To iMac or not to iMac
July 10, 2015 5:11 PM Subscribe
Should I get a 27" Retina 5K iMac, or a MacBook Pro plus a 4K monitor?
I got a 27" Dell U2711 monitor in 2010, which seemed clear at the time, but now seems a bit fuzzy to me in comparison with Retina screens. :( As a result, I've hardly used it the past few years.
I'm leaning toward the iMac because:
I got a 27" Dell U2711 monitor in 2010, which seemed clear at the time, but now seems a bit fuzzy to me in comparison with Retina screens. :( As a result, I've hardly used it the past few years.
I'm leaning toward the iMac because:
- It doesn't seem like there's a great option for a 4K monitor right now.
- I have a mid-2009 MBP that's still running strong since I replaced the hard drive with a SSD a few years ago, but it does show its age at times (gets laggy when there are too many apps running).
- I want a computer mainly for design (web and print), illustration, and photo editing. The iMac seems great for that.
- I love its portability.
- I don't want to have to switch between two computers.
The problem is that Apple doesn't engineer the cooling of the MBPs for this scenario. An external monitor may be fine to use occasionally, but your fans will run loudly and you will eventually cook the silicon if you try to drive an external monitor all the time.
I don't think this is right. I have been using my MacBook Pros on external monitors for many years with no problems (and no excessive fan speed). And virtually everyone in my company uses either a MacBook Pro or a MacBook Air connected to an external display all day long, every work day. Maybe if you keep the lid closed all the time it has a harder time cooling itself, I don't know about that since I leave the lid open. But it most definitely is not a given that you can only use an external display occasionally.
That said, I've been (casually) looking for a 4K display for my MBP, and I haven't found one yet where I'm satisfied with the combination of performance and price. I'm waiting a while. If I were desperate to have a high resolution desktop display today, I'd probably buy the iMac.
posted by primethyme at 6:03 PM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't think this is right. I have been using my MacBook Pros on external monitors for many years with no problems (and no excessive fan speed). And virtually everyone in my company uses either a MacBook Pro or a MacBook Air connected to an external display all day long, every work day. Maybe if you keep the lid closed all the time it has a harder time cooling itself, I don't know about that since I leave the lid open. But it most definitely is not a given that you can only use an external display occasionally.
That said, I've been (casually) looking for a 4K display for my MBP, and I haven't found one yet where I'm satisfied with the combination of performance and price. I'm waiting a while. If I were desperate to have a high resolution desktop display today, I'd probably buy the iMac.
posted by primethyme at 6:03 PM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
I am running a couple of Mac Mini's with Dell U2410 monitors. But cant wait to get a 27" with a Retina (5K) screen.
My wife has one and so do many of my clients. These Retina screens are so sharp and easy to read. Whenever I need to do some image editing or serious work with web design or a long text I much prefer to use the iMac.
posted by Mac-Expert at 6:07 PM on July 10, 2015
My wife has one and so do many of my clients. These Retina screens are so sharp and easy to read. Whenever I need to do some image editing or serious work with web design or a long text I much prefer to use the iMac.
posted by Mac-Expert at 6:07 PM on July 10, 2015
The problem is that Apple doesn't engineer the cooling of the MBPs for this scenario. An external monitor may be fine to use occasionally, but your fans will run loudly and you will eventually cook the silicon if you try to drive an external monitor all the time.
This is definitely not my experience. I run dual 1080p external monitors with my Retina MBP on my work desk along with some occasional heavy processing (all cores at 100%) for occasional stretches. No problems with temperature. The retina screen is definitely my primary, though-- it is a lot nicer to look at.
I'd get the MBP with an inexpensive external monitor if you feel like you need it and wait for the Apple Display refresh (once the cable spec can support it).
posted by supercres at 6:32 PM on July 10, 2015
This is definitely not my experience. I run dual 1080p external monitors with my Retina MBP on my work desk along with some occasional heavy processing (all cores at 100%) for occasional stretches. No problems with temperature. The retina screen is definitely my primary, though-- it is a lot nicer to look at.
I'd get the MBP with an inexpensive external monitor if you feel like you need it and wait for the Apple Display refresh (once the cable spec can support it).
posted by supercres at 6:32 PM on July 10, 2015
More on Retina in an external monitor. So not too long of a wait.
posted by supercres at 6:35 PM on July 10, 2015
posted by supercres at 6:35 PM on July 10, 2015
Best answer: The issue with the 5k imac is that it costs so damn much and STILL doesn't come stock with an SSD.
That said, imac advantages:
* Dedicated framebuffer for the video card, which you only get otherwise on the highest end 15in mbp which isn't cost competitive when you include the display
* User upgradeable ram, officially, through an easy to use door(!!!!!)
* a 5k display is hideously expensive now compared to a 4k display. you're actually getting a decent deal here
* desktop processor that can really flex its muscles without the low thermal limits of laptop CPUs, and it's a quad core which once again you only get in the more expensive 15in macbook pro
* SSD costs extra, which is dumb. It should be stock.
Macbook pro advantages/disadvantages:
* Comes with an SSD stock even in the cheapest config of the 13in. The imac doesn't unless you buy in an extra several hundred bucks(i really think apple fucked this one up)
* you get a mobile super high res display, nearly 4k itself in the 15in model
* these are the best laptops apple has ever made, and some of the very best laptops out there form factor wise. the imac is ok, i honestly liked the old thicker design more that was easier to upgrade.
* aforementioned same machine advantages
* That said, you need to buy a 4k display. Decent 60hz ones are at least $500. The cheapest ones like the monoprice have issues and are perpetually out of stock.
* The GPU shares ram with the system, and even just having photoshop open takes a decent amount of vram at high resolutions. You're basically forced to buy a 16gb model.
* Ram is soldered in, what you buy is what you get
Having thought on this myself, i just feel like the imac is a better deal right now. But you KNOW the equivalent of qnix type awesome 4k monitors is coming as soon as apple launches one, and probably for $3-400. At that point, it'll become a murkier deal.
That said, i have one of the dedicated graphics 15in MBP. It struggles with its own display sometimes. With an external 1080p display and the internal high res screen it chugs a bit(and by default forces itself in to mirroring mode and lowers the internal screen resolution). It's a 2012, and i've used the newer models and they're a bit better, but i think the imac is much more capable with what's essentially a high end gaming laptop/mid range desktop GPU(it's a "tonga" radeon r9 285, if you're curious).
I don't think any of the macbook pros out there right now are fully equipped to handle a 4k display. I think the imac is at least a bit better. My macbook pro chugs on its own display in photoshop. The newer models don't as much, but it's not perfectly star trek smooth. The imac, from when i've played with it, feels a lot more fluid.
I wouldn't buy one without an SSD, 16gb of ram, and possibly the upgraded 4gb video card though which is ~$3000. So is a higher spec(15in base model with more ram at least) macbook pro + a display though.
I have high hopes for intel skylake 14nm CPUs and their beefy integrated graphics, and down the line 14nm new nvidia/AMD mobile GPUs with tons of power. Also cheap 4k screens. If you want my absolute educated opinion outside the bounds of your question, i'd revisit this in a year and just keep using that 1440p monitor for now.
The problem is that Apple doesn't engineer the cooling of the MBPs for this scenario. An external monitor may be fine to use occasionally, but your fans will run loudly and you will eventually cook the silicon if you try to drive an external monitor all the time.
This is true of a few models, but not the newer iris pro based ones. I own one of the "switchable graphics" ones that forces the big graphics card to power up even if you're just looking at photos on a second monitor and yea, it gets toaster oven hot. The current ones however, do not.
posted by emptythought at 9:17 PM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
That said, imac advantages:
* Dedicated framebuffer for the video card, which you only get otherwise on the highest end 15in mbp which isn't cost competitive when you include the display
* User upgradeable ram, officially, through an easy to use door(!!!!!)
* a 5k display is hideously expensive now compared to a 4k display. you're actually getting a decent deal here
* desktop processor that can really flex its muscles without the low thermal limits of laptop CPUs, and it's a quad core which once again you only get in the more expensive 15in macbook pro
* SSD costs extra, which is dumb. It should be stock.
Macbook pro advantages/disadvantages:
* Comes with an SSD stock even in the cheapest config of the 13in. The imac doesn't unless you buy in an extra several hundred bucks(i really think apple fucked this one up)
* you get a mobile super high res display, nearly 4k itself in the 15in model
* these are the best laptops apple has ever made, and some of the very best laptops out there form factor wise. the imac is ok, i honestly liked the old thicker design more that was easier to upgrade.
* aforementioned same machine advantages
* That said, you need to buy a 4k display. Decent 60hz ones are at least $500. The cheapest ones like the monoprice have issues and are perpetually out of stock.
* The GPU shares ram with the system, and even just having photoshop open takes a decent amount of vram at high resolutions. You're basically forced to buy a 16gb model.
* Ram is soldered in, what you buy is what you get
Having thought on this myself, i just feel like the imac is a better deal right now. But you KNOW the equivalent of qnix type awesome 4k monitors is coming as soon as apple launches one, and probably for $3-400. At that point, it'll become a murkier deal.
That said, i have one of the dedicated graphics 15in MBP. It struggles with its own display sometimes. With an external 1080p display and the internal high res screen it chugs a bit(and by default forces itself in to mirroring mode and lowers the internal screen resolution). It's a 2012, and i've used the newer models and they're a bit better, but i think the imac is much more capable with what's essentially a high end gaming laptop/mid range desktop GPU(it's a "tonga" radeon r9 285, if you're curious).
I don't think any of the macbook pros out there right now are fully equipped to handle a 4k display. I think the imac is at least a bit better. My macbook pro chugs on its own display in photoshop. The newer models don't as much, but it's not perfectly star trek smooth. The imac, from when i've played with it, feels a lot more fluid.
I wouldn't buy one without an SSD, 16gb of ram, and possibly the upgraded 4gb video card though which is ~$3000. So is a higher spec(15in base model with more ram at least) macbook pro + a display though.
I have high hopes for intel skylake 14nm CPUs and their beefy integrated graphics, and down the line 14nm new nvidia/AMD mobile GPUs with tons of power. Also cheap 4k screens. If you want my absolute educated opinion outside the bounds of your question, i'd revisit this in a year and just keep using that 1440p monitor for now.
The problem is that Apple doesn't engineer the cooling of the MBPs for this scenario. An external monitor may be fine to use occasionally, but your fans will run loudly and you will eventually cook the silicon if you try to drive an external monitor all the time.
This is true of a few models, but not the newer iris pro based ones. I own one of the "switchable graphics" ones that forces the big graphics card to power up even if you're just looking at photos on a second monitor and yea, it gets toaster oven hot. The current ones however, do not.
posted by emptythought at 9:17 PM on July 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Thanks everyone! I've been waiting for ages, so I think I'll go with the iMac next month.
@emptythought, thanks especially for the detailed info. Really great to know that it's easy to swap out the RAM.
posted by dire at 12:04 PM on July 12, 2015
@emptythought, thanks especially for the detailed info. Really great to know that it's easy to swap out the RAM.
posted by dire at 12:04 PM on July 12, 2015
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by GuyZero at 5:20 PM on July 10, 2015