To upgrade from iMac 2010...but how much better is the 2016, REALLY?

[RJMang]

My 21.5", 2010 iMac specs:

​

Storage 1TB SATA Disk

​

Processor 3.6GHz, Intel Core i5

​

Memory 16 GB, 1333 MHZ DDR3 memory

​

Graphics ATI Radeon HD 5670 512 MB

The 21.5", 2016 specs:

​

Storage 2TB Fusion Drive

​

Processor 3.3 GHz, quad-core Intel Core i5, w/ turbo boost up to 3.8GHz

​

Memory 16GB 1867 MHz LPDDR3 memory

​

Graphics Intel Iris Pro graphics 6200

I'm a photographer, often working on large image files. My current Mac is a bit slow.

- How significant is the fact that the 2016 Processor (not boosted) is actually rated lower than the 2010 processor?
- Will the 2016 machine be a significantly better performer?

[I use an external monitor (non-backlit) for most image processing as the backlit iMac, even when carefully profiled, is too contrasty and not as realistic (when compared to paper) as a high-end NEC (in my opinion).]

 

[pigoo3]

Firstly...there are no 2016 iMac's at this. What Apple is selling are the most current iMac model's which were introduced in 2015.

This is actually a VERY easy question to answer. Since the 2010 21.5" iMac only has a dual core CPU...and the 2015 21.5" iMac has a quad-core CPU. Thus if you use apps that take advantage of all available cores...you'll get close to a 2x increase in performance right there just because of double the cores!

Actual CPU benchmarks are:

- 2010 21.5" 3.6ghz iMac = 5774
- 2015 21.5" 3.3ghz = 15,771

That's almost TRIPLE the performance!!!

Even if you don't use apps that take advantage of all cores...the single core CPU benchmark scores are:

- 2010 21.5" 3.6ghz iMac = 2728
- 2015 21.5" 3.3ghz = 4013

That's about a 47% increase in performance (on a single core basis). That's pretty darn good too!! And you can bet the the performance of the GPU has increased dramatically in 5 years!

Enough said...go buy it!

- Nick

 

[RJMang]

Yikes... I had NO idea. Thanks for the response. Sounds like a no-brainer.

 

[pigoo3]

Good deal. I can feel your wallet getting lighter already!

- Nick

 

[harryb2448]

And even better RJ is to consider getting a 2015 iMac with PCI-E flash storage which are streets ahead of even Fusion drives. The problem with the current Fusion is Apple in their wisdom reduced the flash section to 24GB, not even big enough to install the operating system on. A flash storage machine will future-proof your iMac as no doubtflash is the way of nthe future. there is a whisper the next iMac, due to be announced in March next year, may only have the Fusion and Fl;ash option. The day of the platter hard drive is coming to an end, as did the floppy drive, zip storage and more lately optical drives.

 

[RJMang]

Though, if I read the spec's correctly, the flash storage is limited to 512MB, which means I'll have to regularly utilize an external USB 3.0 drive. Is that correct?

 

[pigoo3]

Though, if I read the spec's correctly, the flash storage is limited to 512MB, which means I'll have to regularly utilize an external USB 3.0 drive. Is that correct?

If we're talking the 21.5" iMac...yes limited to 512gig flash storage.

If you were to hypothetically get a 27" iMac...the top end model can be configured with up to 1 terabyte of flash storage.

- Nick

 

[Ember1205]

And even better RJ is to consider getting a 2015 iMac with PCI-E flash storage which are streets ahead of even Fusion drives. The problem with the current Fusion is Apple in their wisdom reduced the flash section to 24GB, not even big enough to install the operating system on. A flash storage machine will future-proof your iMac as no doubtflash is the way of nthe future. there is a whisper the next iMac, due to be announced in March next year, may only have the Fusion and Fl;ash option. The day of the platter hard drive is coming to an end, as did the floppy drive, zip storage and more lately optical drives.

Though, if I read the spec's correctly, the flash storage is limited to 512MB, which means I'll have to regularly utilize an external USB 3.0 drive. Is that correct?

So, this becomes a balancing act for you.

If you go the route of flash-based storage, you have to make sure that you have enough space for the photo image files that you're working on to be stored ON the flash-based drive. If you need a very large amount of storage, you'll need to accomplish that with a non-SSD drive.

The Fusion drive does have its advantages for booting up the machine and launching apps, but file access beyond that isn't enhanced.