or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple quietly refreshes iMac line, now up to 3.06GHz
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple quietly refreshes iMac line, now up to 3.06GHz - Page 6

post #201 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post

1. Consumers also suffer from reflections, the fact they don't recognise what the problem is is irrelevant. As is the spurious suggestion that they are the ones who will be watching movies (video editors anyone?) not web browsing, or trying to read text documents and emails through the reflections.

2. How does NOT putting the glass on which is an extra, adds to the weight and complexity of fittings etc make for "additional complexity"?

3. How come it is possible to choose screens on the MacBook following your logic?
.

Ok is anyone else getting tired of gross exaggerations? I have a MacBook... glossy screen as you know. I can't remember ONE time I had difficulty reading text or browsing websites because I was being blinded by reflections. In fact the ONLY time I ever see reflections is if light is coming in from a window and shining directly on my screen and even then it's not that bad at ALL. I have yet to use my MacBook outdoors after nearly 2 years of ownership so that has not been a problem either. Look, I understand the complaints from video editors and others, but the people that are suggesting these screens are unusable for anyone because of all the glare just don't know what they are talking about. I am a consumer, but I would not consider myself to be "suffering" from reflections, nor do I consider myself to not "recognize what the problem is" as you say, because for me there is no problem. It's a personal preference, and in some cases for certain people, a necessity to have a matte screen. I understand that, but if you are not one of these people, and you are ranting and raving about the horrible glare problem, just stop because there is very little if any truth to it.

As for your number 3, there is no screen option on the MacBook! Only the pro...

Edit: I will add one thing... I have noticed that when you look at the glossy screens in the Apple Store, the reflections are much more apparent, but that has to do with the bright fluorescent lighting in the store. In normal home lighting, the experience is much different.
post #202 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

And who controls the money, why since Jan 07, the Democratic controlled Congress.

Actually, the unelected banking cartel known as the "Federal" Reserve controls the money without any congressional accountability...
post #203 of 363
I pulled the trigger too. Default 3.0 with more RAM coming from Newegg. I'm worried a bit about the fan noise with that overclocked Penryn and the 8800 GS in there (I had a Rev A G5 iMac and that fan was annoying), but we'll see what happens.

I do a lot of photography too so I'm a bit scared about the screen, but I've got a second screen I'll have hooked up so I can just use that one if it's a problem. I just couldn't see buying a Mac Proverkill when the cost difference is the same as a plasma TV for the living room...

Should be a nice upgrade from my 1.66 Core Duo Mini.
Anyone for pie?
Reply
Anyone for pie?
Reply
post #204 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post

am I right?

As they say, "Ignorance is bliss.'

My apologies for interrupting you karma.

I would appreciate if you didn't bother to thank me.
post #205 of 363
for Price conscious (not so spec conscious) buyers apple online store now with clearance of previous generation iMacs with 200 bucks off, oh well amazon also has some good deal...

why macbook pro not clearing for almost three months (apple online store clearance section)? are we really in recession? really?

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 #206 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanmugam View Post

for Price conscious (not so spec conscious) buyers apple online store now with clearance of previous generation iMacs with 200 bucks off, oh well amazon also has some good deal...

why macbook pro not clearing for almost three months (apple online store clearance section)? are we really in recession? really?

Or MacMall Save $100 to $195, plus free Parallels Desktop and Epson Stylus Printer for the New iMac!

http://www.macmall.com/macmall/famil...wt.mc_id=22699
post #207 of 363
yeah they have good deals for close-out models too

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 #208 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by KD86 View Post

Actually, the unelected banking cartel known as the "Federal" Reserve controls the money without any congressional accountability...

Lack of understanding here, in a big way.
post #209 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Or MacMall Save $100 to $195, plus free Parallels Desktop and Epson Stylus Printer for the New iMac!

http://www.macmall.com/macmall/famil...wt.mc_id=22699

At the end of the week, after I see that there aren't any problems that would affect us, Im planning in buying two 3.06 GHz models from them.

It's just too bad they do that mail in rebate crap.

But, we sure can use two really shitty printers to go with our other five printers!
post #210 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Lack of understanding here, in a big way.

Not really. The Federal Reserve is not federal, that is a fact. We do not elect the board of governors, that is also a fact. They also do not technically answer to the government since they aren't really a branch of the federal government and only pose as such, also a fact. They are not accountable to the public since no policy meetings are televised or made public in any way. If you would like to tell me how I lack understanding in a big way when I made ONE statement, then lose the arrogance and tell me what you are referring to. Whatever, this is off topic anyway.
post #211 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

At the end of the week, after I see that there aren't any problems that would affect us, Im planning in buying two 3.06 GHz models from them.

It's just too bad they do that mail in rebate crap.

But, we sure can use two really shitty printers to go with our other five printers!

mel, do tell us how is the performance once you got one...

cannot wait to see the internals (tear down photos) what CPU and GPU, mobo it uses...

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 #212 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

At the end of the week, after I see that there aren't any problems that would affect us, Im planning in buying two 3.06 GHz models from them.

It's just too bad they do that mail in rebate crap.

But, we sure can use two really shitty printers to go with our other five printers!

I thought they were one of the two major Mac retailers known to renege on their rebates.
post #213 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by KD86 View Post

Not really. The Federal Reserve is not federal, that is a fact. We do not elect the board of governors, that is also a fact. They also do not technically answer to the government since they aren't really a branch of the federal government and only pose as such, also a fact. They are not accountable to the public since no policy meetings are televised or made public in any way. Whatever else you read into what I said is up for debate, but I said nothing that is untrue. If you would like to debate my economics professors be my guest.

While you have your basic facts about what it is, you don't have the understanding of why.

The entire concept of the Fed is to insulate it from political interference. Both from the President, and Congress. That's why the terms are long, and they can do what they have to do away from the public, and governmental eyes.

While the system isn't perfect, it works pretty well.

That's why the Treasury department exists as a separate department.

You might have noticed that most countries have copied the concept of the Fed. Europe has their own version, which is also independent.
post #214 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanmugam View Post

mel, do tell us how is the performance once you got one...

cannot wait to see the internals (tear down photos) what CPU and GPU, mobo it uses...

Sure, I'll be doing the tests anyway.

But I don't plan on tearing them apart. Both my wife and daughter would get real upset real fast.
post #215 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I thought they were one of the two major Mac retailers known to renege on their rebates.

I don't know. I've bought stuff from them in the past without problems, but none had rebates. Which is the other?
post #216 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't know. I've bought stuff from them in the past without problems, but none had rebates. Which is the other?

I think the other's name ends in the word "Connection"
post #217 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I think the other's name ends in the word "Connection"

Wow! You seem reticent.

I've had the same experience with them, so I don't know there either.

I just hope it's not a problem. I don't mind saving $200 if it doesn't take any work.
post #218 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post

1. Consumers also suffer from reflections, the fact they don't recognise what the problem is is irrelevant. As is the spurious suggestion that they are the ones who will be watching movies (video editors anyone?) not web browsing, or trying to read text documents and emails through the reflections.

2. How does NOT putting the glass on which is an extra, adds to the weight and complexity of fittings etc make for "additional complexity"?

3. How come it is possible to choose screens on the MacBook following your logic?

Yes, yes, and yes.

I couldn't agree more.
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #219 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Sure, I'll be doing the tests anyway.

But I don't plan on tearing them apart. Both my wife and daughter would get real upset real fast.

sure

ifixit or macnn or anandtech will do that

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 #220 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

While you have your basic facts about what it is, you don't have the understanding of why.

The entire concept of the Fed is to insulate it from political interference. Both from the President, and Congress. That's why the terms are long, and they can do what they have to do away from the public, and governmental eyes.

While the system isn't perfect, it works pretty well.

That's why the Treasury department exists as a separate department.

You might have noticed that most countries have copied the concept of the Fed. Europe has their own version, which is also independent.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate your answer, however, I made one statement... how do you know what I lack in understanding about how it came to be based on that? I understand the concept of the Fed and how it is protected from political and public scrutiny. It IS beneficial.. but for who? For the bankers or for the people? That is rhetorical btw... this probably isn't the place for this type of debate but thanks for taking the time to expand on what you meant in your reply to me.
post #221 of 363
Am I the only one who doesn't see any sort of point to the 3.06GHz model? A 13% clockspeed difference isn't going to be visible with anything other than an artificial benchmark. It remains to be seen if the faster processor results in increased noise, but even if it doesn't, $200 for an imperceptible difference sounds like a lot. I understand there is such a thing as wanting all the power you can get, but then you have no business buying an iMac.

While we're at it, why does Apple announce GHz to second desimal now? Those who care about 0.09 GHz are going to be people who'd really prefer to know the exact model of the processor, maybe graphics chip clockspeeds - neither of which Apple publishes.
post #222 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

While we're at it, why does Apple announce GHz to second desimal now? Those who care about 0.09 GHz are going to be people who'd really prefer to know the exact model of the processor, maybe graphics chip clockspeeds - neither of which Apple publishes.

Because 2,66 GHz is too much to label it as 2,6 from Apple's marketing point of view, but not enough to warrant a 2,7 label without getting sued.

Engadget has XBench numbers for the 3,06 btw
post #223 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

Am I the only one who doesn't see any sort of point to the 3.06GHz model? A 13% clockspeed difference isn't going to be visible with anything other than an artificial benchmark. It remains to be seen if the faster processor results in increased noise, but even if it doesn't, $200 for an imperceptible difference sounds like a lot. I understand there is such a thing as wanting all the power you can get, but then you have no business buying an iMac.

While we're at it, why does Apple announce GHz to second desimal now? Those who care about 0.09 GHz are going to be people who'd really prefer to know the exact model of the processor, maybe graphics chip clockspeeds - neither of which Apple publishes.

Actually, the reason I went for the 3.0 was because I wanted everything else, and the 2.8 with added 8800, 500GB HD, and 4GB of RAM (from Apple) was only $60 less than the default 3.0 and RAM from Newegg.

You make a good point about the noise - I'm sort of questioning whether I shouldn't have just stuck with the 2.8 (I would think that 20 watts in that iMac enclosure could make the fans run more).
Anyone for pie?
Reply
Anyone for pie?
Reply
post #224 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

Am I the only one who doesn't see any sort of point to the 3.06GHz model? A 13% clockspeed difference isn't going to be visible with anything other than an artificial benchmark. It remains to be seen if the faster processor results in increased noise, but even if it doesn't, $200 for an imperceptible difference sounds like a lot. I understand there is such a thing as wanting all the power you can get, but then you have no business buying an iMac.

While we're at it, why does Apple announce GHz to second desimal now? Those who care about 0.09 GHz are going to be people who'd really prefer to know the exact model of the processor, maybe graphics chip clockspeeds - neither of which Apple publishes.

Any difference is better than no difference. 13% isn't all that small, though it isn't a world beater.

With all of the other little improvements, it should help.

Even home users are doing work that takes some time. Cutting 13% off that time can be considerable. If you're making a home movie, and it takes 120 minutes to render, even that 16 minutes cut from it makes a difference. That's down to 104 minutes.

As for the numbering, that's how it's done in the industry. Apple is using whatever the numbers are. Why does that bother you?
post #225 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Any difference is better than no difference. 13% isn't all that small, though it isn't a world beater.

With all of the other little improvements, it should help.

Even home users are doing work that takes some time. Cutting 13% off that time can be considerable. If you're making a home movie, and it takes 120 minutes to render, even that 16 minutes cut from it makes a difference. That's down to 104 minutes.

As for the numbering, that's how it's done in the industry. Apple is using whatever the numbers are. Why does that bother you?

I think the 13% difference would be noticeable if you use Handbrake to encode videos.

That still takes a while on my 2.16 ghz C2D MBP.

I've got my eye on the 2.6 ghz 20" iMac and ATV.
post #226 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

Am I the only one who doesn't see any sort of point to the 3.06GHz model? A 13% clockspeed difference isn't going to be visible with anything other than an artificial benchmark. It remains to be seen if the faster processor results in increased noise, but even if it doesn't, $200 for an imperceptible difference sounds like a lot. I understand there is such a thing as wanting all the power you can get, but then you have no business buying an iMac.

It would be an unusual consumer who trades up each model to the next one, so for most people it is a distinct increase in speed from a much slower machine. Each increase in speed just takes us closer to the ultimate Mac which completes the task before you thought you might want to do it.

There is a lot to be said for the iMac form factor, even if you disregarded its undoubted power. The last 3 Macs I have purchased have all been iMacs and my number one favorite thing about them is no more large power hungry box cluttering under my desk.

I just worry about the day these models need replacing, because no way will I buy a glossy computer screen unless they can eliminate the reflections.
post #227 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Or use steel wool.

Or apply a liberal dose of spit. Perhaps that would just be expressing an opinion?
post #228 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

As they say, "Ignorance is bliss.'

As long as you're happy with that !!
post #229 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I think the 13% difference would be noticeable if you use Handbrake to encode videos.

That still takes a while on my 2.16 ghz C2D MBP.

I've got my eye on the 2.6 ghz 20" iMac and ATV.

Handbrake is a "fire and forget" kind of operation though, requiring no interactivity, and you can just walk away from the computer and it will still be chugging away. I don't think most people would notice the difference between 2.8 and 3.06 on "hands on" type operations. If you do have overnight, all-night kind of tasks, then maybe it would be worthwhile, get a project rendered quicker.
post #230 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Handbrake is a "fire and forget" kind of operation though, requiring no interactivity, and you can just walk away from the computer and it will still be chugging away. I don't think most people would notice the difference between 2.8 and 3.06 on "hands on" type operations. If you do have overnight, all-night kind of tasks, then maybe it would be worthwhile, get a project rendered quicker.

How about we just appreciate the speed increase and allow those that value their time enjoy the option of buying Apple's 'extreme' models.

Every time there is a CPU speed increase, dozens of negative posts litter this site. It's comical, really. I support (with my dollars) each and every improvement Apple makes to their hardware. It all adds up.

I've had the luxury of buying dozens of iMacs over the years for our firm. Oftentimes you'll read a review that states there is such a small difference between model X and model Y that it's not worth the money. This is short sighted and also rarely true. Using iMacs with faster CPUs feels faster and throughout a long day of pushing the machine hard, saves a lot of time.

I do agree that sometimes the price differential is too high, but that's another issue.
post #231 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post

How about we just appreciate the speed increase and allow those that value their time enjoy the option of buying Apple's 'extreme' models.

Every time there is a CPU speed increase, dozens of negative posts litter this site. It's comical, really. I support (with my dollars) each and every improvement Apple makes to their hardware. It all adds up.

You buy every revision? Sure, that adds up. What do you do with it that justifies replacing the entire machine for a 15% (in this case) speedup?
post #232 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

You buy every revision? Sure, that adds up. What do you do with it that justifies replacing the entire machine for a 15% (in this case) speedup?

Oops.. should have read "(Sometimes with my dollars)"

Obviously I don't purchase every revision. But between our firm and our clients (and friends and family), I get hands-on with many models. Some people spring for the best, some prefer to save. Whatever works for ya. I'm just saying the speed differences are often more pronounced than reviewers would have you believe.
post #233 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Any difference is better than no difference. 13% isn't all that small, though it isn't a world beater.

With all of the other little improvements, it should help.

Even home users are doing work that takes some time. Cutting 13% off that time can be considerable. If you're making a home movie, and it takes 120 minutes to render, even that 16 minutes cut from it makes a difference. That's down to 104 minutes.

Unless you use a watch, you aren't going to actually perceive a difference. Obviously you can always grow a job to be large enough that the time delta of when that job and the original job complete, the difference sounds large. But let's look at the options if your jobs *really* are so large that it'd be valuable for you to squeeze them out faster.

$1800 iMac = baseline
+ $200 for 3GHz processor = 13% performance improvement -> 15$ for 1% improvement
+$500 to switch to quadcore Mac Pro = +100% performance -> 5$ for 1% improvement
+ $1000 to switch to octocore Mac Pro = +300% performance -> 3.3$ for 1% improvement

These are all best cases. The first option assumes the job is entirely CPU bound, which is rarely the case. In addition, the second and third options assume perfect concurrency, which is also rarely the case, but long-running jobs tend to be very concurrent nevertheless.

The option to switch to a Mac Pro beats the iMac processor upgrade so completely that even if the job only utilized three cores of the quadcore, the quadcore would *still* be a better deal by far.

This is not rocket science. iMacs are fine in general. I still see no point in paying $200 extra for the 3.0. If you get it for $60 like Pie Man's internal accounting says, *that* is a price that makes sense.
post #234 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post

Oops.. should have read "(Sometimes with my dollars)"

Obviously I don't purchase every revision. But between our firm and our clients (and friends and family), I get hands-on with many models. Some people spring for the best, some prefer to save. Whatever works for ya. I'm just saying the speed differences are often more pronounced than reviewers would have you believe.

Maybe it is. I've not owned or used different speeds of Macs of the same revision, so that puts a limit on the most applicable kind of experience.

However, I have owned two different speeds of the same x86 workstation, the same with RISC workstations, and I couldn't tell the difference when the only thing changed is a 15% higher chip speed. That's why I lend credence to the review impressions.
post #235 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

Unless you use a watch, you aren't going to actually perceive a difference. Obviously you can always grow a job to be large enough that the time delta of when that job and the original job complete, the difference sounds large. But let's look at the options if your jobs *really* are so large that it'd be valuable for you to squeeze them out faster.

$1800 iMac = baseline
+ $200 for 3GHz processor = 13% performance improvement -> 15$ for 1% improvement
+$500 to switch to quadcore Mac Pro = +100% performance -> 5$ for 1% improvement
+ $1000 to switch to octocore Mac Pro = +300% performance -> 3.3$ for 1% improvement

These are all best cases. The first option assumes the job is entirely CPU bound, which is rarely the case. In addition, the second and third options assume perfect concurrency, which is also rarely the case, but long-running jobs tend to be very concurrent nevertheless.

The option to switch to a Mac Pro beats the iMac processor upgrade so completely that even if the job only utilized three cores of the quadcore, the quadcore would *still* be a better deal by far.

This is not rocket science. iMacs are fine in general. I still see no point in paying $200 extra for the 3.0. If you get it for $60 like Pie Man's internal accounting says, *that* is a price that makes sense.

Yeahbut, that takes away the ability of some here to tell others what they need, especially if they don't know what is needed!


Personally, I would never buy an iMac without AppleCare, but, I wouldn't buy AppleCare for a Mac Pro. IF, you spec out a new 8 core Mac Pro, going with the 2.8GHz processor, decent video card, wireless card, wireless keyboard, and wireless mouse, AND a 23" Cinema Display, you've nearly doubled the iMac pricing. In the end, the Mac Pro will still be going strong when the iMac bites the dust. So, cipher that into the equation, mon ami.

I NEVER buy Apple RAM or hard drives, thank you very much!
post #236 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Handbrake is a "fire and forget" kind of operation though, requiring no interactivity, and you can just walk away from the computer and it will still be chugging away. I don't think most people would notice the difference between 2.8 and 3.06 on "hands on" type operations. If you do have overnight, all-night kind of tasks, then maybe it would be worthwhile, get a project rendered quicker.

You make some good points.

I only used handbrake as an example because its an app that I use that seems to actually stress the cpu.

Everything else is really is pretty easily handled by my 2.16 ghz C2D cpu. Perhaps an app like Aperture would benefit from the better cpu (3.0 vs. 2.8). I know it also depends upon the gpu.

I look forward to MacWorld testing.
post #237 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

Unless you use a watch, you aren't going to actually perceive a difference. Obviously you can always grow a job to be large enough that the time delta of when that job and the original job complete, the difference sounds large. But let's look at the options if your jobs *really* are so large that it'd be valuable for you to squeeze them out faster.

$1800 iMac = baseline
+ $200 for 3GHz processor = 13% performance improvement -> 15$ for 1% improvement
+$500 to switch to quadcore Mac Pro = +100% performance -> 5$ for 1% improvement
+ $1000 to switch to octocore Mac Pro = +300% performance -> 3.3$ for 1% improvement

These are all best cases. The first option assumes the job is entirely CPU bound, which is rarely the case. In addition, the second and third options assume perfect concurrency, which is also rarely the case, but long-running jobs tend to be very concurrent nevertheless.

The option to switch to a Mac Pro beats the iMac processor upgrade so completely that even if the job only utilized three cores of the quadcore, the quadcore would *still* be a better deal by far.

This is not rocket science. iMacs are fine in general. I still see no point in paying $200 extra for the 3.0. If you get it for $60 like Pie Man's internal accounting says, *that* is a price that makes sense.

Believe me, you'll notice 16 minutes. Sometimes even five minutes can make a difference.

The cost isn't what you think it is.

We're talking about home use here.

People will pay got a faster cpu, bigger HDD, and a much faster gpu for $400, but not to switch to a Mac Pro. That's a far greater cost when a 24" monitor is factored in. Then you would have to get the faster card as well.
post #238 of 363
Maybe a stupid question,

So you guys think the difference in performance between the new 24" iMac and
the 24" 2.4 Ghz is "somewhat" negligible?

I'll be using it mostly for Audio and light video editing.


I'm asking because I can get a Brand NEW 24" 2.4Ghz iMac from a friend for $1,300.


thanks for your help
regards,
Charles
post #239 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastersonics View Post

Maybe a stupid question,

So you guys think the difference in performance between the new 24" iMac and
the 24" 2.4 Ghz is "somewhat" negligible?

I'll be using it mostly for Audio and light video editing.


I'm asking because I can get a Brand NEW 24" 2.4Ghz iMac from a friend for $1,300.


thanks for your help
regards,
Charles


My friend decided to go with a 8 core Mac Pro so he's basically giving this iMac away.
What you guys think?

regards,
Charles
post #240 of 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastersonics View Post

Maybe a stupid question,

So you guys think the difference in performance between the new 24" iMac and
the 24" 2.4 Ghz is "somewhat" negligible?

I'll be using it mostly for Audio and light video editing.


I'm asking because I can get a Brand NEW 24" 2.4Ghz iMac from a friend for $1,300.


thanks for your help
regards,
Charles

I don't think it'll be negligible.

The new 24" iMac comes with a 2.8 ghz cpu more L-2 cache and a better gpu. I think it'll wind up being 15% faster than the older 2.4 ghz 24" iMac.

That's an extrapolation. I look forward to MacWorld testing. The previous debate was whether the 3.0 ghz iMac was going to be noticeably faster than the 2.8 ghz version and whether it was worth the premium price.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple quietly refreshes iMac line, now up to 3.06GHz