How much slower is the "Mid-2014" iMac than the "Late 2013" models? Is the cost savings enough to justify the performance decrease?

Please note that the "Late 2013" and "Mid-2014" iMac models have been discontinued. However, this Q&A still can be quite helpful to anyone buying or selling one of these systems on the used market.

With a quick review of the official press release for the "Mid-2014" iMac -- the iMac "Core i5" 1.4 21.5-Inch (Mid-2014) -- it is obvious that this system was not created with performance in mind. Words like "entry level" and "more affordable" are mentioned prominently whereas the only time "performance" is mentioned at all is a general reference to peripherals.

Photo Credit: Apple, Inc. (21.5" & 27" Tapered Edge iMac, Left & Right, Respectively)

Compared to the slowest "Late 2013" iMac -- the iMac "Core i5" 2.7 21.5-Inch (Late 2013) -- the newer entry-level "Mid-2014" model has half the number of cores -- two cores rather than four -- and nearly half the raw clockspeed -- 1.4 GHz rather than 2.8 GHz -- as well as even slower integrated graphics (HD Graphics 5000 rather than Iris Pro 5200 graphics).

Consequently, it is a safe bet that the "Mid-2014" iMac is a lot slower. Exactly how much slower, though, requires benchmarks and real-world testing.

General Performance Overview

For a solid overview of the performance difference between the "Mid-2014" iMac and earlier iMac systems, EveryMac.com's own Ultimate Mac Comparison makes it quick to compare side-by-side 32-bit and 64-bit Geekbench benchmark averages with all other G3 and later Macs for thousands of possible performance comparisons.

Specifically, the Geekbench 3.0 benchmark shows that the iMac "Core i5" 1.4 21.5-Inch (Mid-2014) is roughly 47% slower overall than the iMac "Core i5" 2.7 21.5-Inch (Late 2013).

Geekbench 3.0 also shows that the "Mid-2014" iMac is roughly 8% slower overall than the also dual-core education-only iMac "Core i3" 3.3 21.5-Inch (Early 2013) and even roughly 21% slower overall than the iMac "Core i5" 2.7 21.5-Inch (Late 2012).

The performance difference in single core tasks is less dramatic, but the "Mid-2014" remains slower than both of the slowest models in the "Late 2012" and "Late 2013" lines -- roughly 3% and 11% slower, respectively -- but squeaks by the education-only "Early 2013" model with roughly 4% faster performance.

Other Benchmarks & Real-World Test Results

Geekbench provides a consistent overview of overall performance, but other benchmarks and application tests can be useful for a well rounded perspective.

In its tests of the "Mid-2014" iMac, the industry-standard Macworld found that its Speedmark 9 benchmark demonstrated a performance gap that was even more substantial than that recorded by Geekbench:

Not surprisingly, the lower-priced iMac was slower than the [US]$1299 [Late 2013] iMac in every test, but how much slower was a little shocking. The [US]$1299 model's Speedmark 9 score was 54 percent higher than the new low-end iMac. Processor-intensive tests (like MathematicaMark, Cinebench CPU, and Handbrake) showed the new low-end iMac's 1.4 GHz dual-core i5 processor failing to keep pace with the quad-core 2.7 GHz i5 found in the [US]$1299 iMac.

As part of a brief review, the reliable ArsTechnica used the Cinebench 11.5 benchmark to test graphics performance of the "Mid-2014" iMac and reported:

Cinebench 11.5 demonstrates the difference pretty well -- you're losing more than half of your graphics horsepower when you step down to the [US]$1,099 iMac from the current [US]$1,299 iMac. This is consistent with what we've seen from other computers with the Iris Pro 5200 GPU [compared to the HD Graphics 5000 in the US$1099 iMac].

The always detail-oriented Bare Feats also tested the "Mid-2014" iMac. Of particular interest, the publication used the "FurMark" benchmark to evaluate graphics performance and found that the "Mid-2014" iMac was 60% slower than the slowest "Late 2013" iMac.

Basically, no matter what aspect of performance you evaluate, the "Mid-2014" iMac is much slower than other iMac models available at the same time (and even slower than some much older ones).

Performance & Value Summary

Ultimately, given its notably slower performance -- not to mention RAM that is soldered in place and that cannot be upgraded at all and the lack of a connector for a "blade" SSD (both of which will significantly shorten the usable life of the computer) -- the "Mid-2014" iMac was a poor value for a US$200 savings compared to the slowest "Late 2013" iMac that also was available at the same time.

The "Mid-2014" iMac provides effectively a 47% reduction in overall speed for 15% less money. For those interested in performance or value, either one, a higher-end model definitely was a better choice.

At the time of its introduction, the "Mid-2014" iMac really only made sense for someone on a tight budget who would only consider a new Mac and who performs only simple tasks that do not benefit greatly from multiple cores (writing papers, using basic spreadsheets, preparing typical presentations, Internet browsing, and simple photo editing, for example).

Of course, for those on a tight budget, it always makes the most sense to purchase a used iMac for better performance for the same price or less.

Used iMac Purchase Options

There are no shortage of places to buy a used "Late 2013" or "Mid-2014" iMac. However, purchasing from a quality business with a solid track record will provide the best experience and save you money and time, too.

In the US, site sponsor Adorama sells new iMac models with free shipping. Other World Computing sells used and refurb iMac models at bargain prices with free shipping, as well. Finally, if you need to sell an iMac, A+ BBB-rated Cash for Your Mac will buy your older iMac with an instant quote and prompt payment.

In the UK, site sponsor Hoxton Macs sells used iMac models with a one-year warranty and free next day delivery throughout the UK. Delivery across Europe also is available starting at just £9.99 for two-day delivery to France and Germany.