Which iMac

I am on the verge of ordering a new iMac. I am trying to decide if I want to get the 21 or the 27". I found some benchmark scores that rates the top dog 27" with the top dog 21" and the were relatively close. The one thing that has me biting my nails is the video card. Is the 512MB in the 21 enough to last me for a few years? Or should I get the 27" with up to 2GB. I had always wanted to get the 21 and then also get another display and run a two monitor setup. Since I am asking, a question about that, if I get another monitor, will the iMac be able to run it at maximum resolution or it is going to be constrained to the native resolution of the iMac?

If I get the 27" I will get it with 8GB of memory and upgrade ti myself, 16GB if I get the 21. Also the 1TB Fusion drive in both.

I just want to have a nice computer that will last me a while. I will use it for mostly general use and photo editing. I want it to last. I really dont like spending money on computers. Let me know what you think. Thanks

Well if it helps I have been a MAC owner for years and years, have 3 iMac's in my house and two Macbook Pro's.

I just bought the 27" iMac last week, and upgraded from 8GB to 32GB of RAM today and absolutely love this machine. It's fantastic in all aspects!

I seem to recall the 21" is not upgradable, so check that.

Personally, I went with a 2.6 gHz i7 Mac Mini. Much easier to upgrade. I added 16 gb of RAM, put in a 240 gb SSD to go with the 1 TB hard drive and initialized both as a single Fusion volume. It will drive two displays (one 27", one 24") and has USB3 as well as Firewire 800 ports. Aperture goes through my 5D Mark II raw files in real-time. And it's dead silent.

Tony-S wrote in post #15719060
I seem to recall the 21" is not upgradable, so check that.

This is the reason that I would get it maxed out with processor and memory.

Tony-S wrote in post #15719060
Personally, I went with a 2.6 gHz i7 Mac Mini. Much easier to upgrade. I added 16 gb of RAM, put in a 240 gb SSD to go with the 1 TB hard drive and initialized both as a single Fusion volume. It will drive two displays (one 27", one 24") and has USB3 as well as Firewire 800 ports. Aperture goes through my 5D Mark II raw files in real-time. And it's dead silent.

Kicker here being, I have no good monitors to connect to it at this point. I was going to use the 21 by itself for a bit until I could add another screen.

Thanks for the input so far folks..

A couple of tips, since I went through this purchase fairly recently.

1. As Tony suggested, the 21 inch model is not upgradeable by the user. Get as much RAM memory as you can afford.

2. If you plan to do photo processing or editing, get the best graphics card you can afford. The graphics card is used heavily in photo processing and display, so a good one is a must if you are doing any kind of photography or video work. Minimum 1GB and, ideally, 2GB. Remember, photo files are only going to get larger and more complex in the next 2-4 years, so you want to have a graphics card that can handle these future changes. Don't skimp on the graphics card!

3. The new Apple Fusion drive is supposed to be good, but I have no direct experience with it. If you get a standard spinning HDD, make sure you get one with a 7200 RPM speed and not 5400. 5400 is too slow access large photo files. Try to get some SSD in there if you can, you will see an immediate speed difference.

4. Photos on the 21 inch machine look really good, but on the 27 inch machine, they are absolutely fantastic. The big screen in the 27 model is really impressive and gives you a lot of room to work, especially if you plan to do real work on documents or spreadsheets (yes, people do use computers for more than photos).

Good luck with your purchase, the new iMacs are fantastic machines.

I must admit, I have been caught by apple employees drooling on the keyboards in front of 27" iMacs. I think that I am going to have to make some compromises to keep it in a reasonable price range if I go with the 27". We will see.. sometimes it better to ask for forgiveness......

tgara wrote in post #15719918
2. If you plan to do photo processing or editing, get the best graphics card you can afford. The graphics card is used heavily in photo processing and display, so a good one is a must if you are doing any kind of photography or video work. Minimum 1GB and, ideally, 2GB. Remember, photo files are only going to get larger and more complex in the next 2-4 years, so you want to have a graphics card that can handle these future changes. Don't skimp on the graphics card!

3. The new Apple Fusion drive is supposed to be good, but I have no direct experience with it. If you get a standard spinning HDD, make sure you get one with a 7200 RPM speed and not 5400. 5400 is too slow access large photo files. Try to get some SSD in there if you can, you will see an immediate speed difference.

If your only working on photos and only using Adobe software then the GPU is largely irrelevent. Even the most basic current GPU's will do everything Photoshop can throw at them.
This changes if your using some of Apples software that is able to leverage Open CL, but even then a really high end card isn't going to make a big difference, at least not one you can notice.
This may change in the future, but the general use of GPU's for non 3D and multi threaded processing has a long way to go yet.

If you doing video editing then a good card is important, but it needs to be the right card for the software your using.


And, the current generation of quad core processors from Intel (as found in then the iMac) are able to process far more information than a single spinning Hard Disc can manage.
Having a single internal disc is a now a big weak point for all in one computers, it can be a significant bottle neck.
Apples Fusion drive is an attempt get around this problem, but it will only help with data that is stored on the SSD itself.
If your images are on the spinning disc, and all operations concerning them take place on that disc, then having the SSD won't make any difference.

I'd get the 27. If you want to add a screen, look at one of the Macbook Pro machines with that big monitor they sell. Best of both worlds, portability when you need it and the big monitor when you're at home. You can get the Macbooks with the retina monitor too, it's very crisp.

If it were me, I would probably get a Mac Mini and a Dell monitor. Spending a little more money now buy buying a Mini AND a high quality monitor means in 3 or so years when you want to upgrade to a faster machine you are only paying for the computer. This also means that in the future if you were to go back to PC or want to connect a game console, etc. the Dell monitor would be able to do that, unlike a iMac or a Thunderbolt Display.

Historically, Apple has always has more problems from customers experiencing issues with their iMacs because of the all-in-one aspect.

Just some food for thought.

Moppie wrote in post #15720366
If your only working on photos and only using Adobe software then the GPU is largely irrelevent. Even the most basic current GPU's will do everything Photoshop can throw at them.
This changes if your using some of Apples software that is able to leverage Open CL, but even then a really high end card isn't going to make a big difference, at least not one you can notice.

This simply isn't true. All the pro photographers that I've heard from were looking forward to the updated NVIDEA GeForce graphics cards that come in the new iMacs, and nearly all of them upgrade that. These guys work with photos and videos every day and they see a difference on the upgraded cards. The OP should get the best graphics card he can -- end of story.

Evidence?

tgara wrote in post #15722649
This simply isn't true. All the pro photographers that I've heard from were looking forward to the updated NVIDEA GeForce graphics cards that come in the new iMacs, and nearly all of them upgrade that. These guys work with photos and videos every day and they see a difference on the upgraded cards. The OP should get the best graphics card he can -- end of story.

Nope, it's true. Now I don't know what the old iMacs had, historically you get a bit shafted by Apple on the video card but nothing Adobe has released for photo editing demands a particularly powerful video card. It might favor nVidia (I've been meaning to research that further) but the differences and actual use of it are minimal. Aperture uses it a bit more, but it's still not a make-or-break issue like it can be with video editing software.

tgara wrote in post #15722649
This simply isn't true. All the pro photographers that I've heard from were looking forward to the updated NVIDEA GeForce graphics cards that come in the new iMacs, and nearly all of them upgrade that. These guys work with photos and videos every day and they see a difference on the upgraded cards. The OP should get the best graphics card he can -- end of story.

Evidence?

I have two i7 based work stations, both running large dual monitor set ups, both processing RAW files from the same 5D2, both doing high volume batch editing using Lightroom, Photoshop and Bridge.
When it comes to photography work, both perform exactly the same (except for differences directly accountable to different storage set ups).

One of those work stations uses the built in Intel HD4000 graphics, the other uses an EVGA Nvidia GTX670 card.
3D Bench marks for those cards give the HD4000 a score usually around 3% of the GTX670. Yet that 97% more performance never gets used when working in 2D, which is what photo editing is.


If you were using Aperture, or Pixelmator, both of which leverage the GPU, then a faster card could make a difference. But only so much can be off loaded to the GPU, and in an iMac with a single spinning disc any advantage is soon negated by the inability to read and write the data being processed to and from a single disc.


Also note that the 680M in the iMac is a Mobile GPU, with less than half the performance of the GTX680.
That little "m" on the end of the name is misleading marketing, just like Apples claims about it's performance.
It might be the most powerful card ever in an iMac, but it's little better than a $50 card found in most budget computers sold through chain stores.

Moppie wrote in post #15720366
If your only working on photos and only using Adobe software then the GPU is largely irrelevent. Even the most basic current GPU's will do everything Photoshop can throw at them.
This changes if your using some of Apples software that is able to leverage Open CL, but even then a really high end card isn't going to make a big difference, at least not one you can notice.
This may change in the future, but the general use of GPU's for non 3D and multi threaded processing has a long way to go yet.

This is not the first time that I have heard this. In my research I noted it being said on multiple websites, including an Adobe blog. I think that this is going to help he make my decision as well. I have really been stuck between the 21 and the 27. I am thinking that I am going to get one with the 512MB video card. I really dont game so I dont need it for that. This is really just photo editing and surfing. I am retired young so I dont have any real work to do.

But then I think, "I want this thing to last for the long haul." So do I spend extra to get a better video card? Do I want two screens or just one huge one? Decisions decisions...

I use my 21 for browsing and paying bills. I prefer my 27 for editing.

tgara wrote in post #15722649
This simply isn't true. All the pro photographers that I've heard from were looking forward to the updated NVIDEA GeForce graphics cards that come in the new iMacs, and nearly all of them upgrade that. These guys work with photos and videos every day and they see a difference on the upgraded cards. The OP should get the best graphics card he can -- end of story.

All the pros have several 1 series bodies and a few tens of thousands in glass as well, I guess I should go get those.

Lightroom and Photoshop make little use of the processing power of the GPU. The HD4000 is more than up for the task, as stated by multiple people here.

Video is another story, while the HD4000 will cause delays in heavy rendering, for mild video work I have had no real complaints. It is a massive leap ahead of the HD3000 series.

Oh and as to the credibility of my statement, my room mate was an Apple tech for just over 2 years before moving on to a different company. He himself refused to buy the iMac because of the amount of issues that customers had with the panel backlighting, color tingeing, fans failing. heat issues, as well as noise from the fans struggling to cool the machine.