Imac 24 core 2 duo --> imac 27 (2009) i7, big upgrade?

[slackerinabox]

My dad's 2007 imac's been running like a dog these days. He's on a limited income so I was thinking a refurb older model would work - how far back would you recommend keeping in mind he's living on retirement and really just uses photoshop and word.

Would the imac 27 2009 (about $700 refurb) be a noticeable upgrade, or should we up our budget?

Thanks!

 

[Koing]

If you can get an SSD in it it would feel very fast.

 

[manly]

$700 for a 7 year old PC?!

I would recommend a Sandy Bridge CPU. Introduced in 2011, these are widely considered Intel's last great leap forward. I'm not sure how that fits into the iMac lineup or price-wise. Like Koing said, an SSD (and generous RAM) is a must.

 

[fr]

I have a 2008 24" iMac that's still very decent for web browsing and YouTube after putting in an SSD and El Cap.

 

[slackerinabox]

$700 for a 7 year old PC?!

I would recommend a Sandy Bridge CPU. Introduced in 2011, these are widely considered Intel's last great leap forward. I'm not sure how that fits into the iMac lineup or price-wise. Like Koing said, an SSD (and generous RAM) is a must.

Dumb question - would a sandy bridge i5 be more powerful than years prior i7s? Because he can definately get a 2009 i7 in his budget, while 2011+ is looking like an i3 or i5.

 

[nerp]

Yes, I'd go for the Sandy Bridge. The 2011s are OK. 2010s could run very hot. Like burning hot to the touch even just watching YouTube videos. I know this because I own one and it's an i3. Even with an SSD it's painfully slow compared to a new Windows machine, but it's doable.

 

[Eug]

macOS Sierra (2016) may be the last version of OS X that works with that 2009 iMac.

And it won't even feel that much faster unless you get an SSD.

 

[slackerinabox]

macOS Sierra (2016) may be the last version of OS X that works with that 2009 iMac.

And it won't even feel that much faster unless you get an SSD.

Good call, I wouldn't want him to be stuck with 1 update cycle. I'll try to persuade him to get a 2011.

As for the ssd suggestion - new iMacs as difficult to upgrade as the 2008? I remember the upgrade being pretty terrifying, with tiny ribbon cables and tight spaces.

 

[manly]

Dumb question - would a sandy bridge i5 be more powerful than years prior i7s? Because he can definately get a 2009 i7 in his budget, while 2011+ is looking like an i3 or i5.

Here are the tech specs for mid-2011:
http://lowendmac.com/2011/imac-mid-2011/

Sandy Bridge i5 will be a little faster than 2009 (Nehalem?) i7. The only advantage of Core i7 is Hyper-Threading but HT is not a differentiating factor IMO. As others have alluded to, raw CPU performance is not usually the dominating factor in system perf in recent years. For your dad using Photoshop, 8+ GB RAM and an SSD are well worth it. DDR3 RAM is pretty cheap, so there's little reason not to splurge.

It's the same chassis as 2009, and internal repairs are not exactly easy:
https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/iMac+Intel+21.5-Inch+EMC+2428+Hard+Drive+Replacement/5954

It looks like you can use any SATA SSD with a 3.5" to 2.5" adapter. SSDs are dirt-cheap as well.

 

[Tyranicus]

$700 for a 7 year old PC?!

I would recommend a Sandy Bridge CPU. Introduced in 2011, these are widely considered Intel's last great leap forward. I'm not sure how that fits into the iMac lineup or price-wise. Like Koing said, an SSD (and generous RAM) is a must.

I agree that a Sandy Bridge system makes more sense for speed and future compatibility, but you have to realize that the price tag isn't just the computer specs. It's also for the 27" glass 1440p display.

 

[manly]

I agree that a Sandy Bridge system makes more sense for speed and future compatibility, but you have to realize that the price tag isn't just the computer specs. It's also for the 27" glass 1440p display.

Ahh, I'd overlooked the screen size. Like you said, I'd still shoot for Sandy Bridge due to price/performance/future-proofing.