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).
So it's kind of negligible unless I get the Extreme model?
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.
It's not an easy recommendation though. The older machine is still a pretty solid unit.
I think zinfella does make good points. I can tell you what I'd do, but we don't know for sure which is best for you. If it looks like it's in good shape and it still has several months of warranty left, then it's probably a good deal. If it has some noticeable dings, nicks or scratches that you don't like, then the reconditioned one is probably a better deal, usually reconditioned Macs are in effectively perfect shape.
Based on what you said, I *think* it will still suit you very well for several years.
If you want to be sure about the performance difference, then try waiting a few days for MacWorld magazine to put up a review. They usually compare the new ones against a previous model.
The old iMac( the one your friend will sell to you) has a 2.4 ghz C2D cpu. The new iMac has a a 2.8 ghz cpu. The 400 mhz speed advantage (2.8 -2.4) should translate into a 14.3% faster cpu in the new iMac vs. the old. The new iMacs have other features; more level 2 cache, better gpu and slight architectural enhancements of the cpu, that likely will give it more of speed advantage.
I'm expecting it to be roughly 15% faster. Maybe a little more or a little less. Whether that is enough of a speed boast to justify paying more to get the faster model or not, only you can answer.
The old iMac( the one your friend will sell to you) has a 2.4 ghz C2D cpu. The new iMac has a a 2.8 ghz cpu. The 400 mhz speed advantage (2.8 -2.4) should translate into a 14.3% faster cpu in the new iMac vs. the old. The new iMacs have other features; more level 2 cache, better gpu and slight architectural enhancements of the cpu, that likely will give it more of speed advantage.
I'm expecting it to be roughly 15% faster. Maybe a little more or a little less. Whether that is enough of a speed boast to justify paying more to get the faster model or not, only you can answer.
Hi backtomac
I guess I wasn't clear about which model I was talking.
I'm interested to know the difference between the 24" 3.06 Ghz model with the 8800 and the 24" 2.4 Ghz model.
Interesting comment from seemingly knowledgeable Edgadget poster:
"Montevina" (35/45 series northbridges) is the name of the platform that suceeds to the "Santa Rosa" (965 northbridge), NOT the processor.
In fact, both the "Santa Rosa" and "Montevina" can use either the refreshed 800MHz FSB "Merom" (65nm) or "Penryn" (45nm) Core 2's -as long as they are Socket P compatible-.
The "Montevina" brings mostly a official 1066MHz FSB and lower-voltage DDR3 (1.5v, instead of DDR2's 1.8v) options, but the former already exists unofficially in Santa Rosa, and the CPU's of each platform should be interchangeable pending BIOS/EFI updates -same socket/pin layout, as i said above-.
This is further complicated by the fact that both "Santa Rosa" and "Montevina" chipsets can decrease their FSB's clockspeeds independently from the CPU core clockspeed, pending bandwidth utilization patterns. That's why a Core 2 "Santa Rosa"-based CPU can be used at full speed while its FSB may run at just 400MHz, instead of the 800MHz standard speed.
DDR3-1333 will only improve integrated graphics (an area where clocks, not access latency, play a key role) performance and slightly lower the overall power consumption. Due to increased latencies of the DDR3 technology, you'll be hard pressed to find anything else running faster versus the bog-standard DDR2-667.
So, in short, future "Montevina"-based iMac's/Macbook's/Macbook Pro's will use basically the same CPU's as the "Santa Rosa" platform refresh currently shipping with "Penryn" 45nm Core 2's. The extra 266MHz for the FSB are therefore perfectly negligible in the performance department compared to any recent "Santa Rosa"-based 45nm Core 2 "Penryn". Only a hypothetical mobile quad-core CPU would benefit from it under certain conditions, but the "Penryn" model they've announced for this iMac isn't one, so...
Sorry for the somewhat lengthy post, but it'll be useful if it avoids any upgrade-rush mistakes for many ill-informed or confused buyers out there.
Solipsism,
If I understand the "seemingly knowledgable Endgadget Poster" correctly:
The current Santa Rosa implementation will have already incorporated most of the meaningful Montevina innovations, performance wise. The biggest area for improvement would be the DDR3 memory-improving integrated graphics. However, all four models come with either the ATI or NVidia graphics, this becomes a moot point.
Take into consideration the RAM and HD in the used unit vs. going new or refurbed. The point I was making earlier is sometimes brute CPU gains seem tiny when listed as % gains, but when you use the machine, it feels a lot snappier than the listed 10 or 15% gain. The way Apple bundles their products, you usually get an upgrade on HD size, graphics card performance, a faster CPU with more cache, etc. True, the CPU is only 15% faster, but this machine will probably feel like more than that.
The reason for this is the way we use our computers vs. the way they test them. Often, we'll load up several Apps at the same time and rarely restart. Such use responds very well to added RAM and faster Hard Drives. Be sure you're comparing the major components when deciding which to buy.
A 2.4 Ghz model will outperform a 2.8 Ghz model if it has double the RAM and you keep a dozen or more Apps open all the time. It's easy gobble 2 GB RAM if you use Photoshop, Parallels, Safari with dozens of windows open, etc. In that case, the extra oomph of the CPU will be hammered by the OS's use of Virtual Memory.
For what it's worth, that $1300 2.4 sounds pretty good to me! RAM is cheap. Load it up.
I want an iMac, or should I say I need an iMac. My G4 laptop is old after 3 years so I don't want to buy another Laptop if all I'm getting is 3 years. So I want to get a desktop. The problem is I have two choices, the iMac at $2000 which has the worse screen in computer history
I want an iMac, or should I say I need an iMac. My G4 laptop is old after 3 years so I don't want to buy another Laptop if all I'm getting is 3 years. So I want to get a desktop. The problem is I have two choices, the iMac at $2000 which has the worse screen in computer history
I want an iMac, or should I say I need an iMac. My G4 laptop is old after 3 years so I don't want to buy another Laptop if all I'm getting is 3 years. So I want to get a desktop. The problem is I have two choices, the iMac at $2000 which has the worse screen in computer history
Take into consideration the RAM and HD in the used unit vs. going new or refurbed. The point I was making earlier is sometimes brute CPU gains seem tiny when listed as % gains, but when you use the machine, it feels a lot snappier than the listed 10 or 15% gain. The way Apple bundles their products, you usually get an upgrade on HD size, graphics card performance, a faster CPU with more cache, etc. True, the CPU is only 15% faster, but this machine will probably feel like more than that.
The reason for this is the way we use our computers vs. the way they test them. Often, we'll load up several Apps at the same time and rarely restart. Such use responds very well to added RAM and faster Hard Drives. Be sure you're comparing the major components when deciding which to buy.
A 2.4 Ghz model will outperform a 2.8 Ghz model if it has double the RAM and you keep a dozen or more Apps open all the time. It's easy gobble 2 GB RAM if you use Photoshop, Parallels, Safari with dozens of windows open, etc. In that case, the extra oomph of the CPU will be hammered by the OS's use of Virtual Memory.
For what it's worth, that $1300 2.4 sounds pretty good to me! RAM is cheap. Load it up.
Thanks Bugsnw
I was thinking about the same
but want it to run it by you guys to be certain
If I get the 2.4Ghz one I will definitely max it up to 4GB of RAM.
While I do see reflections on the screen, that comes from the placement and ambient light of the room.
But in that case, it doesn't look like it can be remedied by the usual suggestions that are bandied about. OK, one might move the screen one way, but there's a window there. Move it the other way, there's another window there. Most of the suggestions I see really sound like blaming the room to me.
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
I've done a considerable amount of pro audio work over the years.
It depends on what you mean by audio work. If youare doing tweo channel, almost any model, including the Mini will be fine. If you are doing multi-channel, it depends on how many channels, and what plug-ins you are using.
The relationship is simple with audio, the more channels, and the more plug-ins working on those channels at once, the more power you will need.
Generally, I would say that that model is fine, but without knowing more, such as what programs you intend to use, with which plug-ins, it's impossible to know for sure.
But in that case, it doesn't look like it can be remedied by the usual suggestions that are bandied about. OK, one might move the screen one way, but there's a window there. Move it the other way, there's another window there. Most of the suggestions I see really sound like blaming the room to me.
But, it is the room.
Look, even matter screens are affected by these strong reflections. You don't realize it, because the reflections are spread out over a large area on the screen, and so are muted. They also are diffracted into the matte, and bounce around under the surface behind the matte surface, spreading out over the entire area of the screen. this is why matte screens are incapable of showing a true black (as much as an LCD can have, that is), and lower the saturation, and purity of the image. The light from behind the surface, coming out from the LCD is also bounced around, and comes out all over the screen.
Don't be fooled, as some seem to be, that you aren't affected when you have a matte screen. you are. You just don't notice it.
And as someone here said about not being bothered by reflections from glossy screens, the fact that it doesn't bother you, doesn't mean that you aren't being affected by it.
I prefer glossy screens for some purposes because I know what the reflections are, and what they are doing, but I can't really tell in the case of matte.
And that's why hi end color monitors always used to be glossy.
I've done a considerable amount of pro audio work over the years.
It depends on what you mean by audio work. If youare doing tweo channel, almost any model, including the Mini will be fine. If you are doing multi-channel, it depends on how many channels, and what plug-ins you are using.
The relationship is simple with audio, the more channels, and the more plug-ins working on those channels at once, the more power you will need.
Generally, I would say that that model is fine, but without knowing more, such as what programs you intend to use, with which plug-ins, it's impossible to know for sure.
Hi Mel
I'll be doing up to 32 channels in Pro Tools and Logic 8
will be using Reason 4 with Waves and URS plugins.
Look, even matter screens are affected by these strong reflections. You don't realize it, because the reflections are spread out over a large area on the screen, and so are muted. They also are diffracted into the matte, and bounce around under the surface behind the matte surface, spreading out over the entire area of the screen. this is why matte screens are incapable of showing a true black (as much as an LCD can have, that is), and lower the saturation, and purity of the image. The light from behind the surface, coming out from the LCD is also bounced around, and comes out all over the screen.
Don't be fooled, as some seem to be, that you aren't affected when you have a matte screen. you are. You just don't notice it.
And as someone here said about not being bothered by reflections from glossy screens, the fact that it doesn't bother you, doesn't mean that you aren't being affected by it.
I prefer glossy screens for some purposes because I know what the reflections are, and what they are doing, but I can't really tell in the case of matte.
And that's why hi end color monitors always used to be glossy.
I think both ways are sub-par for these reasons. My CRTs have something on them that's got a multicoating effect, and they weren't necessarily high end. I have a Viewsonic, an IBM, Compaq and Sony monitor that have it. It's smooth glass but cancels out most glare.
I too like the glossy screen over the matte. If one is into graphics, professionally, why aren't they working in an area setup for that type of work, and/or using a hood. I mean if one is serious, that's what they do, not whine about something that they can control. Showing that glossy screen iMac in that nightmare of a room for graphics is the silliest thing I've seen in awhile. My issue is still the uneven light, not the glossy screen that gives great color, but please people, use some common sense, and pay attention to where the iMac is used, if you don't want distracting glare.
Moreover, I would expect a graphics pro to be using Mac Pro, not an iMac.
Comments
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).
So it's kind of negligible unless I get the Extreme model?
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.
Still confused,
thanks for your help
Charles
Still confused,
thanks for your help
Charles
It's not an easy recommendation though. The older machine is still a pretty solid unit.
I think zinfella does make good points. I can tell you what I'd do, but we don't know for sure which is best for you. If it looks like it's in good shape and it still has several months of warranty left, then it's probably a good deal. If it has some noticeable dings, nicks or scratches that you don't like, then the reconditioned one is probably a better deal, usually reconditioned Macs are in effectively perfect shape.
Based on what you said, I *think* it will still suit you very well for several years.
If you want to be sure about the performance difference, then try waiting a few days for MacWorld magazine to put up a review. They usually compare the new ones against a previous model.
Still confused,
thanks for your help
Charles
The old iMac( the one your friend will sell to you) has a 2.4 ghz C2D cpu. The new iMac has a a 2.8 ghz cpu. The 400 mhz speed advantage (2.8 -2.4) should translate into a 14.3% faster cpu in the new iMac vs. the old. The new iMacs have other features; more level 2 cache, better gpu and slight architectural enhancements of the cpu, that likely will give it more of speed advantage.
I'm expecting it to be roughly 15% faster. Maybe a little more or a little less. Whether that is enough of a speed boast to justify paying more to get the faster model or not, only you can answer.
The old iMac( the one your friend will sell to you) has a 2.4 ghz C2D cpu. The new iMac has a a 2.8 ghz cpu. The 400 mhz speed advantage (2.8 -2.4) should translate into a 14.3% faster cpu in the new iMac vs. the old. The new iMacs have other features; more level 2 cache, better gpu and slight architectural enhancements of the cpu, that likely will give it more of speed advantage.
I'm expecting it to be roughly 15% faster. Maybe a little more or a little less. Whether that is enough of a speed boast to justify paying more to get the faster model or not, only you can answer.
Hi backtomac
I guess I wasn't clear about which model I was talking.
I'm interested to know the difference between the 24" 3.06 Ghz model with the 8800 and the 24" 2.4 Ghz model.
thanks for your help and sorry for the mix up
Charles
Hi backtomac
I guess I wasn't clear about which model I was talking.
I'm interested to know the difference between the 24" 3.06 Ghz model with the 8800 and the 24" 2.4 Ghz model.
thanks for your help and sorry for the mix up
Charles
More than 15%. Probably closer to 25%.
More than 15%. Probably closer to 25%.
Ok, thanks backtomac
That's more than negligible
decisions, decisions......
Charles
Interesting comment from seemingly knowledgeable Edgadget poster:
Solipsism,
If I understand the "seemingly knowledgable Endgadget Poster" correctly:
The current Santa Rosa implementation will have already incorporated most of the meaningful Montevina innovations, performance wise. The biggest area for improvement would be the DDR3 memory-improving integrated graphics. However, all four models come with either the ATI or NVidia graphics, this becomes a moot point.
What's left is the wiz-bang features.
Ok, thanks backtomac
That's more than negligible
decisions, decisions......
Charles
Take into consideration the RAM and HD in the used unit vs. going new or refurbed. The point I was making earlier is sometimes brute CPU gains seem tiny when listed as % gains, but when you use the machine, it feels a lot snappier than the listed 10 or 15% gain. The way Apple bundles their products, you usually get an upgrade on HD size, graphics card performance, a faster CPU with more cache, etc. True, the CPU is only 15% faster, but this machine will probably feel like more than that.
The reason for this is the way we use our computers vs. the way they test them. Often, we'll load up several Apps at the same time and rarely restart. Such use responds very well to added RAM and faster Hard Drives. Be sure you're comparing the major components when deciding which to buy.
A 2.4 Ghz model will outperform a 2.8 Ghz model if it has double the RAM and you keep a dozen or more Apps open all the time. It's easy gobble 2 GB RAM if you use Photoshop, Parallels, Safari with dozens of windows open, etc. In that case, the extra oomph of the CPU will be hammered by the OS's use of Virtual Memory.
For what it's worth, that $1300 2.4 sounds pretty good to me! RAM is cheap. Load it up.
http://www.engadget.com/photos/apple...arking/778579/
Or a Mac Pro for $3700
I'm starting to hate Apple.
I want an iMac, or should I say I need an iMac. My G4 laptop is old after 3 years so I don't want to buy another Laptop if all I'm getting is 3 years. So I want to get a desktop. The problem is I have two choices, the iMac at $2000 which has the worse screen in computer history
http://www.engadget.com/photos/apple...arking/778579/
Or a Mac Pro for $3700
I'm starting to hate Apple.
You can get a new iMac for $1100, not $2000, that will be better than your G4 in every way.
A Mac Pro costs $2700 for the 2x4-core system.
I want an iMac, or should I say I need an iMac. My G4 laptop is old after 3 years so I don't want to buy another Laptop if all I'm getting is 3 years. So I want to get a desktop. The problem is I have two choices, the iMac at $2000 which has the worse screen in computer history
http://www.engadget.com/photos/apple...arking/778579/
Or a Mac Pro for $3700
I'm starting to hate Apple.
the link you've shown does not prove nor disprove your statement "worse screen in computer history"
While I do see reflections on the screen, that comes from the placement and ambient light of the room.
Take into consideration the RAM and HD in the used unit vs. going new or refurbed. The point I was making earlier is sometimes brute CPU gains seem tiny when listed as % gains, but when you use the machine, it feels a lot snappier than the listed 10 or 15% gain. The way Apple bundles their products, you usually get an upgrade on HD size, graphics card performance, a faster CPU with more cache, etc. True, the CPU is only 15% faster, but this machine will probably feel like more than that.
The reason for this is the way we use our computers vs. the way they test them. Often, we'll load up several Apps at the same time and rarely restart. Such use responds very well to added RAM and faster Hard Drives. Be sure you're comparing the major components when deciding which to buy.
A 2.4 Ghz model will outperform a 2.8 Ghz model if it has double the RAM and you keep a dozen or more Apps open all the time. It's easy gobble 2 GB RAM if you use Photoshop, Parallels, Safari with dozens of windows open, etc. In that case, the extra oomph of the CPU will be hammered by the OS's use of Virtual Memory.
For what it's worth, that $1300 2.4 sounds pretty good to me! RAM is cheap. Load it up.
Thanks Bugsnw
I was thinking about the same
but want it to run it by you guys to be certain
If I get the 2.4Ghz one I will definitely max it up to 4GB of RAM.
thanks,
Charles
While I do see reflections on the screen, that comes from the placement and ambient light of the room.
But in that case, it doesn't look like it can be remedied by the usual suggestions that are bandied about. OK, one might move the screen one way, but there's a window there. Move it the other way, there's another window there. Most of the suggestions I see really sound like blaming the room to me.
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
I've done a considerable amount of pro audio work over the years.
It depends on what you mean by audio work. If youare doing tweo channel, almost any model, including the Mini will be fine. If you are doing multi-channel, it depends on how many channels, and what plug-ins you are using.
The relationship is simple with audio, the more channels, and the more plug-ins working on those channels at once, the more power you will need.
Generally, I would say that that model is fine, but without knowing more, such as what programs you intend to use, with which plug-ins, it's impossible to know for sure.
But in that case, it doesn't look like it can be remedied by the usual suggestions that are bandied about. OK, one might move the screen one way, but there's a window there. Move it the other way, there's another window there. Most of the suggestions I see really sound like blaming the room to me.
But, it is the room.
Look, even matter screens are affected by these strong reflections. You don't realize it, because the reflections are spread out over a large area on the screen, and so are muted. They also are diffracted into the matte, and bounce around under the surface behind the matte surface, spreading out over the entire area of the screen. this is why matte screens are incapable of showing a true black (as much as an LCD can have, that is), and lower the saturation, and purity of the image. The light from behind the surface, coming out from the LCD is also bounced around, and comes out all over the screen.
Don't be fooled, as some seem to be, that you aren't affected when you have a matte screen. you are. You just don't notice it.
And as someone here said about not being bothered by reflections from glossy screens, the fact that it doesn't bother you, doesn't mean that you aren't being affected by it.
I prefer glossy screens for some purposes because I know what the reflections are, and what they are doing, but I can't really tell in the case of matte.
And that's why hi end color monitors always used to be glossy.
I've done a considerable amount of pro audio work over the years.
It depends on what you mean by audio work. If youare doing tweo channel, almost any model, including the Mini will be fine. If you are doing multi-channel, it depends on how many channels, and what plug-ins you are using.
The relationship is simple with audio, the more channels, and the more plug-ins working on those channels at once, the more power you will need.
Generally, I would say that that model is fine, but without knowing more, such as what programs you intend to use, with which plug-ins, it's impossible to know for sure.
Hi Mel
I'll be doing up to 32 channels in Pro Tools and Logic 8
will be using Reason 4 with Waves and URS plugins.
what you think?
thanks,
Charles
But, it is the room.
Look, even matter screens are affected by these strong reflections. You don't realize it, because the reflections are spread out over a large area on the screen, and so are muted. They also are diffracted into the matte, and bounce around under the surface behind the matte surface, spreading out over the entire area of the screen. this is why matte screens are incapable of showing a true black (as much as an LCD can have, that is), and lower the saturation, and purity of the image. The light from behind the surface, coming out from the LCD is also bounced around, and comes out all over the screen.
Don't be fooled, as some seem to be, that you aren't affected when you have a matte screen. you are. You just don't notice it.
And as someone here said about not being bothered by reflections from glossy screens, the fact that it doesn't bother you, doesn't mean that you aren't being affected by it.
I prefer glossy screens for some purposes because I know what the reflections are, and what they are doing, but I can't really tell in the case of matte.
And that's why hi end color monitors always used to be glossy.
I think both ways are sub-par for these reasons. My CRTs have something on them that's got a multicoating effect, and they weren't necessarily high end. I have a Viewsonic, an IBM, Compaq and Sony monitor that have it. It's smooth glass but cancels out most glare.
Moreover, I would expect a graphics pro to be using Mac Pro, not an iMac.