+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Comparing two iMacs (/showthread.php?tid=181837)
Pages:
1
2
Comparing two iMacs - clyde - 08-06-2015
Would a 21.5-inch iMac11,2, Intel Core i3, 3.20 GHz, with one dual-core processor, and 16 GB RAM be markedly faster than
a 20.0-inch iMac9,1, Intel Core 2 Duo, 2.26 GHz, with one two-core processor and 8 GB RAM
a. for graphics use, and
b. for most ordinary other jobs—such as spreadsheets?
Re: Comparing two iMacs - rjmacs - 08-06-2015
clyde wrote:
Would a 21.5-inch iMac11,2, Intel Core i3, 3.20 GHz, with one dual-core processor, and 16 GB RAM be markedly faster than
a 20.0-inch iMac9,1, Intel Core 2 Duo, 2.26 GHz, with one two-core processor and 8 GB RAM
a. for graphics use, and
b. for most ordinary other jobs—such as spreadsheets?
What kind of spreadsheets are we talking about here? Either one of those should be able to handle Excel pretty handily, unless you're talking about sheets that are really complex or gigantic.
Re: Comparing two iMacs - rjmacs - 08-06-2015
rjmacs wrote:
[quote=clyde]
Would a 21.5-inch iMac11,2, Intel Core i3, 3.20 GHz, with one dual-core processor, and 16 GB RAM be markedly faster than
a 20.0-inch iMac9,1, Intel Core 2 Duo, 2.26 GHz, with one two-core processor and 8 GB RAM
a. for graphics use, and
b. for most ordinary other jobs—such as spreadsheets?
What kind of spreadsheets are we talking about here? Either one of those should be able to manage Excel pretty handily, unless you're talking about sheets that are really complex or gigantic.
Re: Comparing two iMacs - jdc - 08-06-2015
Maybe.
Is there a SSD in the 20" iMac?
And like Excel, what kind of graphics? Web icons? or 1 TB multi-layered PSD files?
The screen on the 21.5" would be a huge bonus, the 20" AL iMac screens sucked.
Re: Comparing two iMacs - datbeme - 08-06-2015
Not sure about markedly, but I think it would be noticeably better. I have that same 21.5" model but with the base 4GB RAM. It's a family computer in the kitchen, so it is just used for basic tasks, but it is pretty capable. I used to also have the 24" Core 2 Duo 2.8 (8,1) maxed at 4GB and in later years it became less pleasurable to use than the 21.5.
Both improved with an SSD; however, it was a piece of cake to throw one into the earlier model. The 2010 21.5 is difficult if not impossible to upgrade yourself, so my boot drive is an SSD connected via FW800.
Re: Comparing two iMacs - decay - 08-06-2015
21.5-inch iMac has 4 RAM slots, the older one has only two.
Re: Comparing two iMacs - Filliam H. Muffman - 08-06-2015
The iMac "Core i3" 3.2 21.5-Inch (Mid-2010) seems to clearly be the better one. It has better Geekbench scores, a better GPU, and has faster RAM (it's maxed out at 16 GB). It is a little harder to open up but you supposedly can upgrade the CPU.
Re: Comparing two iMacs - The Grim Ninja - 08-06-2015
Why is there so much doubt and question in this thread?
The i3 is almost 50% faster clock speed and several revisions newer architecture. Plus it has twice as much RAM. Kinda seems like an obvious "Yes."
Re: Comparing two iMacs - clyde - 08-06-2015
Pretty sure the 20-incher has a 160 GB SATA—a regular spinning disk…
Spreadsheets I use are relatively simple.
Re: Comparing two iMacs - DP - 08-06-2015
I would think the i3 with twice the memory would be quite a bit faster.