12-08-2010, 10:08 AM

Hi all!

I'm gonna buy an iMac soon (woohoo!) and would like some advice as to what specs I should go for. This was one of my questions on another forum, but didn't get an answer to it.

I basically want to know: what are the minimum specs that I should have on my iMac? From there, I'll go for specs that are 1 step higher, so that I'll have a bigger "power margin" to play around with.

My uses-

• the regular stuff (internet, email, word docs, music)
• quite a bit of graphics work in programs such as Photoshop, Illustrator, and Painter
• Bootcamp for a few graphics-intensive games (Cabal, Assassin's Creed, ...Maplestory? lol)
• Bootcamp for graphics programs that aren't available for the mac os

So, do I need a comfortable minimum of i3, i5, i5 Quad, or i7 Quad?
and
ATI Radeon 4670 with 256MB/ 4850 with 512MB/ 5670 with 512MB/ or 5750 with 1GB?

I've already found that the general recommendation is to "get the best you can afford" so that the mac will be "future-proofed". But I still have my reservations about jumping straight for the top, and that's why I want to know what my minimum needs are. So please don't tell me again to go for the best! The purpose of this post is to find out how much below "the best" I can afford to get.)

Thanks in advance everyone!

12-08-2010, 10:16 AM

For your needs, an i3 should be sufficient. They all have fairly high clock speeds which should take care of everything, and support hyper-threading. Looks like the i5 quads do not support hyper threading, but the i5 dual cores do =/ As far as the i7, yes they are the biggest and the best out there, and they do support hyper threading.

So if you get an i3 you get: 2 cores / 4 threads
With an i5 dual core you get: 2 cores / 4 threads
With an i5 quad you get: 4 core / 4 threads
With an i7 you get: 4 cores / 8 threads

So the i5 quad is a ripoff imo.

As far as the GPUs are concerned, the 5670 is probably the best bang for your buck out of those. You can check out this graph: http://www.techarp.com/article/Deskt.../ati_4_big.png to kind of understand how they all compare.

12-08-2010, 10:21 AM

My quick & dirty answer is...I think almost any of the newest iMacs would fit your needs. They are all pretty powerful & all have pretty decent graphics hardware (versus previous iMacs).

You did say that you expect to do "quite a bit of graphics work in programs such as Photoshop, Illustrator, and Painter". This of course is hard to quantify in terms of how much computing power you need. There are still quite a few levels of demanding work someone can do with these programs. So it's hard to know how demanding your tasks will be vs. another user using the same applications.

You didn't mention if you're upgrading from another "older" Macintosh computer...and if so...what the specs were on that computer...and your experiences running these applications on it (performance-wise).

HTH,

- Nick

12-08-2010, 10:39 AM

Thanks for the fast replies!

s2odin: Okay, I'll remember your recommendation on the 5670. Is 1GB (on the 5750) really not necessary? And, on the mac site it shows that all the cores support hyper threading. In this case, what would you advise for the processor?

Pigoo3: Your "quick and dirty answer" is actually a refreshing change from "go for the best!"
Okay... "heavy" graphics work such as- big files, multiple files, high resolutions, many layers, filters. I'm upgrading from a little ol' MacBook Black. I can't rmb the specs exactly, but it was something like 1GB, Intel Core Duo, 2.0GHz. Yeah, nowhere near the iMacs. It starts to lag even if I work on 1 photoshop file at 300 dpi and A4 size only a few layers, and the only other applications running are Firefox/Safari/iTunes.

What kind of work would require quad-cores? I don't want to get an i3/i5 and then end up having frequent lags when I'm working with big graphics files or playing graphics-intensive games. Especially if they're being run in Bootcamp.

12-08-2010, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Shennaniah

Okay... "heavy" graphics work such as- big files, multiple files, high resolutions, many layers, filters. I'm upgrading from a little ol' MacBook Black. I can't rmb the specs exactly, but it was something like 1GB, Intel Core Duo, 2.0GHz. Yeah, nowhere near the iMacs. It starts to lag even if I work on 1 photoshop file at 300 dpi and A4 size only a few layers, and the only other applications running are Firefox/Safari/iTunes.

Yeah...it sounds like you're doing some fairly demanding work.

The reason why I asked about if you were upgrading from an older Mac...was first to get an idea of where you were coming from...and second to say that any of the new iMacs will be much more capable than your old black Macbook. There were three different versions of the black Macbook (released between 2006 & 2008)...so it's hard to say exactly which one you have. But's safe to say that any current iMac will clearly outperform your black Macbook.

Folks always say..."Buy as much computer as you can afford." All computers... no matter how powerful they are when brand new...eventually become old "slow as molasses in February" computers. That might be 2 years from now, 4 years from now, or 10 years from now...it's hard to predict where things will be in 2, 4, or 10 years (although you could read about Moores Law if you're REALLY interested).

Moore's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bottom line is...any of the new iMacs will outperform your old black Macbook...so anything you buy will run things MUCH faster. The only thing is decide how much you can really afford to spend...and then get as much as you can. Also (to save a few hundred bucks) check out Apples Refurbished area for some good deals.

Refurbished Mac - Apple Store (U.S.)

The refurbished stock can change by the day...or even by the hour. So if you see something you like...buy it!

HTH,

- Nick

p.s. By the way...In my humble opinion you're making a very intelligent choice getting a new iMac instead of a newer Macbook/Macbook Pro. You almost always get more "bang for your buck" when buying a desktop vs. a laptop...plus you already have the black Macbook for portability when you need it.

12-08-2010, 11:24 AM

Actually I WAS originally considering the MBP! Lol. But only out of habit, since I've primarily used laptops for a long time now. But I wanted a bigger/better screen for my graphics work, and that's when I checked out the iMacs and realized that they were actually more worth it. Phew!

I'm already looking at the refurbs. As for "how much I can afford to spend", well, that's kinda a problem and yet not a problem. My parents are buying this for me as a combined Christmas/graduation present, and they're willing to buy even the refurb 27" i7 Quad ("the best"). But I don't want to take advantage of their money to buy power that is totally unnecessary (even when taking into account future applications and such). Hence, I want to determine what my minimum requirements are, and then buy a bit above that to be on the safe side.

I expect to use this iMac for at least 5 good years. Usually when my computers have slowed down significantly, I sell them and upgrade.

Since my work does sound fairly demanding, what would your personal recommendations be?

And again, what kind of work/etc. requires quad-cores?

Plus, Mac OS may be fine, but I'm most concerned about when I use heavy programs in Bootcamp.

12-08-2010, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Shennaniah

Actually I WAS originally considering the MBP! Lol. But only out of habit, since I've primarily used laptops for a long time now. But I wanted a bigger/better screen for my graphics work, and that's when I checked out the iMacs and realized that they were actually more worth it. Phew!

If you didn't already have that black Macbook...and you NEEDED portability...then a MBP of some sort would have been a great choice. No matter how good the performance/dollar value it is getting a desktop...if you need portability, then you have to get a notebook/laptop.

What size screen are you thinking of getting...21.5" or 27"?

Originally Posted by Shennaniah

I'm already looking at the refurbs.

Good deal. Many folks aren't aware of the refurb. section at the Apple website...so I always like to point it out just in case.

Originally Posted by Shennaniah

Since my work does sound fairly demanding, what would your personal recommendations be?

I think that it still boils down to ANY of the new iMacs will perform much better than your black Macbook...so you can't go wrong with any of them.

Here's a decent review article of the 2010 iMacs & some benchmarks:
21.5- and 27-inch iMacs (Mid 2010) Review | Desktops | From the Lab | Macworld

Again...I don't know exactly what your budget is...or exactly how much computing power your computing tasks will need...but below is what I would get given your info (and my preference for the 27" monitor):

Lower cost option:
Refurbished iMac 27-inch 3.2GHz Intel Core i3 processor - Apple Store (U.S.)

Higher cost option:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC...co=MTkwMzU2MjI

I would probably lean towards the higher cost option for the:

- i5 quad-core processor
- better graphics hardware

I also wouldn't get more than 4 gig of ram at time of purchase. You can always easily & more cheaply do that later on your own if you find you need more ram.

Again, I hope that this helps,

- Nick

12-08-2010, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Shennaniah

Thanks for the fast replies!

s2odin: Okay, I'll remember your recommendation on the 5670. Is 1GB (on the 5750) really not necessary? And, on the mac site it shows that all the cores support hyper threading. In this case, what would you advise for the processor?

The 5750 is a little overkill, and is not worth a lot more than the 5670.

As far as them all supporting hyper threading, I looked on Intel's website and the i5 quads do not support hyper threading, according to Intel.

12-08-2010, 10:02 PM

Pigoo3:
Yup, I'm getting an iMac for power and keeping my MBBlack for portability.
I'm not yet sure about the screen size; my specs requirements might end up determining that. The best 21.5" that I see in the refurbs is an i5 3.6Ghz with ATI 5670 and 512mb. If those specs are already more than enough for my uses, THEN I'll decide whether I want the 21.5" or 27". If I need better specs than that, then 21.5" isn't an option anyway.

Thanks for the benchmarks article, I'll have a closer look at it a little later.

s2odin:
Oh. So... does that mean the Apple site is wrong? :S (On that earlier link, the tech specs for the iMac on the right side of the page show that all have hyper threading.)


Okay, here's a question to now-and-forever eliminate the top computers: is i7 Quad-Core and 5750/1GB really a total overkill for me? As in, even in the next few years, that power would still be just sitting there untapped?

As for the lower boundary, I don't think I'll get anything less than i5. If you guys reckon that i7 Quad is a waste of power and money, then I only have to decide between i5 and i5 Quad.

Pigoo3, any input on this thing about whether i5 Quad has or doesn't have hyperthreading? Even other forums seem confused about it.

Thanks guys, I'm really appreciating all the advice and pointers!

12-08-2010, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by Shennaniah

s2odin:
Oh. So... does that mean the Apple site is wrong? :S (On that earlier link, the tech specs for the iMac on the right side of the page show that all have hyper threading.)

http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollecti...familyId=42912

The iMac on Apple's website for the 21" model has a 3.6 ghz i5. That means it has to be an Intel i5-680 which is a dual core, with hyper threading, as stated before.

The next option for the 27" is a 3.6ghz which is the same as above, and it states it supports hyper threading. The next option is a Quad 2.8ghz so it is an Intel i5-760. Apple only states it supports Turbo Boost, not hyper threading.
Okay, here's a question to now-and-forever eliminate the top computers: is i7 Quad-Core and 5750/1GB really a total overkill for me? As in, even in the next few years, that power would still be just sitting there untapped?
Probably not. As the iX series become more popular, and sandy bridge comes out people will make more power consuming software, meaning that an i7 will last you a few years, probably 5ish if treated right, just like the C2D processors. The 5750 is a little overkill. Look at the TechArp link (http://www.techarp.com/article/Deskt.../ati_4_big.png) I posted earlier and compare the 5670 and the 5750 and see if the performance is worth whatever the price is. The 5750 is one above the 5670 so I say it's not worth the premium I'm sure you'll pay for it.
As for the lower boundary, I don't think I'll get anything less than i5. If you guys reckon that i7 Quad is a waste of power and money, then I only have to decide between i5 and i5 Quad.

Pigoo3, any input on this thing about whether i5 Quad has or doesn't have hyperthreading? Even other forums seem confused about it.
Intel is the one who made it and they should 100% spot on, and i5 quads do not support hyper threading. (see again, Intel® Core)
Thanks guys, I'm really appreciating all the advice and pointers!

Answers in red.

12-09-2010, 04:02 AM

-"Apple only states it supports Turbo Boost, not hyper threading."

Sorry s2odin, my bad! I was reading the specs page in the morning and must've been still half asleep. You're right, i5 Quad doesn't have hyper. But is hyper threading even something I should have, though? I've read that while it's great for certain programs, other programs that aren't meant to work with hyper threading actually get slowed down.

True or false: If I want anything better than a 3.6GHz i5, I should skip the i5 Quad because it's a ripoff and go straight for the i7 Quad?

Wow, I thought I understood the graphics cards, but the more I read the more confused I get. Sorry, bear with me! 4850 512MB vs 5750 1GB? Which is better, particularly on a 27" screen?

Man! There're so many variables! Wish the computer lineup would just be a simple, straightforward, linear progression from Good to Better to Best.

12-09-2010, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Shennaniah

Man! There're so many variables! Wish the computer lineup would just be a simple, straightforward, linear progression from Good to Better to Best.

I think that you're thinking about this too much...don't get all wrapped up in the "hyper-threading" technicalities. There's nothing wrong with the "i5".

Stay focused on the big picture. Any of the current iMacs will kick your old Macbooks BUTT when it comes to performance. If you let yourself get all wrapped up in various "techno" details...you'll never be able to make a decision.

Just my humble opinion...good luck,

- Nick

12-09-2010, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Shennaniah

-"Apple only states it supports Turbo Boost, not hyper threading."

Sorry s2odin, my bad! I was reading the specs page in the morning and must've been still half asleep. You're right, i5 Quad doesn't have hyper. But is hyper threading even something I should have, though? I've read that while it's great for certain programs, other programs that aren't meant to work with hyper threading actually get slowed down.

True or false: If I want anything better than a 3.6GHz i5, I should skip the i5 Quad because it's a ripoff and go straight for the i7 Quad?

Wow, I thought I understood the graphics cards, but the more I read the more confused I get. Sorry, bear with me! 4850 512MB vs 5750 1GB? Which is better, particularly on a 27" screen?

Man! There're so many variables! Wish the computer lineup would just be a simple, straightforward, linear progression from Good to Better to Best.

Honestly the i5 quad would be fine for what you need.

What hyper-threading is, is it can designate one thread to each task you're trying to complete (up to 4) and complete them at the same time, or if you're like burning a CD (and that's it) it will designate all 4 threads to that task and complete it in half the time as a C2D.

The i3 would probably even be fine for what you would be doing with it.

As far as the GPU, the 4850 would be fine, I was just recommending the 5670 as it gives a good boost in performance for a lower price than the 5750.

Up to you tho, but as pigoo said, anything will be a good upgrade.

12-09-2010, 10:41 AM

Pigoo3 you are absolutely right! Yeah, I'm getting caught up in the details and I know it, but I still can't help but worry over the nitty gritty. At this rate I'm really not gonna get an imac, lol.

I'm trying to imagine things from a future perpective... Let's say 3 or 4 years down the road when they've relesased i9, i11, i13, and probably even moved on from the i series altogether. And everything is a minimum of Quad cores. Do I want to be sitting there thinking "Man, now I'm REALLY far behind with my i5 dual", or "Well, I got the best I could at the time, and with my i7 Quad, at least I'm *fewer* steps behind".

Of course, I know the tech world is constantly upgrading and no one (but fanboys) is gonna be ahead of the game for long. But you get my gist yeah?

I believe it when you say that all the iMacs can kick my MBBlack's butt, but then I start wondering- how hard can each of them kick? (Weird analogy there, but okay.) As in, the i7 Quad imac would blow my macbook completely outta the water, whereas the core2duo may only punt it a couple of yards.

Alright, how about I just ask it this way: if I get the i5 or i5 Quad, then 3 to 5 years from now, might I be looking back at today regretting that I didn't get the best I could?

Thanks for tolerating all my indecisiveness! You fellas are awesome. I'll make a decision soon, promise!

12-09-2010, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by Shennaniah

. Do I want to be sitting there thinking "Man, now I'm REALLY far behind with my i5 dual", or "Well, I got the best I could at the time, and with my i7 Quad, at least I'm *fewer* steps behind".
The i5 dual is, technically, a quad core (when it needs to be)
Alright, how about I just ask it this way: if I get the i5 or i5 Quad, then 3 to 5 years from now, might I be looking back at today regretting that I didn't get the best I could?
I don't think so. Both are quad cores (technically) and quad cores last a long time. Think about it, the heat generated by them is pretty significant. I don't think Intel or ATI want to try to push 6 or 8 core CPU's into laptops or desktops the size of an iMac without a massive overhaul of the cooling systme of all of them. Plus the i7 quad with its 8 threads, if you push it to use all 8 threads, it will run significantly warmer than the i5 quad with only its 4 threads.
Thanks for tolerating all my indecisiveness! You fellas are awesome. I'll make a decision soon, promise!

Red, again