For those who know "numbers" MBR vs 2009 iMac performance wise for "family"

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by vanimal, Apr 21, 2015.

  1. vanimal, Apr 21, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2015

    vanimal macrumors 6502a

    Sep 12, 2014
    I have a 2009 iMac 2.66 core two duo with currently 4GB Ram, actually Replaced the stock 320GB with a 120GB SSD. It's a pretty "snappy" machine for being a 2009. The SSD greatly improved the start up and launching apps. Though about putting 8GB of ram in it because when I use it on Yosemite I get close to the 4GB ram limit. I'll list he uses of the what would would use it for. I have it on my desk and have it hooked up to a external 27" Asus monitor sometimes that I usually use for my Xbox One if the wife is on the "big" TV.

    Me: Browse the web, and not be tied to desk. I have a iPad Air 2 I would unload it if I were to get the MBR. Multitasking with multiple tabs like "listening" to a YouTube video while browsing other sites. Hook it up to my Asus 27"
    1080P monitor to watch streaming content while I play Cbox One at my desk. Use it in bed etc. I use Chrome and Safari together sometimes. So that hogs up a good bit of Ram.

    Wife: Be able to use it on the couch? Her main device is. iPhone 6 plus now lmao.

    Kid: Will be going into 6th grade next year. Use it for school book reports etc etc....

    Should I wait for version 2, I'd really like a 14" version since I'm
    A bigger guy and don't travel much. And the tasks I listed would the MBR be much snappier than the 2009 iMac? Or will it just be basically a luxury device for us? Stick with the iPad Air 2? Would love to hear some some members thoughts. I've played with one in store, but that doesn't real translate too being home and use etc.

    Other factors besides the CPU should play a factor like the very old GPU in my iMac vs the Intel 5000 is it in the MBR?
  2. leman macrumors G3

    Oct 14, 2008
    The 12" MB is around twice as fast than your iMac, graphics and storage-wise more then that. If your iMac works for your usage, the MB will work better. The question is only whether you will miss the size factor.
  3. macrumors 6502

    Jan 10, 2008
    The Netherlands
    What is the speed difference between an early 2009 iMac 24 inch, 3.06 GHz C2D, 8 GB Ram, GT130 graphic card and the base (1.1 GHz) rMB12 ??? Just very curious.

  4. fyrefly macrumors 6502a

    Jun 27, 2004
    Is it a 20" iMac? Or the new 16:9 21.5"? If it's still a 20" iMac the screen will be night and day. The panels used on those 20" "Square" Models in 2008-2009 were absolute garbage TN Panels. Bad viewing angles, washed out colours.

    The new MacBook's retina screen will be much, much better (obviously because of Retina, but also because it's a much better panel).
  5. macrumors 6502

    Jan 10, 2008
    The Netherlands
    Do you reply to my question ? If so I am talking about processing speed not display quality.

  6. fyrefly macrumors 6502a

    Jun 27, 2004
    I wasn't responding to your question - but the iMac you're talking about will be slower than even the 1.1Ghz rMB.

    According to everymac's listing:

    Geekbench 3 (32): 1667 Geekbench 3 (32): 2968
    Geekbench 3 (64): 1800 Geekbench 3 (64): 3160

    The rMB gets higher scores.

    The 12-inch Retina MacBook was put through its paces twice with Geekbench. The laptop received single-core scores of 1924 and 2044 and multi-core scores of 4038 and 4475 (64 Bit)
  7. vanimal thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Sep 12, 2014
    It's the early 2009 so it's the 20". Yeah the panel used on the 20" kind of reminds me of the MBA screen. I often just plug in the mini display port and extend to my 27" Asus IPS monitor if I'm not using it on my Xbox One for gaming or streaming services etc.


    Well not really. I often plug it into my 27" Asus IPS panel to extend the display if my Xbox One isn't running on it. So I could obviously do the same with the MBR. Just need the $80 dongle lol.

Share This Page