2013 i7 vs 2015 5k 3.2 (27")

[sportsnapper]

I'm about to buy an iMac. It will be used, and I have a (probably short-lived) shortlist from which to choose from.

I'd made up my mind on a 2013 27" i7 3.5 with a 3Tb fusion drive.

Then I found a 2015 5k i5 3.3 with a 1Tb fusion drive, according to the serial number. But the screenshots on the ad say it's a i5 3.2.

The price difference is actually minimal between the 2013 and the 2015 models - but I think I may be able to deal he 2013 price down.

I'm a photographer - so I'm looking for speed. I like the idea of a retina mac, but I'll be using a non-retina macbook in tandem with iMac. Storage space and speed are the primary requirements.

Checking the Everymac details, the Geekbench scores are almost all better than the 2015 model, and definitely better than the 3.2Mhz model.

So which one? And is the 2015 dodgy because of the serial number vs system report difference...?

 

[redheeler]

As a photographer especially, I would not turn down the 5K display. Not only is the entire display capable of showing 4x as much detail as the late 2013 model - for photos, text, UI elements, and more - but the color reproduction is better. You'll wonder how you ever got by without it.

However, I would not recommend getting the late 2015 with a 1 TB Fusion drive, because it has a tiny amount of SSD space (24 GB). Try to get at least a 2 TB + 128 GB SSD Fusion drive or 256 GB SSD.

 

[sportsnapper]

As a photographer especially, I would not turn down the 5K display. Not only is the entire display capable of showing 4x as much detail as the late 2013 model - for photos, text, UI elements, and more - but the color reproduction is better. You'll wonder how you ever got by without it.

However, I would not recommend getting the late 2015 with a 1 TB Fusion drive, because it has a tiny amount of SSD space (24 GB). Try to get at least a 2 TB + 128 GB SSD Fusion drive or 256 GB SSD.

Thanks. Yes, it seems worth holding out for the 2tb drive, though used ones seem to be scarce

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Yep redheeler has the right of it.

Photography really isn't very resource intensive for a modern computer your biggest thing is to have a fast SSD for accessing large raw files.