Differences between 2.4ghz C2D and 2.8ghz C2D procs?
I am having trouble deciding between the 2.4ghz iMac and the 2.8ghz iMac. Since I would be upgrading the amount of memory in the 2.4ghz version to 2gb, so the only remaining differences would be -
Processor speed - 2.8ghz vs. 2.4ghz
Storage space - 500gb (2.8ghz model) vs. 320gb (2.4ghz model)
I could care less about the storage space so my question is this - will I notice any difference at all between the 2.8ghz and 2.4ghz processors? I don't use much "exotic" software....just the regular stuff the machines come with and maybe some Photoshop down the line.
I'm getting the 10% family and friends discount on mine plus I have $700 in gift cards so the price difference between the two models would be $339.41 more for a 2.8ghz proc and 180gb more hard drive space.
Is it worth the extra cash for the 2.8?
Processor speed - 2.8ghz vs. 2.4ghz
Storage space - 500gb (2.8ghz model) vs. 320gb (2.4ghz model)
I could care less about the storage space so my question is this - will I notice any difference at all between the 2.8ghz and 2.4ghz processors? I don't use much "exotic" software....just the regular stuff the machines come with and maybe some Photoshop down the line.
I'm getting the 10% family and friends discount on mine plus I have $700 in gift cards so the price difference between the two models would be $339.41 more for a 2.8ghz proc and 180gb more hard drive space.
Is it worth the extra cash for the 2.8?
Comments
I am having trouble deciding between the 2.4ghz iMac and the 2.8ghz iMac. Since I would be upgrading the amount of memory in the 2.4ghz version to 2gb, so the only remaining differences would be -
Processor speed - 2.8ghz vs. 2.4ghz
Storage space - 500gb (2.8ghz model) vs. 320gb (2.4ghz model)
I could care less about the storage space so my question is this - will I notice any difference at all between the 2.8ghz and 2.4ghz processors? I don't use much "exotic" software....just the regular stuff the machines come with and maybe some Photoshop down the line.
I'm getting the 10% family and friends discount on mine plus I have $700 in gift cards so the price difference between the two models would be $339.41 more for a 2.8ghz proc and 180gb more hard drive space.
Is it worth the extra cash for the 2.8?
If it is core 2 DUO, then there is no real differance besides the clock rate, but I think the 2.8 ghz imac is core 2 extream which means 4 cores,
If it is core 2 DUO, then there is no real differance besides the clock rate, but I think the 2.8 ghz imac is core 2 extream which means 4 cores,
No the iMac 2.8GHz uses the Merom Extreme (X7900, possibly an overclocked X7800) is which is only two cores.
You probably won't notice much difference between 2.4 and 2.8.
Only Mac Pros have quad core processors.
You probably won't notice much difference between 2.4 and 2.8.
That seems to be accurate. Check out the latest Barefeats comparisons - now including the 2.4 GHz model.
http://barefeats.com/imacal.html
http://barefeats.com/imacal2.html
That seems to be accurate. Check out the latest Barefeats comparisons - now including the 2.4 GHz model.
http://barefeats.com/imacal.html
http://barefeats.com/imacal2.html
Wow, in that first one, the 2.8 got pwned by the 2.33 in almost all of the areas. Must be the 2600 sucking again... The second one made it seem better though. ps. anyone know why the 4-core MP did so much better than the 8-core one in all but one of those tests?
anyone know why the 4-core MP did so much better than the 8-core one in all but one of those tests?
Because they have different video cards. x1900XT in the 4-core vs FX 4500 in the 8-core.
That seems to be accurate. Check out the latest Barefeats comparisons - now including the 2.4 GHz model.
http://barefeats.com/imacal.html
http://barefeats.com/imacal2.html
Wow, in that first one, the 2.8 got pwned by the 2.33 in almost all of the areas. Must be the 2600 sucking again... The second one made it seem better though. ps. anyone know why the 4-core MP did so much better than the 8-core one in all but one of those tests?
Barefeats hasn't met a benchmark it hasn't fucked up yet. Just quit going there, the info is so unscientifically generated as to be equivalent to intentionally misleading. I check back every once in awhile and the methodology has never improved.
Barefeats hasn't met a benchmark it hasn't fucked up yet. Just quit going there, the info is so unscientifically generated as to be equivalent to intentionally misleading. I check back every once in awhile and the methodology has never improved.
fair enough... the results did seem pretty inconsistent.