Which specs are better for a second hand iMac?

Forums › Mac OS › Which specs are better for a second hand iMac?

aiyaznz

43 posts

Geek

#260104 11-Nov-2019 06:43

Hello all,

I am in the process of buying a second hand iMac and I am not very savvy with tech. I am hoping if I can give you the specs, someone here could tell me which of these is a better buy. They are both priced similarly. The first is https://everymac.com/systems/apple/imac/specs/imac-core-i5-2.7-21-inch-aluminum-late-2013-specs.html and second machine is https://everymac.com/systems/apple/imac/specs/imac-core-i5-2.7-21-inch-aluminum-late-2012-specs.html. I will most be using this for excel, PDF reading and some gaming. Will this be able to run Catalina? Parallels desktop?

Thanks

gehenna

8514 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2351403 11-Nov-2019 08:56

The first one. How much?

RunningMan

8961 posts

Uber Geek

#2351671 11-Nov-2019 15:06

The 2013 is a facelift on the 2012. A bit faster and a newer graphics card. Either will run the software you want, assuming your gaming expectation isn't for something as good as a current machine.

The 2013 would be a better bet though - better graphics options (particularly for gaming), and likely to be compatible with new software for a bit longer yet.

2012 is now considered vintage by Apple, so less support. 2013 is still current for support.

aiyaznz

43 posts

Geek

#2351846 11-Nov-2019 19:38

The 2013 is 450 and 2012 is 400. Is 2013 actually better?

aiyaznz

43 posts

Geek

#2351847 11-Nov-2019 19:40

RunningMan:
The 2013 is a facelift on the 2012. A bit faster and a newer graphics card. Either will run the software you want, assuming your gaming expectation isn't for something as good as a current machine.

The 2013 would be a better bet though - better graphics options (particularly for gaming), and likely to be compatible with new software for a bit longer yet.

2012 is now considered vintage by Apple, so less support. 2013 is still current for support.

I kept assuming having a dedicated graphics card is always better than the generic intel shared graphics card. So your saying I should go for the 2013 iMac.

aiyaznz

43 posts

Geek

#2351848 11-Nov-2019 19:41

gehenna:
The first one. How much?

The 2013 is 450 and 2012 is 400. Is 2013 actually better?

RunningMan

8961 posts

Uber Geek

#2351865 11-Nov-2019 20:03

Yep, I'd $50 extra for a newer model machine

alexx

867 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2351867 11-Nov-2019 20:14

Reading this, there isn't much in it when it comes to Graphics.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/09/new-cpus-faster-wi-fi-same-flaws-apples-2013-imac-reviewed/2/

I’d be inclined to go for the one with the newer CPU that might have better long term support. I’m typing this on my late 2011 macbook pro that won’t run (stock) Mojave or Catalina, while I’d be fine if I had the 2012 model. Perhaps they will drop support for 2012 models in the next release.

Might be worth it for the 802.11ac wifi if you have the right wireless access point/router.

#include <standard.disclaimer>

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

antoniosk

2358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2351869 11-Nov-2019 20:25

You said you want to run Parallels, and Catalina?

That's a heck of a combo, and very very very demanding of the machine. 2013 specs will struggle to run anything other than a frustrating experience. You need at least 8GB of ram and a FAST SSD to make parallels bearable.

I've been deep in emulated system joy since '88, so speaking from a LOT of hours committed to making those environments run....

________

Antoniosk