Monitor advice needed for a Mac (and Mac advice if you can help as well)

[TGM123]

Hi,

I currently have an iMac that is a few years old and I would like to replace it. I am posting this in the Colour Management section because I thought this group would know a thing of two about monitors  : )

I would like to get a nice monitor, preferably that has built in calibration features (or can be easily calibrated, I had a hard time calibrating my iMac) and one that is large (at least 27 inches). I don't necessarily need a 4K monitor unless you think I need one. My price point of <$3K. Any suggestions?

While I am at it, I was thinking about what Mac unit itself. I thought I would get the new Mini-Mac with a nice monitor (the one you suggest above) but the new ones only have dual core processors. So, now I am thinking about a Mac Book Pro with an external monitor. Any advice here?

Thanks,

Tom

[Mark D Segal]

I would recommend one of the NEC PA series displays. They are excellent and good value for the money. If you are doing an extensive amount of digital imaging on your computer, you'll appreciate the power and speed of a Mac work station rather than a laptop, good as the laptops have become over the years.

[Lundberg02]

The new Mac minis are dumbed down and the RAM is not upgradable. They only have 8 GB max. I don't do a whole lot and I'm always using Memory Clean to get back RAM because 8 GB is just not enough with four or five websites in the Dock. Safrai eats RAM with live sites. My new box will have 16 GB and I wish it could be 32.

[Manoli]

The new Mac minis are dumbed down and the RAM is not upgradable. They only have 8 GB max.

Nope.
Can spec up to -
 i7 3.00GHz / 16GB 1600Mhz ram / 1 TB - SSD

[Czornyj]

I'd take rMBP, NEC PA272W, SpectraView II software and X-Rite i1Display Pro

[howardm]

In many/most operating systems, 'free' RAM is used as a cache (usually for web browsers) to help speed things up.  The cache gets dumped as the need for real RAM goes up so it can be deceptive as to how much RAM is actually 'in use' vs. free.

[D Fosse]

'free' RAM is used as a cache (usually for web browsers) to help speed things up.

That's correct, but not just for browsers. I have 32GB in my Win 7 system, but very little of it is ever "free". Any frequently used application will use that cache so it's ready when you are.

As Photoshop architect Scott Byer used to say - free RAM is wasted RAM.

[Mark D Segal]

I believe how much RAM gets used and equally important how many cores are working simultaneously, depends on how the applications are written and within any application varies between functions. My Mac Pro has 24 virtual cores and 24 GB RAM. When I open and observe the activity monitor I see highly varied behaviour depending on what I am doing. All said, up to a point, the more the merrier in respect of processing efficiency. Having more cores and more RAM helps for those applications that can take advantage of it. People have tested for the "sweet spot" and published results on the internet, but how up-to-date and applicable to current equipment I don't know. I last examined this in 2010 when deciding how much to build into my (then) new Mac Pro and determined that spending beyond 24 would not be worthwhile. I think this kind of thing requires periodic review as technology and applications evolve. The bottom line is to do the research to know how much computer power you are buying and why - i.e. how related to your needs.

[Ken Bennett]

I have an older NEC 26 inch and just replaced it with the NEC PA 27 inch with the Spectraview software and calibrated puck. The 27 is still in the box I've been very happy with the 26 - good color and easy calibration, nice matte finish screen, great adjustability. The new one is about $1200.

[Lundberg02]

Ok maybe you can get 16GB, but you have to pay Apple's price because RAM is soldered in, you can't buy a 4 gb mini and put in 16 .  Therefore you have paid at least twice as much for RAM.

[Wayne Fox]

I'd take rMBP, NEC PA272W, SpectraView II software and X-Rite i1Display Pro

+1

[digitaldog]

+1

+2 In fact, that's what I'm using

[mgrayson]

+3. Me, too. Printing is vastly easier now.

--Matt

[Hans Kruse]

Hi,

I currently have an iMac that is a few years old and I would like to replace it. I am posting this in the Colour Management section because I thought this group would know a thing of two about monitors  : )

I would like to get a nice monitor, preferably that has built in calibration features (or can be easily calibrated, I had a hard time calibrating my iMac) and one that is large (at least 27 inches). I don't necessarily need a 4K monitor unless you think I need one. My price point of <$3K. Any suggestions?

While I am at it, I was thinking about what Mac unit itself. I thought I would get the new Mini-Mac with a nice monitor (the one you suggest above) but the new ones only have dual core processors. So, now I am thinking about a Mac Book Pro with an external monitor. Any advice here?

Thanks,

Tom

Hi Tom,

I don't really know your requirements as such, but here is what I'm using.

A MacBook Pro 15" late 2013 retina model with 1TB SSD. I travel a lot as I'm running workshops and do research trips as well so one machine is what I have. In my office I have a 30" Dell U3014 monitor, Apple USB keybvoard connected to the monitor and a magic mouse. In addition I have a LaCie Thunderbolt RAID-1 system. The Dell monitor is calibrated using a Spyder 4 unit. As a landscape photographer this works very well for me. The MacBook Pro is very fast. RAM is 16GB and plenty for running Lightroom and Photoshop simultaneously as well as browsers, mail and other apps. Even if you do not travel all the time, it is very convenient to have just one machine which I can plug into the monitor using just two cables (display port cable and a USB 3 cable for the USB hub in the monitor). The MacBook Pro can also drive a 4K display.

[TGM123]

Thanks to all, very helpful. I really appreciate the time.

[Mais78]

Go for 4k, especially if u use mac, you will not regret it. Mac font rendering needs a lot of pixels to be sharp, especially with Yosemite. I would get the Nec ea244uhd or ifyou want to spend less Dell p2715q or up2414q.
I recently bought a 4k and would never go back.

[PhilipCummins]

While I am at it, I was thinking about what Mac unit itself. I thought I would get the new Mini-Mac with a nice monitor (the one you suggest above) but the new ones only have dual core processors. So, now I am thinking about a Mac Book Pro with an external monitor. Any advice here?

Yes, the new Mac Minis you have to upgrade with Apple soldered in RAM and they are dual-core only. If you can get the older Mac Mini (Late 2012) you can get it with quad-core i7, RAM you can upgrade yourself and dual SATA ports to install your own SSD's if you wanted to go that way. The drawback is the lack of GPU processing power (Intel 4000). They're nice as servers and general computers but not when you need the GPU grunt unless you're up for an external Thundebolt PCIe chassis and better GPU card (expensive).

If you want portability the MacBook Retina 13" is good as the HDMI port will run 4K @ 30 Hz, or with DisplayPort 1.2 60 Hz albeit with dual-core CPU. If you do a lot of GPU work upgrading to the MacBook Retina 15" is the way to go to get the NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M as you can also get quad-core i7 too (get 16 GiB in both). Otherwise the iMac 27" with Fusion or SSD Drive and i7 is the preferred choice for our graphics users as you can upgrade the RAM yourself.