Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2010 iMac 27 i7 Quad 2.93 4gb vs. 2013 iMac 27 i5 quad 3.2 8gb

H

Hello2u2

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 23, 2013
3
0
Im new here guys, and the thread title says it all. Im trying to decide between the two. I have the 2010 27 Quad, but I'm thinking about upgrading. I don't know if this would be an upgrade or a set back. I want the thunderbolt ports. Plus I've had issues with my iMac's screen looking like some one with dirty hands put their hands on a clean white sheet of paper(that's the only analogy I can come up with). BTW any cases with the dirty looking screen on the New iMacs?? I really want to know which is faster, the iMac 27 quad i7 2.93 with 4gb ram or iMac 27 quad i5 3.2 8gb ram turbo to 3.6? I'm only recording music, but not virtual instruments. I have an Apogee Symphony headed here. I will be recording multiple instruments simutainiously, and I want my system to keep up. Any help is greatly appreciated.

:)
 
By your specs, those machines you listed are the latest iMacs. They both have 8GB as minimum RAM so the only difference would be in price, speed of processor and video card in each machine. The lower end machines have different 512MB video cards and the 3.2 i7 has 1GB.
 
Hello2u2 said:
Im new here guys, and the thread title says it all. Im trying to decide between the two. I have the 2010 27 Quad, but I'm thinking about upgrading. I don't know if this would be an upgrade or a set back. I want the thunderbolt ports. Plus I've had issues with my iMac's screen looking like some one with dirty hands put their hands on a clean white sheet of paper(that's the only analogy I can come up with). BTW any cases with the dirty looking screen on the New iMacs?? I really want to know which is faster, the iMac 27 quad i7 2.93 with 4gb ram or iMac 27 quad i5 3.2 8gb ram turbo to 3.6? I'm only recording music, but not virtual instruments. I have an Apogee Symphony headed here. I will be recording multiple instruments simutainiously, and I want my system to keep up. Any help is greatly appreciated.

:)
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that you may have to add memory. But that can be done after the fact if needed. What you could do is get the i7 upgrade if you buy a new iMac. On your current machine you will have to add more memory.

SMDBill said:
By your specs, those machines you listed are the latest iMacs. They both have 8GB as minimum RAM so the only difference would be in price, speed of processor and video card in each machine. The lower end machines have different 512MB video cards and the 3.2 i7 has 1GB.
Click to expand...
2.9GHz i5s are current. 2.93GHz are older machines.
 
RoastingPig said:
stay away from old imacs they are flawed
Click to expand...
If you had bothered to read the original post in this thread, you would've seen that the 2010 iMac listed is what they own and that they were thinking of upgrading. Therefore that old Mac probably works fine.

Come to think of it my old iMac works.
 
Yes, I know I can add RAM to the old iMac, or new iMac too. I just want to know which is faster based on the specs I posted?
 
Hello2u2 said:
Yes, I know I can add RAM to the old iMac, or new iMac too. I just want to know which is faster based on the specs I posted?
Click to expand...

The new one is faster with the i5 quad core.

Mac 2010 i7 2.9 = 8995
Mac 2012 i5 3.2 = 9500
 
Last edited:
Hello2u2 said:
Yes, I know I can add RAM to the old iMac, or new iMac too. I just want to know which is faster based on the specs I posted?
Click to expand...

I have a 2009 i7 and as I just mentioned in another thread its still a fast machine. However, I purchased a new iMac for the 680MX GPU and newer I/O (USB3 & TB). But I went with the 3.4ghz i7 because I couldn't see downgrading to an i5 after 3 years of enjoying i7 performance.
 
marzer said:
I have a 2009 i7 and as I just mentioned in another thread its still a fast machine. However, I purchased a new iMac for the 680MX GPU and newer I/O (USB3 & TB). But I went with the 3.4ghz i7 because I couldn't see downgrading to an i5 after 3 years of enjoying i7 performance.
Click to expand...

But the new i5 is faster than the old i7.
 
New i5 is a lot faster..... Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 allow you to do things never possible on older machines. Couple than new iMac with a fusion drive and you're good.


I just bought a new iMac 27" top of the line model and it's a Beat, definitely worth it.
 
Why don't you wait until your Symphony arrives, and try it with your current machine. No need to buy new stuff if it's not needed.

If it doesn't work and you've short deadlines, then hopefully you live near a store where you can pick up the newer model quickly.
 
Hello2u2 said:
Yes, I know I can add RAM to the old iMac, or new iMac too. I just want to know which is faster based on the specs I posted?
Click to expand...

You can't add RAM to the late-2013 21.5" iMac.

Comparison of the i7-870 (27" mid-2010) and i5-4570S (21.5" late-2013): http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/581059?baseline=506382

The 21.5", even though it's an i5, is significantly faster, even though it doesn't hyper thread.

Throw in an SSD and it becomes exponentially faster.
 
Your 2010 iMac is still a very capable machine, i've the same one. I would not get the 2013 model unless you need TB and/or USB3. The i7 with 8 virtual cores could still be faster and more responsive than the 4 cores of an i5, especially under load / with lots of virtual imstruments. Like others have said, upgrade the ram to 8 or 16 GB (2x2 GB modules are real cheap now) and see how your current iMac handles your music programm. You can always update to a newer machine, especially with updates around the corner. Concerning the dirty glass, in the 2010 iMac it's held into place by magnets. With a suction cup you get it easily off and clean the inside of the glass.
 
i7 trumps i5

i7 trumps i5 no matter what - if you have an app that takes advantage of multiple cores the iMac sees the i7 as an 8-core processor.

Both are quadcore processors but the i7 can hyperthread.

So, what basically is happening is if you have an app such as Logic or the like that can utilize multiple cores you get improved performance over an i5 which cannot hyperthread.

i5 might clock higher but the turboboost speed of the i7 might come in the neighborhood of the i5s max.

i5 is still a nice cpu, the i7 just seems like a better deal for the user to me.

If you don't have apps that utilize hyperthreading then the i5 might be a better deal for you on sheer clock speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back