Which iMac is better?

[varian55zx]

I am in dire need of computer help for Black Friday.

I wanted to buy an iMac, but am unsure which is better. I think it's the 2013 one, but I'm not sure. Here are the two contenders (found both for about $900):

option 1 Late 2013 iMac 21.5: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...kCFc2Cfgod9wIIrQ&is=REG&ap=y&m=Y&A=details&Q=

option 2 Late 2015 iMac 21.5 (cheapest 21.5 inch on here): http://www.apple.com/imac/specs/

Isn't option 1 much better, even though it was released earlier? I found them both at a deal and need to know which to keep... but option 1 seems much better, and I know there are the same physical design.

The only possible way I can see option 2 being better is that it has a 'broadwell', instead of a 'haswell' processor. But I have found that that doesn't matter that much?

Am I right on this?

Thank you for any help.

 

[dphershman]

the 2015 model has a superior integrated graphics processor than the older model. The newer monitor may have better technology as well. (at least the retina versions do, not absolutely sure about the lower resolution 2015 monitors)

Older machines may be a bit more user serviceable than the newer one.

Those are just some guesses that might point you towards figuring out what the real differences might be.

 

[varian55zx]

Thank you for the reply. But in terms of performance, wouldn't the 2013 model be much better?

It has a quad core i5 and the other has dual core.

Can anyone confirm if the monitors are actually different? I didn't see anything that said that online.

Please I desperately need help.

edit: Also, the 2013 model I put up has 'Intel Iris graphics', the 2015 only has Intel hd graphics. I'm not sure if much of what you said at all is true

2015 has Intel hd 6200, 2013 has Intel Iris 5200, which is better ??

Here is a comparison chart that has the late 2013 and late 2015 21.5 iMacs on it. Is this pretty convincing that the late 2013 is better? Seems that way to me.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...inum-late-2015-mid-2014-late-2013-models.html

 

[MrNomNoms]

Thank you for the reply. But in terms of performance, wouldn't the 2013 model be much better?

It has a quad core i5 and the other has dual core.

Can anyone confirm if the monitors are actually different? I didn't see anything that said that online.

Please I desperately need help.

edit: Also, the 2013 model I put up has 'Intel Iris graphics', the 2015 only has Intel hd graphics. I'm not sure if much of what you said at all is true

2015 has Intel hd 6200, 2013 has Intel Iris 5200, which is better ??

Here is a comparison chart that has the late 2013 and late 2015 21.5 iMacs on it. Is this pretty convincing that the late 2013 is better? Seems that way to me.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...inum-late-2015-mid-2014-late-2013-models.html

Quad vs. Dual core - depends on what you want to use your computer for but most software isn't optimised for quad core.

Regarding GPU, the 6200 is superior.

 

[varian55zx]

Quad vs. Dual core - depends on what you want to use your computer for but most software isn't optimised for quad core.

Regarding GPU, the 6200 is superior.

I just mean general use, as in which computer can do more. Which has more power, etc.

I like to do many things at once, have many browser tabs open at once, so isn't a quad core better for me?

What about any of the other differences? I'm sorry, but I am really in need of help.

 

[MrNomNoms]

I just mean general use, as in which computer can do more. Which has more power, etc.

I like to do many things at once, have many browser tabs open at once, so isn't a quad core better for me?

What about any of the other differences? I'm sorry, but I am really in need of help.

The 2013 would be faster based on a rough comparison. The low end iMac 21.5 2015 that you linked to has a Broadwell processor so it was designed for battery life and cooler running so you'd definitely be ahead when it comes to CPU grunt alone.

 

[maflynn]

I just mean general use, as in which computer can do more. Which has more power, etc.

The quad core of course. I'd go with the 2015 iMac you're getting upgraded CPU and GPU. You're spending a lot of money why buy what is essentially a 2 year old machine.

 

[varian55zx]

The 2013 would be faster based on a rough comparison. The low end iMac 21.5 2015 that you linked to has a Broadwell processor so it was designed for battery life and cooler running so you'd definitely be ahead when it comes to CPU grunt alone.

I really appreciate your response so thank you.

Battery life.... but they're plugged in. I'm obviously not a tech guru but I know enough to get by... don't get the battery reference. I guess I'm not thinking about cooler running as much but power. Capability to do more things, better, faster, at once. I guess. lol

The quad core of course. I'd go with the 2015 iMac you're getting upgraded CPU and GPU. You're spending a lot of money why buy what is essentially a 2 year old machine.

Thing is, I've already bought both. Bought the 2015 one at best buy for 899 + tax and ordered the other for 950 out the door. I will be returning one... so probably no upgrade.

The whole idea is to not spend a lot... ideally under 1000. I just want something with adequate performance that will last... my last MacBook Pro lasted me 7 years. lol

So the general consensus seems to be to keep the 2015? I just can't tell which to buy when one seems to have better specs yet its 2 years older. But I've heard the late 2013s were a good year... thanks for any of the help this is a big decision for me.

 

[maflynn]

I'd opt for the newer model, basically if I'm spending close to 1,000 bucks. I'm sure the 2013 was and is a good model, but do you really want to spend almost a thousand 2015 dollars on it?

 

[varian55zx]

I'd opt for the newer model, basically if I'm spending close to 1,000 bucks. I'm sure the 2013 was and is a good model, but do you really want to spend almost a thousand 2015 dollars on it?

No, not at all. I just wanted to buy this new 2015 iMac, seemed good enough for my needs (casual stuff, no gaming, but I don't a slow computer), and be done with it (for $200 off might I add). And then I saw this other one online, seemed much better on paper... I was forced to investigate. Because I know Apple can be sneaky and they are assuming their customers don't read anything and just buy when they want them too. I can be like that but I want to make a good buy!

 

[maflynn]

Well, I guess, do you want a computer that may have been sitting around for about 2 years in a warehouse for 900+ dollars or a brand new one that has a better GPU and newer chipset?

Its really your decision, I gave you my opinion but ultimately you need to be happy with your choice. Both are good

Good luck

 

[varian55zx]

Thanks maflynn. Your input really helped. For now I think I will go with my original instinct and just get the new one. That was my whole intent from the beginning was to get a brand new one for the most longevity possible. So for now I think I will probably just be going with new one. Just seems like the more reasonable choice.

 

[illitrate23]

i suspect, in real-world casual usage, probably not a lot of difference between the two.
The graphics cards look to be comparable - the Iris Pro was the better performance for that generation, but according to wikipedia, on pure GFLOPS, the 6000 is slightly faster. But the on board cache of the Iris pro probably leads to slightly better performance.

But for email, web surfing, office/school work, etc - you're not really going to be stretching any graphics card to its limits, so it's a moot point.
Same with the CPU really. The quad-core is better, but then the only time i ever see all of the quad-cores in my i7 in use is when i'm converting video from one format to another. For normal day-to-day use, my iMac is never under any load and having having the quad-core is overkill.

If longevity is a priority over performance, then another thing to consider is that the 2015 model is likely to remain a viable machine for OS updates for at least one or two OS versions more than the 2013 one. It'll probably be slow by that point - but slow is better than stuck on old unsupported OS.

 

[varian55zx]

i suspect, in real-world casual usage, probably not a lot of difference between the two.
The graphics cards look to be comparable - the Iris Pro was the better performance for that generation, but according to wikipedia, on pure GFLOPS, the 6000 is slightly faster. But the on board cache of the Iris pro probably leads to slightly better performance.

But for email, web surfing, office/school work, etc - you're not really going to be stretching any graphics card to its limits, so it's a moot point.
Same with the CPU really. The quad-core is better, but then the only time i ever see all of the quad-cores in my i7 in use is when i'm converting video from one format to another. For normal day-to-day use, my iMac is never under any load and having having the quad-core is overkill.

If longevity is a priority over performance, then another thing to consider is that the 2015 model is likely to remain a viable machine for OS updates for at least one or two OS versions more than the 2013 one. It'll probably be slow by that point - but slow is better than stuck on old unsupported OS.

Thank you for this reply and thank you to everyone for the replies so far.

After hearing the feedback it is sounding like the late 2015 version is more in my interest, as the age of the 2013 model makes me hesitant. As it is 2 years old that is a lot of time in the computer world. Also, the consensus is that the performance difference between the two for my uses is not very significant so I couldn't bring myself to go for the 2013. I do want this to last. Thank you for all input so far and I have gone ahead and cancelled the 2013 order.

 

[Choctaw]

Thank you for this reply and thank you to everyone for the replies so far.

After hearing the feedback it is sounding like the late 2015 version is more in my interest, as the age of the 2013 model makes me hesitant. As it is 2 years old that is a lot of time in the computer world. Also, the consensus is that the performance difference between the two for my uses is not very significant so I couldn't bring myself to go for the 2013. I do want this to last. Thank you for all input so far and I have gone ahead and cancelled the 2013 order.

Seems like your answering your own questions. When you state "I know Apple can be sneaky and they are assuming their customers don't read anything and just buy when they want them too." does not hold true for most of us. In my view Apple offers products to us and most of their buyers are very good at doing research even to an extreme sometimes. Customers do study things out and make informed choices. It is only the emotional buyers that end up with something they don't want and then fill this forum with pages of complaints. You get what you pay for, and buying from the bargain barns with their used outdated stuff can burn you. Cheep is just that. Buy the best you can afford, it only cost a few more buck to go first class. Well maybe a few hundred more or so.

 

[varian55zx]

Actually, this thread answered my question.

Whether or not that does hold true for people here is not pertinent to this thread.

Maybe you don't know that most of Apple's customer base are white high-income 40 something's who the last thing they care to do or want to learn about is researching computer specs. Most of Apple's customers just want it to work out of the box and be done with it. The diehards are in the minority. Maybe you'll learn that some day.

 

[Choctaw]

Opinions can be misleading, truth is much more helpful. Hope your choice brings you peace and great computer satisfaction.

 

[AlexisV]

As I said in another thread, I would not buy a non-Retina display iMac.

I'd get the 21.5" Retina, no matter the internals.

 

[varian55zx]

As I said in another thread, I would not buy a non-Retina display iMac.

I'd get the 21.5" Retina, no matter the internals.

This is really something. This quote perplexes me.

Do you think everyone just has unlimited money? It really seems like it.