Posts: 666
Threads: 200
Joined: Mar 2025
Reputation:
0
Comparing two iMacs and wondering which is faster.
Each has one Intel Core i5 processor; one (iMac 18,1) is 2.3 GHz, the other (iMac 14,1) is 2.7 GHz.
The 2.3 GHz processor has two cores
The 2.7 GHz processor has four cores
The iMac 18,1 has a 1 TB SATA hard drive
The iMac 14,1 has a 480 GB SSD hard drive
How will their performance compare?
Posts: 8,604
Threads: 1,555
Joined: Jul 2022
Compare @ EveryMac
re the 18,1 EveryMac states wrote:
Compared to its predecessor, this model essentially has the same external
enclosure, but it has a more advanced processor, architecture, and graphics as well
as Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) ports.
I'd be concerned about the 18,1 HDD; originally shipped with a 5400 spinner.
Still, the 14,1 is a much older design & was discontinued several years ago.
Posts: 6,487
Threads: 54
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Clyde,
You need to look at the bus speed (RAM speed) to get a better idea of performance of each. I think you will find that the 18,1 is much higher, making it as fast or faster than the 14,1, and off-setting the advantage of more cores.
Th 18,1 has the 1 TB drive, yes. I'm pretty sure it is a Fusion drive, with at least 128 GB of it being SSD.
I bought a refurb 2015 iMac 17,1 with that 1 TB Fusion (5400 rpm) drive. I have booted it from an external SSD via Thunderbolt 2 as well as the internal Fusion drive. It is difficult to tell which is faster, so I am using the external SSD as a cloned backup.
If I were in your shoes, I would definitely chose the much newer 18,1 for the faster RAM. It really makes a difference. It's video card is probably much better. This iMac will allow you to continue updating the OS far longer than the 14,1.
Posts: 31,861
Threads: 708
Joined: Jun 2024
Reputation:
0
The two models swap benchmarks depending on what you are doing. The 2017 iMac will do much better at light loads requiring only single threaded loads. The older 2013 iMac might be 10% to 25% faster under heavy continuous CPU loads.
The defining specs for me are: the 2017 iMac has 7th gen "Iris Plus Graphics 640" which should handle 4K displays/videos for at least another three or four years, and the Thunderbolt3/USB-C ports. The older iMac may choke any time you try to stretch it's legs playing content. This won't be much of an issue if you know you will be satisfied with the small default 21.5" display as the user's eyes age. This is not an issue if the user is currently under 34. 38-40 is when people typically might start having vision issues related to age.
This comparison is only valid if they have identical RAM and storage specs. Putting a 500 GB SSD in either one and leaving the other with a plain spinning HD will slow everything down unless you will be running the SSD over 80% full. A Fusion drive will mitigate a lot of performance issues versus a SSD as long as you are not moving a lot of data around on a regular basis.
Posts: 11,009
Threads: 124
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
The 14,1 has a SSD so it will be faster. Period. This will make the biggest difference.
The 18,1 comes with an HDD in the base model, so if that's the HDD-only version, avoid it like the plague. Apple doesn't even give you a 7200 RPM HDD, it's an ultra-crap 5400RPM. Do Not Buy.
The 14,1's quad core is better than the 18,1's dual core buit thanks to generational differences, there won't be a hige difference between the two.
Both use integrated graphics, but the 18,1's graphics are technically better thanks to 3 more years of development. There's big caveat, though: The dual core 18,1 has a 15-25W laptop chip in it while the 14,1 uses a 65W desktop chip. That may tip the performance back to the 14,1 as it will not be power-limited and the 18,1 will.
The 18,1 will be supported by Apple longer than the 14,1 thanks to being 3 years newer.
If I could make sure I didn't get the HDD in the 18,1 (Fusion drive maybe OK), I'd go for that one.
Posts: 11,009
Threads: 124
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Also everything Fil said.
Posts: 26,011
Threads: 2,901
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
I have a 2010 iMac with a quad core i7 with hyperthreading. It has a spinny drive and 12 GB RAM.
I have a 2015 MBP with a dual core i5 with hyperthreading. It has a SSD and 16 GB of RAM.
The Geekbench 4 score for multi core is 7050 on the MBP, and 8449 on the iMac.
In reality, when doing something processor intensive, the iMac is at least twice, and maybe even three times faster than the MBP.
Architecture baby, architecture...
Posts: 666
Threads: 200
Joined: Mar 2025
Reputation:
0
Lew Zealand wrote:
If I could make sure I didn't get the HDD in the 18,1 (Fusion drive maybe OK), I'd go for that one.
Very good point. Thanks!
How can I determine what drive is in the 18,1? Will Disk Utility show that info?
Posts: 11,009
Threads: 124
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
clyde wrote:
[quote=Lew Zealand]
If I could make sure I didn't get the HDD in the 18,1 (Fusion drive maybe OK), I'd go for that one.
Very good point. Thanks!
How and I determine what drive is in the 18,1? Will Disk Utility show that info?
Yes it should but System Information (About This Mac -- System Report) will definitely tell you in the SATA/SATA Express and NVMExpress sections. You should see the physical devices, the HDD and hopefully SSD in there.
Posts: 33,936
Threads: 1,272
Joined: May 2025
21.5" iMac are hard to get into.
drive type is irrelevant, 2017 wins. iMac has Tbolt/USB C ports with 40 GB/s connections. Add a PCIe NVMe and fly.
|
