I'm considering getting an imac soon. So the question is which one is the best value? I use a host that doesn't do multithreading as yet and in fact i highly doubt it will be happening anytime soon so that could point me in the direction of just going for the 2.5 Ghz 21.5 model.

Any views or experience using Ace or Diva with these 2011 imacs would be invaluable!

Thanks in advance

My uni uses the bottom spec 21 inch 2011 imacs and they run audio apps flawlessly. The current bottom spec should be good enough for you, but you could always spend a bit extra and max out the RAM.

Thanks for the information. The only thing I'm speculationg over is if I'd see any benefit from getting the 2011 i7 2.8 version to gain access to the HT technology the bigger harddisk and the improved graphics card..

I'm looking to buy used as the 2011 iMac is reaching it's end of cycle so that reduces the sting which ever model I choose.

With the money I save I could get a second computer to carry the CPU load on my bigger projects..

Let me just mention for background info that I need to keep all my sounds sources realtime (12 mono voices plus maschine). I've developed an orchestra as one instrument project enviroment where from a central placed location I can tweek harmony, individual sequence speed velocity and other voice shaping things. This type of working is only feesable if it can be done in realtime, that means no freeze track function..

Any Core i5 or i7 will literally fly. My advice is getting the one with highest GHz.

Corona or Discovery Pro will just use a fraction of the CPU.

Thanks for the info George.

The fastest Clock speed on the iMac 21.5 is the BTO model i7 at 2.8 Ghz, it also has a large 1 TB HD and the upgraded Graphics card.

The price difference between this one and the lowest spec 2.5 Ghz model on the used market is about 23%, I'd love to save the money for other things, but in the long run if I find that the higher spec mac is all i need it could be a sensible budget choice. This and the Acces to Hyper threading to 8 cores could be useful if I get into video work..

Hmmm

Wade

If you're not needing shiny shiny then maybe look at a Mac Mini as well.

You'll get far more performance for your money.

Thanks tehlord! I'm interested in the Minis as well but I want the faster Quad core version which in the Mac mini means going for the i7 Server version which puts it right up there in price competition with the Four Core base iMac, which though it's lesser i5 Quad core instead of a i7 its native clock speed is .5 Ghz faster. Also the first thing I'd need to get after getting the Mac mini would be a screen mouse and track pad so then the cash outlay seems to weigh against the mini.

Also because of the tight space in the mini fan noise can possibly be a problem, the imac with it's larger size can dissipate the heat without too much use of the fan given the same processor loads..

But Mac mini's are definitely worthy machines for sure it's just all the extra bits I'd need to get that gives me pause.

Wade

I know you're looking to buy used, making this somewhat difficult, but if you can, find one with an SSD boot drive. Loading the OS and apps onto an SSD really makes a huge difference, sometimes more so than CPU and RAM. I'm getting about 270MB/s write and 480MB/s read, and it's amazing how different the machine is. All of my apps and samples are on the SSD, and then the project and scratch files I run off of an FW800 7200rpm notebook-sized drive.

I personally think any current iMac CPU could handle what you're looking to do, but the more power the merrier. I do like the 27", but honestly it's just too big for my desk, since I've already got another 22" monitor sitting there. I'd personally love it if they did a regular Mac Mini with a 2.2Ghz quad.

I switched over to a base-model 21" i5 quad a couple of months ago and my average projects barely hit the cpu meter.

Spend money on RAM. (I have 12gb - a 8gb upgrade only ran $50 from OWC)

Spend money on drives. (I have a 1tb glyph fw800 drive and an older 250gb glyph fw400, one for samples and one for projects both daisy chained to my Motu808mkII).

I do audio, video, 3d and development and everything FLIES.
Any of the current models will last you a long time....

btw: if you have to buy used, check the Apple refurb store.

+1 on the SSD drive
Last edited by kelvyn on Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:09 am; edited 1 time in total

Agreed...I'd go for a MINI with minimum memory...buy the max memory cheaply on Amazon, use whatever monitor you have and go from there...if you are not just in love with iMac screen of course...we'd all love dual 27" thunderbolt displays but if you have that kind of cash there are a million better options anyway...

One thing to consider when buying a Mac is how long you intend to keep it. I use mine on a five year cycle apparently, and that puts the price difference in a different perspective. Because at some point it will pay off to have a better processor or GPU, just for compatibility with newer versions of OS and software. The lower tier models simply aren't supported as long (of course, this is not scientific, and your mileage may vary).
Whatever you choose, I hope you will enjoy it!

I also keep my computers working for a long time! I'm presently using a 2007 iMac.

I think if I stick with the mid tier iMac 2.7 upgraded to 16 Gb ram and eventually put a SSD on the Thunderbolt buss it should be a smooth ride.

What worries me most is the price performance ratio between going for top tier compared to mid or low tier means I'll have to take on increased debt and yet only experience modest improvements in real world performance scenarios. That is economically counter intuitive!!

What I need is real performance that works with what I have now, not with something that may or may not be developed to work with something in the future. That bill is filled easily with the mid range 2011 iMac especially seen in the light of the lack of audio based programs and plugs that I own and use that can take advantage of the i7 processors Hyper threading features as yet.

Generally for my economic situation it makes good sense to let things catch up and then just upgrade the system by buying additional mid tier models used or refurbished a year after they are released.

I envision a setup where I'll have 1 mid tier iMac, 1 mid tier Mac mini and 1 Macbook pro 13 inch networked together.. or used separetly

the macbook 13 inch and the mini could constitute my portable performance setup for air travel concert destinations..

Regards

Wade

If your programs can multithread correctly- that is, use multiple processor cores- they will 'take advantage of the i7 processors Hyper threading features'. If not, then it won't even be able to use the four cores in an i5... or the two cores in an i3.

[quote="Ashe37"]If your programs can multithread correctly- that is, use multiple processor cores- they will 'take advantage of the i7 processors Hyper threading features'. If not, then it won't even be able to use the four cores in an i5... or the two cores in an i3.[/quote

This is definitely the main issue that I'm facing the programs I'm using like Numerology Pro 3 and Maschine are said to be in development towards multithreading, but then this could end up as vaporware. Presently what I can do is use an AU host that does hyper threading I think main stage might do this and work as a light weight host for my CPU heavy synths, but it's not ideal in my mind to have to do workaround solutions with my way of working.. I can't help but feel that every time you introduce a new program in your setup you lose performance, latency, memory load, and so on.

So it's a matter of having faith in the softwares developers to bring these multithreading features to the user before the computer that has been acquired to taken advantage of this feature becomes out of date. A feature that can't be used on the new machine means that your basically throwing money away seen in the perspective of the total time of ownership. Say you buy a 2000 usd computer that only can be used optimally for a third of you projected use period. you've basically then thrown 630 use out the window...

Wade