[psmith2.0]

I always play with building a "dream" iMac (SSD, 16GB RAM, etc.), but it hits that $2,000+ mark, which really bums me.

In all reality, I'm never going to spend that kind of money again for a Mac. But I do see this this new 21.5" model that got released this past summer. The specs on it, processor and RAM-wise, kinda mirror that of a MacBook Air.

These models go for $1,099 new, but I see them quite a bit in the refurb section for $929.

If I had a Mac from the past 2-3 years, I wouldn't consider such a thing. But I'm curious to know how such a machine:

- 1.4GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
- 8GB RAM
- 5400rpm hard drive (500GB)
- Intel HD Graphics 5000

...compares to my six-year-old iMac (seven, technically, since it was the second-tier 20" $1,499 model from the August 2007 release, the first aluminum/glass models). I got it in September 2008 as a refurb for $1,049.

- 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo
- 3GB RAM (I know...)
- 7200rpm hard drive (320GB, of which I'm only using ~80GB)
- ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro (256MB)

So how does all the above shake out in real-world performance/usage? I know I'm definitely gaining in the RAM department. I'm losing a little bit in the hard drive speed. I guess, as always, the biggies are processor and graphics. How would a 1.4GHz Intel Core i5 stack up to a seven-year-old 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo (because I know clock speed isn't the only thing to go by). As for graphics, again, how does a seven-year-old discrete ATI card with 256MB stack up against the Intel HD Graphics 5000, for the specific things I do below:

You all know me, and what I use/what I do:
- Adobe Illustrator, for actual fun and profit (although less and less these days, compared to 5-8 years ago)

On a lesser level, but occasional profit
- iMovie
- Pages (I still do old fashioned documents/newsletters, etc.)

For my own jollies:
- Pixelmator
- Sketchup
- The remaining iLife and iWork titles
- Angry Birds (again, I know)
- The other built-in OS X stuff, of course (Safari, Mail, Messages, iTunes, the iCloud-enabled PDA-oriented apps, etc.).

What I don't do (and what doesn't need to factor in):
- Photoshop
- Video beyond iMovie's capabilities
- Gaming (aside from throwing cartoon birds, and even that isn't a must)
- No animation or 3D type stuff (beyond simple Sketchup architectural and furniture design/mocking up)

I can't keep pushing my luck with six-year-old hardware (and seven-year-old specs). I'm seeing that spinning beach ball these days a bit more than ever before. And while I realize a lot of that is due to 3GB RAM, I'm not about to sink one dime into such an old machine.

For $929, what could I expect from this 2014 iMac, compared to what I'm on right now (and have been using since September 2008)? Are lower-clocked, but newer, processors (and modern integrated graphics) a step up in any way? About the same? Actually less?



Any input and straight talk, keeping solely to the two iMacs above (what I have, what I'm eyeing) is greatly appreciated. I'm aware of all that I could get/BTO. That's not the question. I'm talking specifically about this low-cost 1.4GHz iMac...

I'm trying to readjust my thinking on some things, and not go nuts with the BTO and expense (and "future-proofing", which never seems as smart/useful in real life as it seems on paper). I'm not a spec whore or speed demon. However, I'm not looking to experience less performance. I just don't know how the above two machines shake out, compared to one another...decent, yet aged, processor and graphics vs. current versions (but sporting more modest numbers).

I'd be okay with same/equal performance, truthfully, if the hardware kept me in the game a bit longer in terms of OS X and other software upgrades (I know my iMac probably won't make the cut for the next go-around of OS X, so it's time I start thinking about post-Yosemite). And I'd rather spend $929 for same or better than what I know now than $2,000+ for stuff I may not fully need or exploit.

[Mugge]

The 5,400 rpm. HD alone is enough to disqualify that low end iMac. And the 8 GB RAM won't do as much as you think to compensate for it.

My iMac has a 7,200 rpm. Drive and 8 GB RAM and I can easily tell that the HD is the bottleneck on this machines performance.

[psmith2.0]

Hmmm.

Unfortunately Apple makes it tough to get into an SSD-based iMac for less than $19,000 zillion.

But seriously, you can't do it for less than $1,349 (yet, you can get SSD-based Airs for $899-$1,199 all day long).

Oh well, it was a thought.

I find it hard to believe Apple can't offer a $999-ish iMac that isn't totally underpowered (weren't they selling $999 for-education iMacs not too long ago that had 2.0+GHz processors?). I wound up finding/reading about 8-10 reviews on this 1.4GHz iMac late last night (and this morning), and none of them were too enthusiastic about it, with most of them basically saying you take about a 50% performance drop for only a 15-20% price drop. In other words, for the performance, it should cost quite a bit less. Or for the money you pay ($1,099), you should get a lot more machine.

I can't help but agree.

After reading all those reviews, I really came away wondering who this $1,099 iMac was aimed at...when you could get so much more for just another $200. It would be much easier to understand/accept the specs if the thing was priced at $899 or so, huh?

It's almost like Apple doesn't want you to buy an iMac. The regular models are priced what they are, but then they get you on the RAM and SSD upgrades (not allowing you to perform the former, and inexplicably charging extra for the latter when they come stock on machines going for $200-300 less.

So, to be cool and helpful, they offer up a "low cost" iMac (which still doesn't break that magical $1,000 barrier like you'd think it would), and then stick in a much slower processor than they've ever put in recent iMacs (overages from the Air line?), and then charge you $250 to get around the slower hard drive (putting you into $1,349 territory for a 1.4GHz iMac. So, really, it's neither "low cost" or a machine most feel good about buying for that kind of money.

It's almost like they wake up thinking of ways to make buying an iMac an aggravating pain-in-the-butt. Maybe, along with the Mac mini and Mac Pro, they're just trying to hate the desktops out of existence?

[Mugge]

I think they are meant for schools like the old eMac was. The kind of machines that you buy in bulk and don't cry over when the kids trash them.