iMac late 2009 = mid 2010?

[HoreaG]

Both take the same processors, the same max amount and speed memory, have the same external connections.
So is the only difference between the late 2009 iMac (with i series processors) and the mid 2010 model, once both upgraded to maximum, that the 2010 one has 3 additional ports and the 2009 only two?
Does there exist other differences I am not aware of?

 

[bradman83]

Both take the same processors, the same max amount and speed memory, have the same external connections.
So is the only difference between the late 2009 iMac (with i series processors) and the mid 2010 model, once both upgraded to maximum, that the 2010 one has 3 additional ports and the 2009 only two?
Does there exist other differences I am not aware of?

What do you mean when you say "upgraded to maximum?"

The late 2009 model with i-series chips is almost identical internally to the 2010 model, the latter model is a simple spec bump. If you compare a fully upgraded (as in BTO through Apple) 2009 the clock speed on the highest end chip would be slower and the GPU is a 4xxx-series Radeon instead of a 5xxx series Radeon.

If by "upgraded to maximum" you intend to open the iMac up and upgrade the 2009's components with ones from the 2010 or 2011 then you're correct there isn't much difference.

 

[HoreaG]

If by "upgraded to maximum" you intend to open the iMac up and upgrade the 2009's components with ones from the 2010 or 2011 then you're correct there isn't much difference.

Yes, I meant upgrading myself. What i want to know is the "not much difference" part. Is there any other difference, whatever little, except that third SATA port?

The 2011 is another story, you can not upgrade a 2009 or 2010 to the spec of a 2011. The 2011 has a newer generation of CPU, faster RAM and TB.

 

[FreakinEurekan]

They’re very similar. In what way are you asking if they’re the same? I presume you’re trying to take parts from one & use it in the other - what parts?

 

[HoreaG]

They’re very similar. In what way are you asking if they’re the same? I presume you’re trying to take parts from one & use it in the other - what parts?

No, I am thinking about is it worth looking for the 2010 model instead of the 2009? The choice between those two and the 2011 is clear. But the 2010 being much rarer and the 2009 usually plenty and cheaper I wanted to know if I loose more than that third SATA port.

I dont swap parts, I buy them new. (As in ordering it from Aliexpress or bidding on eBay for an i7 processor and more 8 GB RAM modules and looking for a GPU that Apple never put in any of these models.)

 

[FreakinEurekan]

No, I am thinking about is it worth looking for the 2010 model instead of the 2009? The choice between those two and the 2011 is clear. But the 2010 being much rarer and the 2009 usually plenty and cheaper I wanted to know if I loose more than that third SATA port.

I dont swap parts, I buy them new. (As in ordering it from Aliexpress or bidding on eBay for an i7 processor and more 8 GB RAM modules and looking for a GPU that Apple never put in any of these models.)

Okay. I assume you're looking at 27" but not a lot of difference in the 21.5".

The 2010 gives higher-performance i5/i7 - 2.8/2.93GHz vs. 2.66/2.8 on the 2009. The 2010 also uses faster RAM - 1333 vs 1066MHz. And yes, you do get two SATA ports on 2010 - which is only important if you're going to install two SATA devices. Both max out at 32GB RAM.

2009 and 2010 (and 2011) all have the drawback of USB 2.0 ports; you don't get 3.0 until 2012. You do get Thunderbolt with 2011 which could give you USB 3.0 if needed.

2010 supports SDXC cards; 2009 just SD

GPU is better on 2010 too but you said you're replacing that anyway.

2009/2010 both give you Target Display DisplayPort on the 27" only. 2011+ does not (it will support Thunderbolt Target Display but only for certain other Macs using certain versions of macOS; not universal like 2009/2010)

All in all, very similar... if you need two SATA or need SDXC there's a clear benefit to 2010 but otherwise both have the same relative drawbacks compared to newer.

 

[Significant1]

Okay. I assume you're looking at 27" but not a lot of difference in the 21.5".

The 2010 gives higher-performance i5/i7 - 2.8/2.93GHz vs. 2.66/2.8 on the 2009. The 2010 also uses faster RAM - 1333 vs 1066MHz. And yes, you do get two SATA ports on 2010 - which is only important if you're going to install two SATA devices. Both max out at 32GB RAM.

2009 and 2010 (and 2011) all have the drawback of USB 2.0 ports; you don't get 3.0 until 2012. You do get Thunderbolt with 2011 which could give you USB 3.0 if needed.

2010 supports SDXC cards; 2009 just SD

GPU is better on 2010 too but you said you're replacing that anyway.

2009/2010 both give you Target Display DisplayPort on the 27" only. 2011+ does not (it will support Thunderbolt Target Display but only for certain other Macs using certain versions of macOS; not universal like 2009/2010)

All in all, very similar... if you need two SATA or need SDXC there's a clear benefit to 2010 but otherwise both have the same relative drawbacks compared to newer.

The late 2009 with i5/7 also support 1333mhz ram if you install despite what Apple state in the specs. My i7 has been running with1333Mhz memory since 2010. The Core 2 duo variants does not.

 

[Nguyen Duc Hieu]

No, I am thinking about is it worth looking for the 2010 model instead of the 2009? The choice between those two and the 2011 is clear. But the 2010 being much rarer and the 2009 usually plenty and cheaper I wanted to know if I loose more than that third SATA port.

I dont swap parts, I buy them new. (As in ordering it from Aliexpress or bidding on eBay for an i7 processor and more 8 GB RAM modules and looking for a GPU that Apple never put in any of these models.)

To buy new, I would go for the 2010, simply because I hate the flat V-sync cable in the 2009.