Review: Apple's 27-inch iMac with Retina 5K display

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited February 2015
After years of waiting, Mac faithful can finally purchase an ultra high-resolution display made by Apple that not only mates quality with a competitive price tag, but comes with a capable built-in computer to boot.




The iMac with Retina 5K display is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It looks like the iMac we all know -- monolithic black glass, same silver "chin" -- but flip the switch and 14.7 million pixels spark to life, instantly transforming the machine into one of the most innovative products to come out of Cupertino in recent years. We wouldn't hesitate to mention it and the Mac Pro in the same breath.

Beyond design and usability, the new iMac has less in common with a vanilla iMac than it does the erstwhile 30-inch Cinema Display, Apple's high-end, no-nonsense monitor for professionals. While iMacs have always had decent screens, with relatively accurate colors and industry standard resolutions, the all-in-ones never really offered game-changing specs. Until now.

Design

Sat side-by-side and powered off, the iMac 5K is indistinguishable from a 2014 non-Retina 27-inch iMac. The designs are identical, and for the most part we're fine with that.




That Apple was able to stuff a high-resolution display -- 5K no less -- into the already svelte body of an iMac, which the company continuously touts as being "just 5mm at its edge," is an achievement in engineering. Of course, the iMac has a substantial hunchback into which fits the logic board, cooling system and memory, among other silicon components, but it's still mind boggling to think about all that technology shoehorned into such a small area.

Speaking of memory, the DIMMs are thankfully user replaceable from a rear port just below the fan vent, covered by a panel flush with the curved rear chassis, identical to previous iMacs. A push button mechanism that levers the panel out from the inside can be accessed through the power port, but only when the power cable is removed. A good design as computers should always be unplugged when adding or swapping out RAM.

Propping up the large screen is Apple's tapered aluminum pedestal, devoid of ornamentation except for a round cutout for cable management. Ringing the stand's foot is a generous patch of rubberized material to prevent skids and wobbles.




Operationally, the tilt adjustment clutch is buttery smooth, requiring only one finger to move the massive 27-inch panel into position, but exerting enough friction to keep it positively locked in place during use. For an extra $40, users can opt for a VESA mount adapter for articulating arms and wall hanging, but the configuration comes sans pedestal stand.

Retina 5K display

The obvious star of the show is the iMac's super high-resolution Retina 5K display. Apple includes "5K" in the computer's official name to delineate it from Retina branded panels found in the MacBook Pro, iPad and iPhone. And for good reason. This screen is in a different class entirely.




At 5,120 pixels-by-2,880 pixels spread across a 16:9 27-inch diagonal panel, the Retina 5K packs in just over 217 pixels per inch over an area of 311 square inches. That's 14.7 million pixels. A tad less pixel-dense than a MacBook Pro with Retina display, Retina 5K is bordering on overkill considering most users will position the desktop farther away than a laptop. From where we're sitting -- more than two feet from the iMac's screen -- it is impossible to pinpoint individual pixels.

An example of the 5K Retina's level of detail, the new modified Myriad typeface Apple now uses on its website is incredibly crisp, with no sign of pixelation on curved glyphs or blur in crevices created by serifs.

A lot of focus is put on detail rendering, but just as important is light distribution, color accuracy and brightness.

Testing showed good off-axis viewing thanks to what Apple calls Compensation Film, likely a specialized thin film polarizer, which is used to ensure consistent contrast and color across a wide range of viewing angles. To our eyes, the 5K Retina is a huge improvement over Apple's Thunderbolt Display and vanilla iMac models, which already sport great off-axis performance.

Adapting to Retina 5K will fundamentally change how you use a computer.One shortcoming normally associated with high-density displays is poor illumination, but not so with the iMac. Upgraded LED backlighting includes energy-efficient modules, which Apple claims to achieve output equal to or better than a non-Retina iMac with 30 percent less energy. In a side-by-side test with our 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro, the iMac was noticeably brighter when both were set to maximum brightness.

Backlighting was also extremely even, with no hot spots or light leakage that were problems with Apple's legacy large-format flat panel displays. In addition, the cover glass is laminated to the LCD stack for inky blacks and enhanced shadow detail.

In short, this is a pro-grade panel, up there with the best standalone products from Sharp and the rest.

Like our first experience with a 4K monitor for Mac -- Sharp's PN-K321 paired with Apple's 2013 Mac Pro -- the extra screen real estate felt daunting at first. Large screens, however, allow for more windows to be open concurrently, which can translate to a more efficient workflow. Retina 5K takes that idea to the extreme.




For example, we were able to open six Safari windows arranged edge-to-edge, each with highly legible content. Even more exciting is the prospect of editing 4K video at full resolution without the need to scale down to access tools or the timeline.

Adapting to Retina 5K will fundamentally change how you use a computer.

Performance

Our iMac testbed came loaded with Intel's Core i5 CPU clocked at 3.5GHz, with supported Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz. A 4.0GHz quad-core Intel i7 chip with Turbo Boost up to 4.4GHz and support for HyperThreading is available for an additional $250. Apple didn't make the jump to Intel's next-generation Broadwell architecture for the iMac 5K, but the Haswell CPUs used are newer SKUs than those offered with non-Retina iMacs.




Under low strain -- Web browsing, light photo editing and general productivity apps -- the base configuration is snappy. We would say performance is more than enough for regular consumers.

On Geekbench, the iMac notched a multi-core score of 12,400 under a 64-bit testing regime, higher than non-Retina iMacs, but below a quad-core version of Apple's Mac Pro workhorse. The iMac did come out ahead of the base Mac Pro in the single-core test, with a score of 3,876 compared to 3,604.

Graphics were similarly on par with non-Retina iMac models and we noticed zero stutter or lag when running through intensive tasks like 4K video editing. The AMD Radeon R9 M290X GPU with 2GB of GDDR5 RAM kept up with most operations, showing signs of strain -- lower frames per second -- only when adding multiple congruent effects to high-resolution video.

The base iMac has enough horsepower to pump out video to a 3,840-by-2,160 pixel display while simultaneously running native 5K on the Retina panel, but we were unable to test the feature.

Under normal workloads, the machine is nearly silent, but fans start to spool up when cutting video or opening an app that hijacks system controls (like GoPro's buggy video editing suite).

Storage

Our unit came equipped with a 1TB Fusion Drive, a hybrid system that keeps regularly used files and apps on a speedy SSD and other data on a spinning HDD. Testing with a tool like Blackmagic's Disk Speed Test rendered lower read/write times than expected, but we believe the temporary data was cached to the HDD rather than flash. During normal operation, the iMac is fast enough to keep up with real-time 4K video edits, leading us to believe the dynamic file transfer system works.




Along with Fusion Drive and Apple's SSD configurations, the iMac 5K comes with two Thunderbolt 2 ports, as opposed to plain Thunderbolt on the non-Retina iMac, making connected storage options a viable alternative for realtime content editing.

Memory

Up to this point in testing, we found everything about the iMac 5K to be stellar, but there is one glaring issue specific to the base model configuration that needs to be addressed.

As mentioned above, the expansive screen engenders a workflow not constrained to two or three open windows, but many. Multiple open apps chew up memory resources even with OS X's advanced task optimization. The standard 8GB allotment is simply not enough, a fact exacerbated by running more than one intensive image editing operation at once.




According to the OS X Activity Monitor, we hit the physical RAM limit using only Apple's first-party apps, for example combinations of Safari, iPhoto, iMovie, Numbers and iTunes. Admittedly, Safari took up a large chunk of memory thanks to content-rich webpages, but the ease at which we hit the virtual ceiling was troubling. Memory swapping helped keep things smooth with low intensity tasks, but the situation got dicey when once we started batch processing images in Photoshop while rendering Final Cut Pro X effects in the background. Throwing high-res photo editing into the mix, our system started to sputter.

For daily duties, the base RAM configuration is fine, but professionals will want to start out with more. Luckily, the iMac's memory is user-serviceable, meaning owners can add in or swap out four DIMMs to total up to 32GB of addressable memory. Customers can configure RAM options through Apple, or save some money and purchase aftermarket modules.




For reference, our iMac came with two 4GB SO-DIMMs manufactured by Micron Technology.

Speakers

Cramming components into a thin profile chassis comes with its own flavor of self-imposed restrictions. Apple uses down-firing speaker ports to bounce sound off a desk or work surface and toward the user. This makes for a nifty setup, but for a computer of this size sound is slightly anemic.




Still, when considering the constrained internal space and relative size of the iMac's speakers, output is sufficient for watching movies and listening to music. The speakers are clear, crisp and accurate, but the iMac is no bass monster.

A well thought out balance has been reached between consumers and pro users, keeping design overhead, and thereby end-user pricing, to a minimum. Regular users won't be wowed by the iMac's sound, but they won't be disappointed, either.

Professional videographers and music makers will most likely rely on their own external monitors, bypassing the internal stereo drivers altogether.

Odds and ends

Rounding out the iMac 5K are all the trappings from the non-Retina version, including HD FaceTime camera, dual microphones, 3.5mm headphone/optical digital audio output jack and an SDXC card reader. Expansion options include four USB 3.0 ports, two Thunderbolt 2 ports and Gigabit ethernet.




On the connectivity side is 802.11ac Wi-Fi support and Bluetooth for taking advantage of OS X Yosemite's Continuity features, including app Handoff, phone dialing using iPhone and AirDrop to iOS 8 devices.

Conclusion

From the moment you power on the iMac with Retina 5K display and are met with OS X Yosemite's familiar Apple logo rendered in crisp relief, it is exceedingly clear that Apple has built something special.




Memory issues aside (easily remedied with add-on RAM), the Retina iMac is not only Apple's best all-in-one desktop, but a contender for the title of best Mac, period. It may not be the powerhouse that is the Mac Pro, and is definitely the least portable Apple product, but the iMac 5K brings a lot of tech to the table in a manageable package, ticking off wish list items for consumers and professionals alike.

Apple didn't make many concessions when squeezing the high-density Retina display into the iMac's skeleton; no processor nerfs or stripped-down internals to keep thermal overhead in check, no chassis modification to accommodate existing LCD technology. This iMac is an exercise in innovation.

Even the base model is kitted out with proper silicon tailored to appease the needs of imaging professionals, the demographic most likely to benefit from native 5K resolutions.

In the end, everyday users will want the higher resolution display for video viewing, a bigger workspace and future-proofing. But for professionals, this is the iMac you need.

Score: 5 out of 5

image

Pros:
  • Retina 5K display is incredibly bright, detailed and accurate
  • Ability to cut 4K video with screen real estate to spare
  • Priced in line with standalone ultra high-res monitors
Cons:
  • Base configuration needs more RAM
  • Retina 5K display, buffed internals command $700 premium

Where to Buy

Apple's 27-inch iMac with Retina 5K display starts at $2,499 (configuration tested) from the Online Apple Store, but Apple Authorized Reseller B&H Photo offers the same model for $2,349.00 with the added benefit of only collecting sales tax on orders shipped to NY, meaning readers outside NY will likely save another $200+ in tax. This is currently the lowest net price for this model anywhere, but always double-check our Price Guides (also below) to be certain.

Readers looking other configurations of the new iMac should also check out our Mac Price Guides and Macs with AppleCare Price Guide for a list of discounts, deals, and promotions surrounding specific build-to-order configurations.

«134567

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 129
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Is the hard drive noise noticeable? I don't know whether to upgrade to pure SSD just for quietness reasons.
  • Reply 2 of 129
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,673member
    When I tested one I wasn't really impressed. The screen wasn't as good as the regular 27" iMac sitting next to it. Yes, the 5k portion was pretty cool, but I don't think it was on par with colors, contrast, etc with the regular 27" iMac. It would also lose its colors at certain angles, something the regular 27" iMac doesn't do. Yes, I know its an IPS 5k panel, but there was still some noticeable color shift.

    I also noticed it WAS laggy, even with the most simple tasks it would sometimes stutter. There are some other video reviews that show it still stuttering (dropping frames) with the upgraded AMD graphics. I would forget about playing any kind of games on it if you want to use full res.

    There's a reason why this iMac doesn't cost $4000 and thats because they didn't use the best panel they could. Something had to give to make it affordable and while the panel is good, its not great.

    Bottom line, I would wait for the next revision. Perhaps panel prices will come down and they can use a better quality panel for the same price. And, maybe graphics will be better suited for 5k resolutions.
  • Reply 3 of 129
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,673member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ascii View Post



    Is the hard drive noise noticeable? I don't know whether to upgrade to pure SSD just for quietness reasons.

     

    I would upgrade any iMac to SSD simply so there's really nothing inside it other than a fan to fail prematurely. Its also noticeably faster. Fusion drives are crap!

  • Reply 4 of 129
    Ended up sending mine back. Had it setup next to my existing thunderbolt monitor, and while it was a little sharper, it was not even close to the 'wow' range. That said, if I needed a iMac this would be the one, or, it it would work as an external monitor for my MPB Retina, we could talk.
  • Reply 5 of 129
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

     

     

    I would upgrade any iMac to SSD simply so there's really nothing inside it other than a fan to fail prematurely. Its also noticeably faster. Fusion drives are crap!




    I would really like 3TB of internal storage but only if it's not noisy.

  • Reply 6 of 129
    rob53rob53 Posts: 1,949member

    "Retina 5K display, buffed internals command $700 premium"

     

    This is a little unfair. You're comparing the 5K, 3.5GHz i5, 1TB fusion drive, 2GB GPU, Thunderbolt-2 to the base 3.2GHz, 1 TB hard drive, 1GB GPU, Thunderbolt-1 iMac. The fusion drive alone adds $200 to the old iMac. The 3.2GHz iMac isn't offered with the 2GB 775M or faster 4GB 780M, which costs more as well (not $200 because the next step up iMac includes a faster CPU). The base 5K Mac offers a faster CPU, 1TB Fusion drive and much faster GPU along with the higher resolution display. Overall it's $700 more (as you say) but labeling the additional cost as a "con" doesn't take into account the fact that many people don't purchase the base model and after factoring in comparable hardware, the display only costs (maybe) $300 more. For people who need the a 4K monitor with space for the GUI, the iMac 5K display is basically free.

  • Reply 7 of 129
    Why does Apple still keep all ports in the back is beyond common sense. Front ports, or at least side ports are essential for transferring footage to your computer, especially when your job includes hooking-up multiple video cameras on a daily basis. Port hubs aren't as good as direct connection.
  • Reply 8 of 129
    rob53rob53 Posts: 1,949member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ascii View Post

     



    I would really like 3TB of internal storage but only if it's not noisy.


    I understand Apple created the iMac as an all-in-one computer but times have swung back to the individual, specialized component design. Apple can't pack the largest 3.5" drives in an iMac anymore because of heat and power so they are providing a I/O port that's just as fast as the internal PCIe bus. Yes, you'll pay more for an external drive but you'll have the opportunity for faster access and larger data storage while maintaining speed. I agree about getting the flash storage (512GB) then adding either a disk-based RAID or SSD RAID. I presume your internal storage is for music, movies, TV shows and photos? You can always move these to external storage.

  • Reply 9 of 129
    rob53rob53 Posts: 1,949member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post



    Why does Apple still keep all ports in the back is beyond common sense. Front ports, or at least side ports are essential for transferring footage to your computer, especially when your job includes hooking-up multiple video cameras on a daily basis. Port hubs aren't as good as direct connection.

    Add a USB extension cable(s). If you're connecting to a camera that uses Firewire, then you have to connect using an adapter cable anyway. Adding side ports means creating a mother board with side ports or at least adding a sister board cabled to the mother board. This adds more things that could get messed up. 

  • Reply 10 of 129
    I don't necessarily agree with all of this review. I bought one to replace my mid-2010 27" iMac a few weeks ago, so I've had the opportunity to compare them side-by-side.

    As others have said, the Retina display is breathtaking...a foot away from the screen. At "normal" distances, the advantages become...well...less apparent. Still, it's nice eye candy. I don't know how anyone could say the Retina display is "not as good" as the non-Retina display unless the former was defective. If you haven't seen one, just think of what it's like to have a 27" version of an iPhone 4 (or newer) screen - just as sharp, but larger. All of these reviews hype up the Retina display so much that I think it leaves people expecting more than perfection. The Retina display can easily exceed the resolving power of many people's eyes. I had the iMac delivered to work and let several co-workers see the display. Some of them claimed they couldn't tell any difference between the 27" Retina display and the $130 23" AOC display I have on my work PC!

    I'm not sure if this started with Yosemite or a previous version of OS X, but I first noticed in 10.10 that almost all of the RAM is "full" no matter how many or few applications are running. When I first got the Retina iMac, I opened every pre-installed application at once with the 8GB of RAM it came with. The system remained completely responsive and the memory pressure was still in the green. After upgrading to 24GB, 22GB of that shows to be used after a clean boot. Memory pressure remains in the green and the computer is still noticeably faster than my mid-2010.

    The Fusion drive is much quieter than the 1TB Seagate that was in my mid-2010 which whirred and crunched audibly during operation.

    I'm not sure if I'm hearing the fan(s) and/or the Fusion drive, but I do hear a very faint whir anytime the computer is on. I have not noticed any increase in fan noise even when fully taxing the CPU while transcoding hours of HD video.

    So far, I can't find anything to complain about.
  • Reply 11 of 129
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,835member
    rob53 wrote: »
    I understand Apple created the iMac as an all-in-one computer but times have swung back to the individual, specialized component design. Apple can't pack the largest 3.5" drives in an iMac anymore because of heat and power so they are providing a I/O port that's just as fast as the internal PCIe bus. Yes, you'll pay more for an external drive but you'll have the opportunity for faster access and larger data storage while maintaining speed. I agree about getting the flash storage (512GB) then adding either a disk-based RAID or SSD RAID. I presume your internal storage is for music, movies, TV shows and photos? You can always move these to external storage.

    I agree, this is like the new Mac Pro all over again, the exact same premise. Once you get accustomed to a far smaller but very fast boot and a large fast external Thunderbolt drive set up it works very well. I would add one point about disk tests on a Fusion Drive, I could be wrong but I assume they are deceptive results due to being a hybrid. I have to assume it could not maintain speeds shown in tests, say working on a large 4K video file, as it is going to exceed the SSD part of the combo drive unit pretty quickly. Then of course no video editing should be done on the internal drive but I fear folks may not realize the limitations of a Fusion and assume they can.

    My gripe is with software creators that insist on locking data caching and in some cases data files to the ~ Library. In this day and age of small, fast SSDs as boots the user should be able to select an external drive for the apps uses. I realize certain things always will have to remain in the ~Lib but I have many Applications that dump a ton of stuff there that could easily be elsewhere.

    I won't moan about no 5K monitor for the new Mac Pro ... Bastards! ;)

    The RAM results are very different in 10.10, but look at the 'Memory Pressure' I see all RAM used as you say but almost no pressure. I recall reading about how that all works not but have long forgotten it all. So it goes ...
  • Reply 12 of 129
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post



    Why does Apple still keep all ports in the back is beyond common sense. Front ports, or at least side ports are essential for transferring footage to your computer, especially when your job includes hooking-up multiple video cameras on a daily basis. Port hubs aren't as good as direct connection.



    Is that a question you really need answering? ...

     

    There is no side... have you even seen an iMac before? 

     

    And if Apple made front ports, it would be one of the ugliest things ever made. Common sense goes a long way.

  • Reply 13 of 129
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

     

    I understand Apple created the iMac as an all-in-one computer but times have swung back to the individual, specialized component design. Apple can't pack the largest 3.5" drives in an iMac anymore because of heat and power so they are providing a I/O port that's just as fast as the internal PCIe bus. Yes, you'll pay more for an external drive but you'll have the opportunity for faster access and larger data storage while maintaining speed. I agree about getting the flash storage (512GB) then adding either a disk-based RAID or SSD RAID. I presume your internal storage is for music, movies, TV shows and photos? You can always move these to external storage.




    Apple does offer a 3TB Fusion drive as a build to order option. Currently I have a Macbook Pro Retina with external dual Thunderbolt drive enclosure but ideally would like to get the 3TB iMac and just put the Thunderbolt enclosure away in the cupboard and have everything internal.

     

    But the iMac hard drive is in the centre of the case, right in front the user's face, so it's really important (to me) that they choose drives that do not make a lot of grinding head noise (some is ok). That is why I was asking how noisy the reviewer found it.

  • Reply 14 of 129
    shsfshsf Posts: 302member

    My review: what an absofuckinglutetly gorgeous and powerful computer. 

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post



    Why does Apple still keep all ports in the back is beyond common sense. Front ports, or at least side ports are essential for transferring footage to your computer, especially when your job includes hooking-up multiple video cameras on a daily basis. Port hubs aren't as good as direct connection.



    If you need to hook up multiple cameras on a daily basis why not keep the cables there coming up from the back to the front. Also tb hubs are as good as a direct connection and you can have your hub on one side with the cameras and even extra tb storage and keep it organised.

     

    Side ports too, why make the mac thicker and ruin the lovely design just to get a side port and then, from an ergonomic stand point, having something to pull your computer from the side are also a recipe for it to fall off?

     

    Front ports, let's face it, would look like shit, and they 'd be no point in ruining the functionality and the aesthetics of an uncluttered design that enables you to get things done, when the other options, esp. a tb hub that organises everything on on side of the desk, that you can add extra footage storage to, are really superior. 

  • Reply 15 of 129
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SHSF View Post

     



    If you need to hook up multiple cameras on a daily basis why not keep the cables there coming up from the back to the front. Also tb hubs are as good as a direct connection and you can have your hub on one side with the cameras and even extra tb storage and keep it organised.

     

    Side ports too, why make the mac thicker and ruin the lovely design just to get a side port and then, from an ergonomic stand point, having something to pull your computer from the side are also a recipe for it to fall off?

     

    Front ports, let's face it, would look like shit, and they 'd be no point in ruining the functionality and the aesthetics of an uncluttered design that enables you to get things done, when the other options, esp. a tb hub that organises everything on on side of the desk, that you can add extra footage storage to, are really superior. 


     

    It sure is a lovely design, but usability is also part of design. Having multiple cables sticking out because they're inconvenient to remove is also ugly, adding a hub defeats the purpose of the 4 USBs in the back, besides hubs are as fast as a single port. As for the side, Apple can create an elegant way to expose the ports when needed, I'm sure Jony can come up with a witty way to do it.

  • Reply 16 of 129
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,673member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zroger73 View Post



    I don't necessarily agree with all of this review. I bought one to replace my mid-2010 27" iMac a few weeks ago, so I've had the opportunity to compare them side-by-side.



    As others have said, the Retina display is breathtaking...a foot away from the screen. At "normal" distances, the advantages become...well...less apparent. Still, it's nice eye candy. I don't know how anyone could say the Retina display is "not as good" as the non-Retina display unless the former was defective. If you haven't seen one, just think of what it's like to have a 27" version of an iPhone 4 (or newer) screen - just as sharp, but larger. All of these reviews hype up the Retina display so much that I think it leaves people expecting more than perfection. The Retina display can easily exceed the resolving power of many people's eyes. I had the iMac delivered to work and let several co-workers see the display. Some of them claimed they couldn't tell any difference between the 27" Retina display and the $130 23" AOC display I have on my work PC!



    I'm not sure if this started with Yosemite or a previous version of OS X, but I first noticed in 10.10 that almost all of the RAM is "full" no matter how many or few applications are running. When I first got the Retina iMac, I opened every pre-installed application at once with the 8GB of RAM it came with. The system remained completely responsive and the memory pressure was still in the green. After upgrading to 24GB, 22GB of that shows to be used after a clean boot. Memory pressure remains in the green and the computer is still noticeably faster than my mid-2010.



    The Fusion drive is much quieter than the 1TB Seagate that was in my mid-2010 which whirred and crunched audibly during operation.



    I'm not sure if I'm hearing the fan(s) and/or the Fusion drive, but I do hear a very faint whir anytime the computer is on. I have not noticed any increase in fan noise even when fully taxing the CPU while transcoding hours of HD video.



    So far, I can't find anything to complain about.

     

    Well I expect the panel to be on par with the non-retina one as far as contrast, colors, viewing angle, etc which its not. The fact that the graphics seem strained by just the smallest thing is not good either, even with the highest end graphics. I'm not the only one saying these things either. Like I said though, the 5k part is awesome, just the panel itself isn't up to par with other Apple panels. 

     

    I would still wait for the next revision and see if there's any difference. 

     

    As far as RAM goes...I notice this too on my Mac mini. I have 8GB of RAM and I'm always having to restart because it runs out of RAM and quitting programs doesn't give enough RAM back to make it not slow down. I believe this started with Yosemite. I noticed it in the beta versions as well, but the last beta before the final release I didn't have that issue but with the final release it seemed to come back. I think its an issue with OS X Mail. It seems to be if I don't leave Mail open I don't run out of RAM as much. Hopefully Apple fixes this in future 10.10 updates. 

  • Reply 17 of 129
    macxpress wrote: »
    Fusion drives are crap!

    Care to explain.
  • Reply 18 of 129
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,673member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

     

     

    It sure is a lovely design, but usability is also part of design. Having multiple cables sticking out because they're inconvenient to remove is also ugly, adding a hub defeats the purpose of the 4 USBs in the back, besides hubs are as fast as a single port. As for the side, Apple can create an elegant way to expose the ports when needed, I'm sure Jony can come up with a witty way to do it.


     

    Apple's front will always be clean and simple. The majority of people won't be plugging in multiple cameras. They plug their devices in once and leave it. I think this is a case of you wanting Apple to cater an iMac around your needs. 

  • Reply 19 of 129
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,945member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post



    Why does Apple still keep all ports in the back is beyond common sense.

     

    Why do people use run-on sentences is beyond linguistic sense. ;)

     

    Anyways, when you think about the design, it makes perfect sense.  The iMac is only thick enough to have port inputs at that point in the height.  So if you tried to put it on the front, you'd be plugging in to the edge of the screen.  And the side isn't thick enough for ports anywhere.

     

    And yes, one could argue that "it's a design issue then".  But seriously, I have a 27" iMac here, and it's really not that hard to tilt the screen back and find the right port.  Then again, I've never really had problems finding the right port in other situations either.

  • Reply 20 of 129
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,673member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    Explain.

     

    They aren't as fast as SSDs, and the speed is ONLY on the SSD portion of the drive which is very small at 128GB if I remember correctly. So if you have lots of stuff, you may not even experience the speed as Apple's technology would move it to the rotational hard drive which is slower. It also still has rotational storage internally. Fusion drives simply provide Apple time to install flash storage in all of its products when prices get cheaper. I personally wouldn't ever get any computer with a flash storage anymore. If you need more storage, connect an external hard drive up. 

Sign In or Register to comment.