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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
You can get that machine refurbed direct from Apple for 1300, so while it's a good deal it's not a really great one. I think it boils down to your financial situation really. I personally like the idea of the newest machine I can get just so I can sell it down the road for as much as possible, but it's not like there's a huge difference between the two (especially if you don't get the 8800 in the new model).
Comments
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
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).
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?
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.
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.
Or use steel wool.
Or apply a liberal dose of spit. Perhaps that would just be expressing an opinion?
As they say, "Ignorance is bliss.'
As long as you're happy with that !!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
You can get that machine refurbed direct from Apple for 1300, so while it's a good deal it's not a really great one. I think it boils down to your financial situation really. I personally like the idea of the newest machine I can get just so I can sell it down the road for as much as possible, but it's not like there's a huge difference between the two (especially if you don't get the 8800 in the new model).