Which one 2.7 to 2.9 or 8G to 16G

GovtLawyer

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 6, 2008
294
9
I am about to buy a 2013 21.5 inch iMac. I can go from a 2.7 processor to a 2.9 ($200 more than the lower end model.) Or, I can go from 8GB ram to 16GB for the same $200 increase. I do not have the money for both. I will be upgrading from the 1TB drive to a 1TB fusion . Although my 2008 iMac is a 2.8, it is dual core and uses a straight HD storage. I am sure the quad core and fusion drive alone will be peppier than what I have now.

I use my computer primarily for internet surfing, office work and photography using Adobe Lightroom and Elements. My gut tells me the 16GB will be the better choice, that going from 2.7 to 2.9 will increase the speed, but I will likely not even notice it. But, my gut is often wrong.

Thanks,

Steven

BTW: My question will be moot if I see a good buy in an Apple refurbished. I saw a machine with both 2.9 and 16 GB and fusion the other day for a great price, but I didn't pull the trigger fast enough.
 

xraydoc

macrumors demi-god
Oct 9, 2005
7,713
1,871
192.168.1.1
I am about to buy a 2013 21.5 inch iMac. I can go from a 2.7 processor to a 2.9 ($200 more than the lower end model.) Or, I can go from 8GB ram to 16GB for the same $200 increase. I do not have the money for both. I will be upgrading from the 1TB drive to a 1TB fusion . Although my 2008 iMac is a 2.8, it is dual core and uses a straight HD storage. I am sure the quad core and fusion drive alone will be peppier than what I have now.

I use my computer primarily for internet surfing, office work and photography using Adobe Lightroom and Elements. My gut tells me the 16GB will be the better choice, that going from 2.7 to 2.9 will increase the speed, but I will likely not even notice it. But, my gut is often wrong.

Thanks,

Steven

BTW: My question will be moot if I see a good buy in an Apple refurbished. I saw a machine with both 2.9 and 16 GB and fusion the other day for a great price, but I didn't pull the trigger fast enough.
Two things to consider -

The real-world speed difference between 2.7GHz and 2.9GHz is minimal to none. 200MHz boost over a 2,700MHz processor is a drop in the bucket.

The real-word difference between 8GB of RAM and 16GB of RAM can be very substantial - IF the apps you're running are using up those first 8GB. For just email and web browsing, you don't need it. But with Lightroom and high-res photos, my guess is that you'll appreciate the extra breathing room. And it'll definitely help a ton if you run Elements and Lightroom at the same time.

And the Fusion drive is going to give you a very responsive machine as well. Huge improvement over a strictly mechanical drive.

I say get the RAM.
 

Bear

macrumors G3
Jul 23, 2002
8,088
4
Sol III - Terra
I am about to buy a 2013 21.5 inch iMac. I can go from a 2.7 processor to a 2.9 ($200 more than the lower end model.) Or, I can go from 8GB ram to 16GB for the same $200 increase. I do not have the money for both. I will be upgrading from the 1TB drive to a 1TB fusion . Although my 2008 iMac is a 2.8, it is dual core and uses a straight HD storage. I am sure the quad core and fusion drive alone will be peppier than what I have now.

I use my computer primarily for internet surfing, office work and photography using Adobe Lightroom and Elements. My gut tells me the 16GB will be the better choice, that going from 2.7 to 2.9 will increase the speed, but I will likely not even notice it. But, my gut is often wrong.

Thanks,

Steven

BTW: My question will be moot if I see a good buy in an Apple refurbished. I saw a machine with both 2.9 and 16 GB and fusion the other day for a great price, but I didn't pull the trigger fast enough.
I also say your best bet is 2.7GHz + 16GB memory along with the Fusion Drive.

And remember to double check the refurbished when you go to order as availability is constantly changing.
 

huppala

macrumors newbie
Dec 11, 2013
15
0
Or he buys a 27 "iMac and upgraded the RAM later.

+ CPU is faster than the 21 "
+ bigger Screen
+ GPU is faster
+ RAM can be upgraded itself
 

GovtLawyer

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 6, 2008
294
9
Cannot go 27

Thanks to all for your help. As I surmised, the ram will serve me better than a slight increase in processor speed. I do not think the graphics will make a difference - I do not play graphic intensive games or do much video editing.

I would much prefer the 27 inch. I currently have a 24 - 2008. However, the 27 is simply too large for my desk space. So, I have to go slightly smaller and accept the lesser specs.
 

huppala

macrumors newbie
Dec 11, 2013
15
0
And costs more. He did indicate he could only afford a certain amount for the iMac.
The 27 "iMac only costs a little more, i think.

Thanks to all for your help. As I surmised, the ram will serve me better than a slight increase in processor speed. I do not think the graphics will make a difference - I do not play graphic intensive games or do much video editing.

I would much prefer the 27 inch. I currently have a 24 - 2008. However, the 27 is simply too large for my desk space. So, I have to go slightly smaller and accept the lesser specs.
Ok, I understand.
Then you could order the 2,7 GHz, 8GB RAM and an SSD or Fusion Drive.
8GB RAM is more than enough, I think.
 
Last edited:

ioannis2005gr

macrumors 6502
Aug 10, 2013
495
0
Europe
Thanks to all for your help. As I surmised, the ram will serve me better than a slight increase in processor speed. I do not think the graphics will make a difference - I do not play graphic intensive games or do much video editing.
I understand...but you should add some money to order a PCIe SSD or Fusion Drive BTO. Don't miss it!
 

GovtLawyer

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 6, 2008
294
9
Fusion - Yes

As I mentioned in my original post, I have every intention of getting a fusion drive.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.