Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The first 27" Retina iMac
- Thread starter zoran
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Late 2014 (October). I got one shortly after they launched, and at the time the 5K display made it a great value despite the higher price tag. Having a Retina display in a desktop form factor was a big deal.
But the first-gen 5K display is very susceptible to developing image retention, as I witnessed first-hand. For this reason, I probably wouldn't recommend getting one now.
Late 2015. The display on those is the first to support the P3 color gamut, as well as a brighter backlight. The CPU and GPU also run cooler compared to the Late 2014.
Though the Late 2014 is by far the worst with developing image retention, it's not completely fixed on the Late 2015 models, so still something to watch out for. I'm not sure whether or not the 2017 models are any better, but there seems to be fewer complaints.
I have the late 2014 3.5 retina. How much faster is the latest 27” base model retina and is there enough reason to upgrade? Final cut x is very slow on mine.
senseless wrote:
"I have the late 2014 3.5 retina. How much faster is the latest 27” base model retina and is there enough reason to upgrade? Final cut x is very slow on mine."
The important question that must always be asked:
What kind of drive is inside?
If it's not an SSD or 2tb fusion drive, it's likely to be slow, and even the 2tb fusion drive can slow down once the SSD portion gets nearly full.
"I have the late 2014 3.5 retina. How much faster is the latest 27” base model retina and is there enough reason to upgrade? Final cut x is very slow on mine."
The important question that must always be asked:
What kind of drive is inside?
If it's not an SSD or 2tb fusion drive, it's likely to be slow, and even the 2tb fusion drive can slow down once the SSD portion gets nearly full.
It’s a 1 terabyte fusion drive, but just 1/4 full. Is that still worth replacing with an SSD?
Are the current 5K iMac's susceptible to image retention? i'm still using my 2012 iMac (which i don't think has retina) so i've never experienced this. But i do in the not so distant future intend on updating my iMac to a 5K one IF Apple eventually do a redesign or something more significant like they did with the 2012 redesign.
senseless wrote:
"It’s a 1 terabyte fusion drive, but just 1/4 full. Is that still worth replacing with an SSD?"
OK, let's do some figurin'.
1/4 of "1tb" is roughly 250gb, right?
The internal SSD portion of the fusion drive is 128gb on that model, I believe (others will correct me if I'm wrong).
So... what's happening is... the SSD is probably close to "filled up".
What this means in practical terms is that the computer has to "go to" the HDD portion of the fusion drive for storage, and it also means that there's probably a lot of "swapping out" of data between the SSD portion and the HDD portion.
End result = slow.
I see two easy ways to correct this.
Either one will result in a MUCH FASTER computer.
Method 1:
Buy an external USB3 SSD (such as the Samsung t5), and set that up to be the boot drive, with the following on it:
- OS
- Apps
- Accounts*
* -- leave "large libraries" of movies, music and pictures on the internal fusion drive (they don't need the speed of the SSD)
Method 2:
- Create a bootable cloned backup of the fusion drive using either CarbonCopyCloner or SuperDuper (both are FREE to use for 30 days)
- Boot from the clone
- Use the terminal to DE-fuse the fusion drive (split it apart into two "standalone" drives)
- Set the SSD up to become the boot drive, but again -- KEEP IT LEAN AND CLEAN with only the OS, apps, and "basic" accounts
- Put your large libraries of movies, music and pics onto the internal HDD.
The SSD and HDD will now function as two "independent" drives inside the iMac.
Because the fusion concept will no longer be in effect, the internal SSD will ALWAYS "run at full speed" -- probably faster than any external drive you can plug in.
Others will say "open it and replace the HDD with an SSD".
Do ya feel lucky, kid?
Big danger of breaking something inside.
My ways above (both of 'em) are fast, easy, and most importantly -- least invasive.
"It’s a 1 terabyte fusion drive, but just 1/4 full. Is that still worth replacing with an SSD?"
OK, let's do some figurin'.
1/4 of "1tb" is roughly 250gb, right?
The internal SSD portion of the fusion drive is 128gb on that model, I believe (others will correct me if I'm wrong).
So... what's happening is... the SSD is probably close to "filled up".
What this means in practical terms is that the computer has to "go to" the HDD portion of the fusion drive for storage, and it also means that there's probably a lot of "swapping out" of data between the SSD portion and the HDD portion.
End result = slow.
I see two easy ways to correct this.
Either one will result in a MUCH FASTER computer.
Method 1:
Buy an external USB3 SSD (such as the Samsung t5), and set that up to be the boot drive, with the following on it:
- OS
- Apps
- Accounts*
* -- leave "large libraries" of movies, music and pictures on the internal fusion drive (they don't need the speed of the SSD)
Method 2:
- Create a bootable cloned backup of the fusion drive using either CarbonCopyCloner or SuperDuper (both are FREE to use for 30 days)
- Boot from the clone
- Use the terminal to DE-fuse the fusion drive (split it apart into two "standalone" drives)
- Set the SSD up to become the boot drive, but again -- KEEP IT LEAN AND CLEAN with only the OS, apps, and "basic" accounts
- Put your large libraries of movies, music and pics onto the internal HDD.
The SSD and HDD will now function as two "independent" drives inside the iMac.
Because the fusion concept will no longer be in effect, the internal SSD will ALWAYS "run at full speed" -- probably faster than any external drive you can plug in.
Others will say "open it and replace the HDD with an SSD".
Do ya feel lucky, kid?
Big danger of breaking something inside.
My ways above (both of 'em) are fast, easy, and most importantly -- least invasive.
Interesting. I actually use CCC To back up already. I wonder if I just get everything off the internal fusion drive except for the vitals if that would help.
I have a dual Thunderbolt Drive for the movies
I have a dual Thunderbolt Drive for the movies
Own 2 of the 2017s for almost a year now and so far no image retention. On the other hand, my 2014 would do it all the time fortunately it was never permanent.
I've also had my 2017 iMac for nearly a year and no image retention so far. My 2015 iMac suffered from image retention within six months of purchase or perhaps less. The replacement panel had the same problem within three months, so I made a consumer law claim with Apple to replace the entire machine. It just so happened that the shiny new 2017 iMacs had just started shipping at the time
.
Last edited:
So I was right in assuming the 2017 models are better given the lack of complaints. Good to know.I've also had my 2017 iMac for nearly a year and no image retention so far. My 2015 iMac suffered from image retention within six months of purchase or perhaps less. The replacement panel had the same problem within three months, so I made a consumer law claim with Apple to replace the entire machine. It just so happened that the shiny new 2017 iMacs had just started shipping at the time
I had to take my Late 2014 in four times as the replacement panels just kept developing the issue again, at which point they replaced it with a brand new (then-current) Late 2015. The Late 2015 has taken longer to develop image retention, but sure enough it has, particularly toward the top of the screen.
The first release of the 27" 5k Retina iMac was late 2014
https://everymac.com/systems/apple/...-inch-aluminum-retina-5k-late-2014-specs.html
https://everymac.com/systems/apple/...-inch-aluminum-retina-5k-late-2014-specs.html