the difference. Having said that my 2013 iMac meets my needs.

Seriously? Wow! That's hard to believe, but then my wife can't seem to tell the difference between SD and HD tv, so I guess some people are missing the high resolution detection gene

When I first walked into an Apple Store and caught site of the 5K, it was as if the heavens opened and the angels sang. It felt so immersive and I felt like I could almost jump into the screen. It kind of reminds me of the first time I saw, strangely enough, an HD tv.

 

[retinaimac]

Seriously? Wow! That's hard to believe, but then my wife can't seem to tell the difference between SD and HD tv, so I guess some people are missing the high resolution detection gene

When I first walked into an Apple Store and caught site of the 5K, it was as if the heavens opened and the angels sang. It felt so immersive and I felt like I could almost jump into the screen. It kind of reminds me of the first time I saw, strangely enough, an HD tv.

Ive got mine next to my mid 2011 21.5in imac and after a few minutes I had to turn the little one off! Gonna give it to my son It'll be an upgrade for him. first gen rimac with bugs or not, I love mine and it serves my purposes well.

 

[SmallDane]

Seriously? Wow! That's hard to believe, but then my wife can't seem to tell the difference between SD and HD tv, so I guess some people are missing the high resolution detection gene

Seriously, isn't it a tad bit arrogant to suggest that other people have poor eyesight or even are genetically flawed just because they don't share your opinion?

I don't think anybody is disputing that the retina screen looks better, more crisp, more sharp, or whatever. The only real question is how much this really means to you. That is both subjective and a matter of priority. For me there are simply other things that are more important and I find the resolution of the normal screen to be fully adequate for my needs.

Of course, if I had all the money in the world and if there were no downsides at all to buying the highest resolution, I would buy it. Sadly, I don't live in that world.

 

[phpmaven]

Seriously, isn't it a tad bit arrogant to suggest that other people have poor eyesight or even are genetically flawed just because they don't share your opinion?

I don't think anybody is disputing that the retina screen looks better, more crisp, more sharp, or whatever. The only real question is how much this really means to you. That is both subjective and a matter of priority. For me there are simply other things that are more important and I find the resolution of the normal screen to be fully adequate for my needs.

Of course, if I had all the money in the world and if there were no downsides at all to buying the highest resolution, I would buy it. Sadly, I don't live in that world.

I totally agree with you. I can completely understand someone not feeling it was worth the extra money for them and deciding that the normal screen is just fine for their needs. I'm just honestly flabbergasted that anyone would have a hard time seeing the difference.

 

[robgendreau]

If a choice is between the fastest (i7) non-retina iMacs and and the riMac, it doesn't make much sense to buy non-retina. Apple throws in that gorgeous screen for very little extra money, about $300US or even $100. That's largely because they don't charge "extra" for the flash storage with the riMac, and the i7 is also a bump. In fact, the 21" i7 would be a more competitive choice since it's comparatively faster. Or even one of the MBPs.

It isn't purely subjective either. Every display is going retina. The resale value of a computer, tablet or phone with retina is higher; people aren't gonna want those other screens as retina becomes more prevalent. If you create content, you have to produce for retina. So it's more future-proof and a better investment.

So if I were in the market I'd definitely go retina, or go budget.

 

[UniDoubleU]

I've been using Retina Macs since the first rMBP hit the market and I do notice lower PPI displays more and more. It's something about what our eyes are used to I think. I've been using the rMBP with ACD 24" for years and have always noticed very slight pixelation on it even though the display is setup further back. But hey, I had a checkup a few months ago and had 20/20 vision

A while back I booted up my Alu Unibody Macbook and whoa, to experience 1280x800 again! Pixelations everywhere!

Once you go Retina, you don't want to go back!

 

[Crunch]

I cannot believe this is even an issue. To those people who claim to see "little or no difference" are either liars or can't see for shhhhhhh. How's your eyesight? Mine's 20/20. (knock on wood)

Having said that, I did have to return my Retina iMac and go back to my Late-2013 model, because of exactly what you're worried about: speed and lag!

I am, however, going back to a higher-spec'd version of the Retina iMac A.S.A.P., but this time, I'm going with the higher-end M295X w/ 4GB GDDR5 video chip. I was very disappointed with the base model (the i5 and M290X), because of the lag. But now that I'm back on my previous iMac and look at my iPad, it's just bothering me a lot. LOL...

So YES, that's how insanely gorgeous is. I certainly could see a ***HUUUUUUUUGGGGEEEEE*** difference, and that's from even a few feet away! How can ANYONE suggest otherwise. Ridiculous.

Equally as ridiculous is that Apple would put out a base model that doesn't even let me using Mission Control without having to upgrade the video card. Steve Jobs would have never let that out the door! That's what I said to Apple Support when I called to complain. Of course, I'm assuming that it wasn't something else that was amiss. Maybe the Timing Controller? Maybe a cable? No idea. But all the diagnostics always came back fine, so I'm just going to splurge and get at least the 295X.

A couple of other points: The fan, as is the case with my Late-2013 model, almost NEVER comes on. That is with the i5 3.5GHz and 290X base model. I can, if you want, come back here as soon as I have my Retina iMac with the 295X and let you know what's what. I'm not sure as to whether or not to go with the i7. Seems overkill. But I will order today or tomorrow for sure. I am also always getting the 256GB SSD and NO internal hard drive. I need way more than 3TB of storage, so I have everything external. It also makes it a pound lighter. ;-)

Hope this helps.

 

[hjalte]

I cannot believe this is even an issue. To those people who claim to see "little or no difference" are either liars or can't see for shhhhhhh. How's your eyesight? Mine's 20/20. (knock on wood)

Having said that, I did have to return my Retina iMac and go back to my Late-2013 model, because of exactly what you're worried about: speed and lag!

I am, however, going back to a higher-spec'd version of the Retina iMac A.S.A.P., but this time, I'm going with the higher-end M295X w/ 4GB GDDR5 video chip. I was very disappointed with the base model (the i5 and M290X), because of the lag. But now that I'm back on my previous iMac and look at my iPad, it's just bothering me a lot. LOL...

So YES, that's how insanely gorgeous is. I certainly could see a ***HUUUUUUUUGGGGEEEEE*** difference, and that's from even a few feet away! How can ANYONE suggest otherwise. Ridiculous.

Equally as ridiculous is that Apple would put out a base model that doesn't even let me using Mission Control without having to upgrade the video card. Steve Jobs would have never let that out the door! That's what I said to Apple Support when I called to complain. Of course, I'm assuming that it wasn't something else that was amiss. Maybe the Timing Controller? Maybe a cable? No idea. But all the diagnostics always came back fine, so I'm just going to splurge and get at least the 295X.

A couple of other points: The fan, as is the case with my Late-2013 model, almost NEVER comes on. That is with the i5 3.5GHz and 290X base model. I can, if you want, come back here as soon as I have my Retina iMac with the 295X and let you know what's what. I'm not sure as to whether or not to go with the i7. Seems overkill. But I will order today or tomorrow for sure. I am also always getting the 256GB SSD and NO internal hard drive. I need way more than 3TB of storage, so I have everything external. It also makes it a pound lighter. ;-)

Hope this helps.

I have ordered the maxed out non-retina with 512 SSD.

And just for the record; there IS a difference between retina and non-retina. Sure the retina display is much nicer, but for me, it isn't worth the risk.
Many people have reported problems with their new retina model (heat, speed, lag, noise) and I don't want to take that chance.

I can also understand that there have been some problems with the AMD cards in the past.

Finally, it's also a question about if the retina is worth the extra $600. I don't think it is (considering the 'risk').

 

[UniDoubleU]

I have ordered the maxed out non-retina with 512 SSD.

And just for the record; there IS a difference between retina and non-retina. Sure the retina display is much nicer, but for me, it isn't worth the risk.
Many people have reported problems with their new retina model (heat, speed, lag, noise) and I don't want to take that chance.

I can also understand that there have been some problems with the AMD cards in the past.

Finally, it's also a question about if the retina is worth the extra $600. I don't think it is (considering the 'risk').

Good to see you've finally made up your mind.

I still don't get the "risks" you're been so afraid of.

My iMac 2009 with AMD is running fine thanks.

Good luck with Yosemite Mission Control lagging. Yosemite's bugs don't discriminate between models lol.

 

[hjalte]

Good to see you've finally made up your mind.

I still don't get the "risks" you're been so afraid of.

My iMac 2009 with AMD is running fine thanks.

Good luck with Yosemite Mission Control lagging. Yosemite's bugs don't discriminate between models lol.

The "risks" i am talking about is Heat and Fan-noise + the machine possibly being underpowered.

I realize that on a forum like this,people with problems are much more likely to post, but in the end, the non-retina seemed like the right choice (all things considered)

Now I just have to wait 14 days

 

[SmallDane]

I realize that on a forum like this,people with problems are much more likely to post, but in the end, the non-retina seemed like the right choice (all things considered)

You know, I'm starting to think that isn't actually true. There are actually quite a lot of people who seems to enjoy posting about how satisfied they are with their purchase. It almost makes you a bit suspicious.

Anyway, congratz with your purchase. I hope you will be one of those posting about how satisfied you are.

 

[iMi]

I have spent the last couple of days (okay... more like two weeks) obsessing about this.

I have read more or less every post in the forum (and other forums + reviews) and the more I read, the more confused I get.

I am worried about the fan noise from the Retina. I feel like I have to pick the right combo of parts + have a bit of luck, to get a machine that isn't noisy.
From what I have read so far, the i5 + m295 seems to be the best way to go for performance + silence.

I get a lot of contradiction when reading about this. Some say that the non-retina is much faster and other say the the 5k retina is faster...

...while others say, that it's basically the same (comparing two base models) in terms of speed and fan noise.

I just want the best combo of speed and silence available. I don't NEED the 5k screen. It would be nice though.

I am not even sure I would need all that extra power. I do mostly webdesign, a little photoshop, MS office stuff and a lot of chrome stuff.
I would also use the machine to watch netflix, youtube and other media files on.

It's super important for me that the machine is FAST though. I hate stuttering. And one of my main reasons (beside simplicity) for switching is speed.

Besides speed, my main reason for not just getting the base model, is to future-safe the computer. If that makes sense.

I almost never game. I do play games like civ5 from time to time. When I do, it's often 8+ hours at a time. I could probably be tempted to play a little WoW from time to time... or maybe not?

So...

To sum up:


* I have obsessed about this for a LONG time now!
* I want SPEED (my main reason for buying a mac)
* I am doing mostly office stuff (MS Office + Webbased)
* I do watch youtube + netflix + video files
* I rarely game, but when I do it's mostly Civ5 for several hours
* I am super concerned about and sensitive to fan noise (I almost always work in complete silence.... Yes I know. I am weird )
* I have really NO IDEA which iMac I should get
* The more I read, the more confused I get

Please help me Mac-Gurus. I can't take it anymore

Viewing distance of the iMac makes it nearly impossible to see individual pixels on the non-retna machine. Yes, the retna display will be more crisp but isn't really going to make as much of a difference as it made on the iPhone, iPad and the portable macs. With everything you said above, I belive you would be better off with the maxed out non-retna.

 

[Fishrrman]

Crunch wrote above:
[[ I cannot believe this is even an issue. To those people who claim to see "little or no difference" are either liars or can't see for shhhhhhh. How's your eyesight? Mine's 20/20. (knock on wood) ]]

How old are you?

Just wait another thirty or forty years, then get back to us.

 

[hjalte]

You know, I'm starting to think that isn't actually true. There are actually quite a lot of people who seems to enjoy posting about how satisfied they are with their purchase. It almost makes you a bit suspicious.

Anyway, congratz with your purchase. I hope you will be one of those posting about how satisfied you are.

Thanks. I hope that too haha

What did you end up doing mate? You sent your retina back right?