Mac Retina

Ok… right now I have a 27" iMac [late 2012] with a 3.4g i7 processor

the new iMac 5K retina only has a 3.4g i5 processor… isn’t that a step backwards processor wise?

I was thinking I need a retina display to move forward, and was going to give this iMac to the wife, and then sell her MacBook 15" (I have a macbook 13" also)

Shame the only desktop with Retina is this one

You could spend the extra $250 and get an i7 4GHz

Biggest problem today is determining relative performace… in the old days it was pretty much “clock speed”, that is not so much the case since the end of the “Pentium” days

Or you could download the free MacTracker which has the benchmark scores as well

Wouldn’t the improvements in efficiency balance out the terms of performance, or at least keep it comparable ?

Or look here http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

P.S. The new iMac is worth it for the screen, not the increase in processing power.

21% faster single core performance, 19% faster multicore

the question is more along… how much performance LOSS is the by down grading from a 3.4g i7 to to 3.4g i5

And those benchmarks are a b*tch to read… and if the 5k is even there I could not find it

Processor performance isn’t what I’m looking for.

I look for hard disk space, hard disk space, hard disk space. :wink:

Hard disk space is
a) cheap
b) totally expandable as required

CPU… not so much

… and at least expendable (replaceable) is a display.

[quote=172109:@Dave S]the question is more along… how much performance LOSS is the by down grading from a 3.4g i7 to to 3.4g i5

And those benchmarks are a b*tch to read… and if the 5k is even there I could not find it[/quote]
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?utf8=?&q=model%3A"iMac+(27-inch+Retina)"+platform%3A"Mac"+frequency%3A3500+bits%3A32

I’d pay the extra for the better cpu and graphics card, as those are harder to upgrade later. RAM you can get the Apple minimum and buy third party RAM much cheaper. I’d get the SSD internal. With that configure it should be faster than your old iMac as the system as a whole would be superior, regardless of individual specifications.

Uh… iMac displays are not exactly replaceable

exactly what I did with this iMac (except the SSD part)

According to MacTracker:

2012 3,4 GHz. 12,884
Retina 3.5 GHz. 10,771

WOW… 17% drop… thats a lot…

so if the 2012 was an i7 and for $250 I can get a 4ghz i7 then lets see… (4.0/3.4)*12884 that would make it close to 15,157 … LOL a 17% GAIN… now to go rob a bank :slight_smile:

[quote=172133:@Dave S]WOW… 17% drop… thats a lot…

so if the 2012 was an i7 and for $250 I can get a 4ghz i7 then lets see… (4.0/3.4)*12884 that would make it close to 15,157 … LOL a 17% GAIN… now to go rob a bank :)[/quote]
Retina 4 GHz 15,465

PLEASE install MacTracker. You could have saved yourself and several other people a lot of time and effort.

http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/5968/mactracker

Markus… no offense… but if my question offended you, or caused you to waste time, then why participate?
And until now I’d never heard of “MacTracker”,

[quote=172081:@Dave S]Ok… right now I have a 27" iMac [late 2012] with a 3.4g i7 processor

the new iMac 5K retina only has a 3.4g i5 processor… isn’t that a step backwards processor wise?

I was thinking I need a retina display to move forward, and was going to give this iMac to the wife, and then sell her MacBook 15" (I have a macbook 13" also)

Shame the only desktop with Retina is this one[/quote]

If you are thinking about main workstation, go for the most powerful. Anything else you may regret one day or another.