AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Review: Apple 24-inch iMac (aluminum)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Review: Apple 24-inch iMac (aluminum) - Page 3

post #81 of 138
8/13/07 at 4:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The gpu is perfectly fine for HD.

Even the built-in graphics of the 950 in the Mini and MacBook is perfectly fine for HD.

Better cards are only required for playing higher end 3D games, or running polygon intensive 3D programs such as Shake, etc.

I did a big of HD work today on my new iMac and I have to say it worked rather well and looked great.

My opinion, the new iMac looks greats the "glossy' screen in real life use has no reflection problems in a regular home setting. Ive been using this thing pretty much non stop for the last three days.

Macs in general have never been gaming systems and most likely never will be gaming systems. Gaming gpu's are become a joke they are not cost effective at all, consider you can buy and entire PS3 for the same price as a 8800gtx video card.

Even hardcore pc gamers like myself can't justify having to upgrade every six months ot play pc games.
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 138
8/13/07 at 5:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PBG4 Dude View Post

I think it would be more likely for people to have a 6pin to 6pin Firewire cable than it would be to have an A to A USB 2.0 cable. Most people have A to B or A to mini USB cables.

The USB spec was not designed to allow straight A-A connections. Last I heard, there needs to be an interface chip between the two, and special software too.

I think that TDM works fine on FW800, but the only previous cause I had to try it allowed me to just move the drive between the computers, so that might have been 500GB moved in a few minutes and not an hour or two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Anyone with a g5 iMac needs to give these a serious look.

I don't think so. Only those that need the extra power should consider it. For most owners, I bet that the G5 iMacs are fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Now if you ask me how do Macbook users get way with 64mg of video that one I have no clue...

Because it's not necessary for most non-game, non-pro uses? They have a tiny screen and it's plenty to store copies of all the windows, do Exposé and so on. From what I remember, going above 256MB doesn't do much for most games, and those GPUs are supposed to be hammering that memory during game play.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 138
8/13/07 at 5:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

For those of you who just HATE the glossy glass, as it seems that it's just held on with magnets, it's possible that someone will offer matte glass to replace the one that came with the machine.

I'd love to see a proper AR coated glass to be made available, first or third party, I just don't want a matte surface at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by homeboy87 View Post

Depends on who you ask. A 17 years old sorority girl will say it is while 23 years old university student working with 3D software won't. The only thing that's pro about it is the big 24 inch screen and nothing else.

A 24" screen isn't necessarily "pro". It's just high end for the moment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB View Post

What does this means? Every GPU from the last 4-5 years is capable to forward to the display the decoded HD content, but it does not decode it by itself. This happens in the CPU.

I think all Radeons 9500 and newer can decode MPEG-2 in HD, in the GPU. It takes almost no CPU power to do so. I think h.264 was added later. On-GPU decoding does not seem to be available in OS X though.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 138
8/13/07 at 5:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

The USB spec was not designed to allow straight A-A connections. Last I heard, there needs to be an interface chip between the two, and special software too.

There are special USB cables for that. They have what's needed in the cable itself. They cost about $20 to $30.
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 138
8/13/07 at 5:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Why wait. Things have changed. Even having to use Photoshop CS2 under Rosetta since OS X 10.4.8 is faster yet.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/11/firs...etta/index.php

Interesting. So a C2D at 2Ghz would be just slower (in Photoshop, Rosetta) than an iMac G5 at 2GHz. Which compared with a dual G4 at 867Mhz... would mean the iMac would provide an increase in speed overall (though not a big one).

Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

If you edit large files in PS, then either get a intel mac with CS3 or not at all. Performance is not that great on my 24" iMac 2.33 GHz 1st gen with 3 GB ram and adobe cs.

One person for it, one against... damn

Oh, is that performance of CS2 or CS3?
(Private message me if you like since I'm taking the thread off topic).
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 138
8/13/07 at 6:20pm
Quote:
The Radeon HD 2600 Pro is a long, long overdue replacement for the X1600 which has been present in the iMac since its switch to Intel in January 2006.

The first generation 24" iMacs did not ship with ATI cards; you got an nVidia 7300GT if you bought off the shelf and could BTO with the 7600GT.

--JV
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 138
8/13/07 at 6:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't think so. Only those that need the extra power should consider it. For most owners, I bet that the G5 iMacs are fine.

I should be more specific. Those users who have a g5 iMac who are considering a new machine should give these a serious look. I don't think there's any doubt that they'll see a dramatic difference in speed. If someone is happy with their g5 iMac then they have no reason to change.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 138
8/13/07 at 7:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I should be more specific. Those users who have a g5 iMac who are considering a new machine should give these a serious look. I don't think there's any doubt that they'll see a dramatic difference in speed. If someone is happy with their g5 iMac then they have no reason to change.

The question that started all this was whether to upgrade to this model, and stay with CS2 through Rosetta, or whether it would pay to hold on a bit longer and get a more powerful machine that could either run CS2 better, or end up with CS3 now, with this, or wait and get both later.

At least, that's the concept as I remember.

The question wasn't whether this would run CS3 better.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 138
8/13/07 at 7:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The question that started all this was whether to upgrade to this model, and stay with CS2 through Rosetta, or whether it would pay to hold on a bit longer and get a more powerful machine that could either run CS2 better, or end up with CS3 now, with this, or wait and get both later.

At least, that's the concept as I remember.

The question wasn't whether this would run CS3 better.

You're late to the discussion.

Prior to that, the cs2 thing, I was commenting on how cinebench scores of the new iMacs vs. th old g5 iMacs.
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 138
8/13/07 at 7:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

You're late to the discussion.

Prior to that, the cs2 thing, I was commenting on how cinebench scores of the new iMacs vs. th old g5 iMacs.

It wasn't in response to your original post.

This started when someone asked if his wife should hold the G5 iMac with CS2 for a while longer, or run it under Rosetta with these new models.

I was the first to answer that question, and then people seem to have forgotten where it started as it wandered all over 'till we got here with it.
Reply
Reply
post #91 of 138
8/13/07 at 8:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

There's many professions that don't need a Mac Pro and the whole attitude from some people that you're somehow unprofessional using anything less than a MacPro is silly. The iMac is faster than the MacBook Pro. Are users of that laptop also unprofessional?

So this is confusing, why would an imac necessarily be faster than a Mac Book Pro? Off the shelf mine has a 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo, 256MB Graphics Memory and 2 GB of RAM. That beats all bar one of the iMac's anyday, the only thing you can say is that the high end iMac has a faster processor than is found in the MBP but that is all.
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 138
8/13/07 at 8:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post

So this is confusing, why would an imac necessarily be faster than a Mac Book Pro? Off the shelf mine has a 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo, 256MB Graphics Memory and 2 GB of RAM. That beats all bar one of the iMac's anyday, the only thing you can say is that the high end iMac has a faster processor than is found in the MBP but that is all.

Testing the 2.4 GHz iMac has shown it to be faster.

The 2.8 GHz model will be a fair amount faster.

Will Apple introduce the 2.8 for the MBP, or will it require too much power and run too hot?

Good question, eh?

And the iMac, even with the 2.8 is still substantially cheaper.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 138
8/13/07 at 8:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Testing the 2.4 GHz iMac has shown it to be faster.

The 2.8 GHz model will be a fair amount faster.

Will Apple introduce the 2.8 for the MBP, or will it require too much power and run too hot?

Good question, eh?

And the iMac, even with the 2.8 is still substantially cheaper.


Mel, is that right? even with only 1GB memory in the iMac??

I do not understand that then, maybe someone with more knowledge can explain how a machine can be slower than a machine with identical processor and half the amount of RAM. Am i missing something that would make the iMac run faster than the MBP??
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 138
8/13/07 at 8:32pm
7200 RPM HDD always makes it (iMac) faster than 5400 RPM HDD (MBP), unless they compared with 7200 RPM HDD in MacBook Pro

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply
post #95 of 138
8/13/07 at 8:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanmugam View Post

7200 RPM HDD always makes it (iMac) faster than 5400 RPM HDD (MBP), unless they compared with 7200 RPM HDD in MacBook Pro

Good point,

Mel, i have found the benchmark tests and indeed you are right (haha i don't say that often ;-)
Blow me down well that has disapointed me somewhat, i only bought my MBP thinking that was as fast as an iMac so the better choice. Maybe i should have hung on then, wonder if a month old MBP will sell for enough to buy a 2.8GHZ iMac? (only half joking!!)
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 138
8/13/07 at 8:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post

Mel, is that right? even with only 1GB memory in the iMac??

I do not understand that then, maybe someone with more knowledge can explain how a machine can be slower than a machine with identical processor and half the amount of RAM. Am i missing something that would make the iMac run faster than the MBP??

Shanmugam is correct about the HHD. But, the computers are not the same. Even with the same chips, the circuitry is slightly different, as is the video subsystem.

Don't believe people when they say this is the MBP in a bigger case. It isn't. It's similar.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 138
8/13/07 at 8:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

As I said in my previous post, that's a magnet, not the magnet. The difference being, a magnet that just happens to be part of the design (which the magnets beneath the bezel that hold the screen in place are) isn't the same as a magnet Apple intended to be used as a remote dock (as the side magnet on the previous iMac was).

The practical difference is that you can just get the remote to hang there if you try hard enough and it can be knocked off very easily and it is awkwardly positioned, which is quite a bit different from the previous design.

Somebody got the official word from Apple (as in "no, we don't expect you to stick the remote to the machine") somewhere, I'll try to find the link.

I agree. However, IF someone really needs to hang the remote on the computer, I have a suggestion. At times,
some adverts come with a magnet backing. Cut a small piece and glue it on the computer where ever you want it. If it's small enough, it won't be obtrusive. Personally, I wouldn't want a magnet on or near my desk or computer because of the USB drives and other media I use and are usually on my desk. Even a magnetized paper clip can cause a problem.
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #98 of 138
8/13/07 at 9:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

I agree. However, IF someone really needs to hang the remote on the computer, I have a suggestion. At times,
some adverts come with a magnet backing. Cut a small piece and glue it on the computer where ever you want it. If it's small enough, it won't be obtrusive. Personally, I wouldn't want a magnet on or near my desk or computer because of the USB drives and other media I use and are usually on my desk. Even a magnetized paper clip can cause a problem.


I will never ever undestand why anyone would feel the need to hang a remote control from the front of their PC, exactly what use does it serve having a remote control there? How many people have you ever heard complaining that they cannot stick their TV remote to the front of their 40" samsung?? None!

A quick count tells me i have got 5 Apple remotes in my front room (how sad does that sound?) and not once have i ever felt the urge to stick any of them to anything, they can be found in draws, on bookshelves, on the coffee table - i once even found one in the fridge trying to get cosy with half a cabbage!!

I remember my grandfather years ago when he got his very first TV with a remote control, he would leave it on the top of the TV so it would not get lost. If you wanted to change the channel he would have to get up, walk over the TV, change channel with the remote and walk back to his chair, he never understood why i used to laugh at him! Same thing really.
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 138
8/14/07 at 1:43am
Like many here, I have been a long time Mac user... so amid the hype, last Friday, I stop by the Soho Apple store to take a look at the new iMac and judge for myself.

The glossy display with reflections is annoying to say the least. One can argue store lighting is bad but that isn't the complete truth. I suspect one need to dim lighting or turn it off completely to stop the reflection. The new iMac is just as responsive as the previous (I compare the new against my bro's old one from last year), but it's not noticeably faster.

Personally, this redesign is a major disappointment for me. As I stated in a different thread, it took Apple over a year to release this update neither the redesign nor hardware live up to the long expectation... this is merely a repackaging job for Apple. I will still be using Macs at work and still look forward to Mac OS 10.5 release... but as a home user, they lost me as a customer for now. If Apple prides themselves for leading the computing world for industrial design, this is not a step forward, but merely more eye candy.


p.s. on that day, Apple store's traffic mainly composed of people hugging up mac-stations to check their emails during lunch break was a lame sight.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 138
8/14/07 at 2:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The 950 can do this in hardware, just as most gpus can.

Sure, but that's the problem. Apple leaves this GPU power dormant. It has probably a good reason to do so, but probably not. I don't know.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 138
8/14/07 at 2:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I think all Radeons 9500 and newer can decode MPEG-2 in HD, in the GPU. It takes almost no CPU power to do so. I think h.264 was added later. On-GPU decoding does not seem to be available in OS X though.

Yes, hardware MPEG-2 on the GPU is an old story, though Apple never used this feature. This is a mystery to me. Probably the decoding on the GPU was/is not standardized and Apple was/is not willing to adapt the algorithms each time a GPU change happens.

The last and only hardware decoding I can remember from Apple is from the OS 9 days, when there were available specialized PCMCIA decoders for the Powerbooks. I cannot remember what was the situation in the desktops.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 138
8/14/07 at 4:27am
Talking about performance, there is another point that I probably missed. We have yet to see comparisons between the previous and current generation iMacs running the same game. Apple too used to post such comparisons but this time the dedicated page is just empty. I think this tells much about the GPU performance advance with this update.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 138
8/14/07 at 6:14am
What about the noise level of the new 24"?

The reason I ask is that I have the previous version (C2D 2.33 GHz 24") and have two really irritating noises:

- A crackling sound, possibly from the power supply.
- A kind of hollow buzzing sound when I set the screen light intensity to minimum.

Possibly both can be attributed to cheap power supply parts and not a fault in my machine only (I have heard similar noises from other 24-inchers).

What about the 2.8 GHz version. Is it still a mobile processor (I got a bit confused when I saw it is called "Extreme")?
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 138
8/14/07 at 6:54am
This may be old news to everyone, but I did a comparison on the weekend and the display panel in the new 20" model is noticeably inferior to that in the previous 20" Intel and G5 models-much like the old 17" panel the contrast is very sensitive to angle of view, and you can even notice solarisation effects if you look from above.
If anyone is thinking of buying one for graphics work then that should be a dealbreaker regardless of your feelings about the glossy display....
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 138
8/14/07 at 12:34pm
I hope the remote attaches to the iMac's side. I've already lost two -- from a Mac mini and a Hi-Fi. Maybe I should attach them to my wrist with a string ... or Apple could include an option for a beeper similar to when I need to locate my misplaced portable phone.
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 138
8/14/07 at 1:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Anderson View Post

I hope the remote attaches to the iMac's side. I've already lost two -- from a Mac mini and a Hi-Fi. Maybe I should attach them to my wrist with a string ... or Apple could include an option for a beeper similar to when I need to locate my misplaced portable phone.


It doesn't. You can feel where the magnet attempts to grab the remote but the remote is either to heavy or what I expect is the glass screen cover is moved just enough away from the magnet that you can't get solid contact.

Hey duct tape is the same color as the new imacs.......
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 138
8/14/07 at 2:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post

So this is confusing, why would an imac necessarily be faster than a Mac Book Pro? Off the shelf mine has a 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo, 256MB Graphics Memory and 2 GB of RAM. That beats all bar one of the iMac's anyday, the only thing you can say is that the high end iMac has a faster processor than is found in the MBP but that is all.

The iMac also has faster 3.5"hard drives instead of slower laptop drives. IME, drive speed makes quite a difference.

My point was more that the iMac gets sneered at often for not having the 'Pro' suffix when in reality it's at least on a par with the Mac Book Pros and faster in some respects. Plus, you can have a 1TB drive in there now. That's pretty mental. My first computer with a hard drive had 10MB.
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 138
8/14/07 at 2:54pm
Barefeats has started posting results.

It's not good if you're a gamer.

http://barefeats.com/imacal.html
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 138
8/14/07 at 3:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

Barefeats has started posting results.

It's not good if you're a gamer.

http://barefeats.com/imacal.html

I'm hoping they screwed up on the initial driver release like they did on the MBPs. Otherwise, it's going to be a long couple of years.
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 138
8/14/07 at 4:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

I agree. However, IF someone really needs to hang the remote on the computer, I have a suggestion. At times,
some adverts come with a magnet backing. Cut a small piece and glue it on the computer where ever you want it. If it's small enough, it won't be obtrusive. Personally, I wouldn't want a magnet on or near my desk or computer because of the USB drives and other media I use and are usually on my desk. Even a magnetized paper clip can cause a problem.

Maybe that was a valid concern with floppies but I doubt it's a problem with hard drives. You need a surprisingly strong magnet to disturb the data on a hard drive.
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 138
8/14/07 at 9:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB View Post

Sure, but that's the problem. Apple leaves this GPU power dormant. It has probably a good reason to do so, but probably not. I don't know.

Apple does make some odd choices about things like this.

But, the point is that even a 950 CAN do it.
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 138
8/14/07 at 9:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB View Post

Talking about performance, there is another point that I probably missed. We have yet to see comparisons between the previous and current generation iMacs running the same game. Apple too used to post such comparisons but this time the dedicated page is just empty. I think this tells much about the GPU performance advance with this update.

this doesn't tell us everything, and I don't know which gpu was in the old iMac (was it the upgrade, or not?), but what it doe show is telling.

88.7 FPS for the old 24" when running Unreal Tourn 2004, and 86.3 on the new 24".

Hopefully, the drivers need improvement, as that's not uncommon.

http://www.macworld.com/2007/08/revi...imac/index.php

Here's another interesting one. More complete.

http://www.barefeats.com/imacal.html

Overall, not good.
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 138
8/14/07 at 9:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Maybe that was a valid concern with floppies but I doubt it's a problem with hard drives. You need a surprisingly strong magnet to disturb the data on a hard drive.

I wasn't referring to hard drives. USB thumb drives and such. My publisher still uses floppies and I'm careful with them around magnets. Not thinking, a friend laid a magnetized paper clip on a floppy and lost much of the file.
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #114 of 138
8/14/07 at 9:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

Barefeats has started posting results.

It's not good if you're a gamer.

http://barefeats.com/imacal.html

Ah, I didn't notice before I posted. You beat me on this.
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 138
8/15/07 at 4:49am
I also think that the more options customers will have when they purchase a computer from Apple the more people will be able to get the configuration that best fits their needs.
To me glossy is not a problem, as I got used to it faster than I thought with my MacBook. Apple has recently gone a long way, it seems, to offer more options and I believe they'll go this way far enough to provide customers with a choice of displays as long as it doesn't make it much more expensive for them to have two kinds of iMac ready with different displays, or maybe the glossy gets cheaper to produce, that I wouldn't know.
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 138
8/17/07 at 5:58am
The underpowered GPU is a real missed opportunity. As a games developer an iMac is the perfect machine - I can use Mac OS X for generaly document writing, graphic design, day-to-day stuff. Then boot up in Windows and do game development stuff.

As a games player - there's some exciting shifts - EA bringing it's catalogue to Mac etc. Why aren't Apple supporting this - with a decent spec'd machine. Things move so fast in the graphics world - that not only do you want the best your money can buy for performance, but there's the longevity as well - which is also vital in a system that cannot easily be upgraded.

A missed opportunity Apple - I'm now faced with still having to save up for a Mac Pro, or having two systems - one Mac and one PC.
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 138
8/17/07 at 7:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by grobelaar View Post

The underpowered GPU is.....

the underpowered-ness of the GPU is possibly overstated? an interesting read:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=339616
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #118 of 138
8/17/07 at 1:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadbean View Post

...
If TDM supports Firewire 800, even better!

Does it? I just got a new iMac 20 for my wife and completed the whole process in 2 hours with EVERYTHING via good old "firewire 400". Doesn't everyone on the planet have a firewire cable by now? Target Disk Mode is really quite easy to use. I just wish I could copy straight across through the finder, but a few Software companies might raise objections at that.
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
post #119 of 138
8/17/07 at 1:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by grobelaar View Post

The underpowered GPU is a real missed opportunity. As a games developer an iMac is the perfect machine - I can use Mac OS X for generaly document writing, graphic design, day-to-day stuff. Then boot up in Windows and do game development stuff.

As a games player - there's some exciting shifts - EA bringing it's catalogue to Mac etc. Why aren't Apple supporting this - with a decent spec'd machine. Things move so fast in the graphics world - that not only do you want the best your money can buy for performance, but there's the longevity as well - which is also vital in a system that cannot easily be upgraded.

A missed opportunity Apple - I'm now faced with still having to save up for a Mac Pro, or having two systems - one Mac and one PC.

iMacs will never have gaming gpu's because the design of the iMac could not tolerate the heat generated by an 8800 series card, not the mention the need for a bigger power supply with power support for the gpu.

I would assume this is one of the reasons many are asking of a mid level tower system, which or course they will never see from Apple.
Reply
Reply
post #120 of 138
9/17/07 at 2:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

iMacs will never have gaming gpu's because the design of the iMac could not tolerate the heat generated by an 8800 series card, not the mention the need for a bigger power supply with power support for the gpu.

I would assume this is one of the reasons many are asking of a mid level tower system, which or course they will never see from Apple.

This is really really sad. Apple is loosing many potential customers because of thisand it's not only about games. A friends friend was asking for recommendations on a desktop computer for around $1500 to for her "graphical" school. A good graphics card was needed for 3D applications. Where's the Mac to match that?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Review: Apple 24-inch iMac (aluminum)