iMac 5k Retina

Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Hello all,

I am currently decising whether to invest in the 5k retina or to go for the previous 27inch model.

I am a casual user who loves to watch movies and tv shows on a gorgeous display hence deciding to go for a iMac.

As there is not much 4k content available at the moment, does the iMac upscale 1080p movies/tv shows like other 4k tvs? Is it wise to go for the iMac Retina to future proof myself for when 4k goes mainsteam? Or would it be a better deicsion to go for the previous iMac model which still has a good resolution for content available.

Appreciate your help.


Jammy_eel

Ps I am new to these forums! :Blushing:
 

chscag

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
65,247
Reaction score
1,834
Points
113
Location
Keller, Texas
Your Mac's Specs
2017 27" iMac, 10.5" iPad Pro, iPhone 8, iPhone 11, iPhone 12 Mini, Numerous iPods, Monterey
Welcome to our forums!

It's up to you whether to buy the new retina iMac or stay with the standard 27" iMac. The retina version of the iMac in my opinion is more for someone who is into graphic design or works with video. However, it could certainly be used for every day computing, games, or whatever. It's a fantastic machine and should be for $2500. ;)
 
OP
J
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Thanks for our reply.

$2500 (£2000 for me as in uk) is a lot for a desktop but it will be future proof as it seems like the higher resolution displays along with content is where the market is going.

Any ideas if the iMac Retina upscales 1080o content?
 

chscag

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
65,247
Reaction score
1,834
Points
113
Location
Keller, Texas
Your Mac's Specs
2017 27" iMac, 10.5" iPad Pro, iPhone 8, iPhone 11, iPhone 12 Mini, Numerous iPods, Monterey
Any ideas if the iMac Retina upscales 1080o content?

I really don't know what it does for 1080p content. But with the higher resolution and greater pixel density, and if 4K is available, it should be very realistic viewing. Once you've seen video via a retina screen, everything else looks rather dull.
 

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,221
Reaction score
1,432
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15
$2500 (£2000 for me as in uk) is a lot for a desktop but it will be future proof as it seems like the higher resolution displays along with content is where the market is going.

In my opinion…"future-proofing" has very little to do with the quality of the display. "Future-proofing" as it almost always has been…is about:

- the amount of installed ram
- cpu processing power
- graphics processing power

The new 27" iMac will be tops in all these areas…which is great.:) The retina display will probably be nice…but I wouldn't consider it a future-proofing parameter. Just "icing on the cake"! And of course at $2500 US…it better be!;)

- Nick
 
OP
J
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Points
1
In my opinion…"future-proofing" has very little to do with the quality of the display. "Future-proofing" as it almost always has been…is about:

- the amount of installed ram
- cpu processing power
- graphics processing power

The new 27" iMac will be tops in all these areas…which is great.:) The retina display will probably be nice…but I wouldn't consider it a future-proofing parameter. Just "icing on the cake"! And of course at $2500 US…it better be!;)

- Nick


Understand where your coming from and are right in certain circumstances.

However, as I am a casual user I will be using for things such as browsing, movies, tv shows, word processing etc I don't think the extra power from ram and processors will matter as a basic desktop/laptop can do the same.

Moreover, as I enjoy watching video content, the display is key for future as my minuscule intel celeron 2 has power to play current content.

iMac will be more than enough processor or ram wise for my future use.

Appreciate your comments :)
 

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,221
Reaction score
1,432
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15
However, as I am a casual user I will be using for things such as browsing, movies, tv shows, word processing etc I don't think the extra power from ram and processors will matter as a basic desktop/laptop can do the same.

Moreover, as I enjoy watching video content, the display is key for future as my minuscule intel celeron 2 has power to play current content.

iMac will be more than enough processor or ram wise for my future use.

I'm not sure the meaning of my last post came across clearly.

What I was saying was (you mentioned in one of your posts that the 27" retina display would be a good way to future proof the computer)...and I was saying that there are other things that are more important as far as future-proofing is concerned.

My comments about ram, cpu, and graphics hardware were "generic" statements regarding the areas in a computer that ARE important towards future-proofing. My comments on these areas were not specifically directed towards the new 27" retina iMac.

But...now that you mentioned that you are more of a "casual" computer user...I will comment on the hardware specifications of the new 27" retina iMac.

The hardware specifications on the new 27" retina iMac are probably the BEST hardware specs ever offered on a stock configured iMac (other than maybe not having an i7 cpu).

So this being said...if you were to purchase the new 27" retina iMac (at $2500 US)...not only would you be over-paying for a 27" retina display that you probably don't need...you would also be paying for top-end specs (cpu and graphics) that as a casual user you probably don't need either.

You could probably purchase the $1799 US 27" iMac...save yourself a bunch of cash...and probably get a fairly close level of performance to the $2500 US model iMac.

And as a casual user...the performance of the $1799 27" iMac I'm sure is much more than you need at the moment...and will be fine for years to come. And as your needs increase...you can always upgrade the ram at a later date.:)

But hey...if you've got the funds to purchase the new 27" retina iMac...go for it!:) But if saving some cash was desireable...I was just trying to same you some money by suggesting the $1799 US 27" iMac.:)

- Nick
 

vansmith

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
19,943
Reaction score
578
Points
113
Location
Queensland
Your Mac's Specs
Too many devices to list
You could probably purchase the $1799 US 27" iMac...save yourself a bunch of cash...and probably get a fairly close level of performance to the $2500 US model iMac.
This is crucial. The retina display is going to look great but honestly, Apple's non-retina displays are more than adequate. Add to that the abundance of potential that a retina machine has that you likely won't tap into as a casual user. Sure, MS Word will open faster but that execution will be a fraction of a second quicker (if that).

I'm all for the adage "buy as much machine as you can reasonably afford" but at some point, that adage loses power.
 

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,221
Reaction score
1,432
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15
I thought that I would post a link to an Engadget review of the new 27" retina iMac. The Engadget review practically "gushes" at the amazing quality of the 5k retina display (like a 13 year-old girl at a boy-band concert);). But when it comes to performance…here's the basic summary (cpu & gpu):

"In general-performance benchmarks like Geekbench and Xbench, I saw a slight bump over last year's iMac, which ran on a slightly lower-clocked Intel Core i5 processor and a different GPU. Meanwhile, on Cinebench, my OpenGL test, results rose slightly from 80.18 frames per second to 90.54 fps, while the CPU score saw a slight increase from 525 to 540."

iMac with Retina display review: A best-in-class screen makes it worth the high price

This is why I mentioned earlier that similar performance can be had from a lower cost 27" iMac model…and a lot of cash can be saved (if having the 5k display is really not a main need).

- Nick
 

chscag

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
65,247
Reaction score
1,834
Points
113
Location
Keller, Texas
Your Mac's Specs
2017 27" iMac, 10.5" iPad Pro, iPhone 8, iPhone 11, iPhone 12 Mini, Numerous iPods, Monterey
Great post Nick. Makes a lot of sense going with the lower cost iMac after looking at those benchmarks. The retina displays are great looking but not worth the extra $700 one has to pay for it.
 
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
9,962
Reaction score
1,236
Points
113
Location
The Republic of Neptune
Your Mac's Specs
2019 iMac 27"; 2020 M1 MacBook Air; macOS up-to-date... always.
That review makes me even more glad I'm holding out for the next revision to see how those perform. Although... I told my wife the other day I may just give up the iMac entirely and maybe swap the ATV for a new Mac mini. There's very little I do today on the iMac that I really can't do well enough and more conveniently on the iPad. The mini would fill the gap where the iPad can't, and I'd have the advantage of being able to go back to using Plex as an HTPC. I can't quite conceive of not having a desktop computer after 25 years of having one, but I don't really play games anymore and that was a huge driving factor in the need for a desktop.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top