iMac Penryn: tell me why.

if you had $2200 to spend on an iMac, why in the world would you get the 3.06Ghz with 2GB RAM and a 500GB drive and GeForce video card
when, for the same price, you could get the 2.8Ghz version with 4GB RAM, a 750GB drive, and upgrade to the same Geforce card?

Some people want the faster processor?

but

but, what i'm asking is: why?

with the options i laid out, wouldn't the 2.8Ghz ultimately be the faster / better setup?

blankenship said:

but, what i'm asking is: why?

with the options i laid out, wouldn't the 2.8Ghz ultimately be the faster / better setup?

Click to expand...

I find that it is fruitless venture to figure out why some people like some things and others don't. You'll never get a straight answer, no matter how you phrase the question. You think the one setup is better... someone else may not.

A popular 80's television show theme song said it best:

"Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum,
What might be right for you, may not be right for some....
So what,
They'll have theirs, and you'll have yours, and I'll have mine."

shoulda coulda woulda

hee hee.
i should phrase it differently. how about this:

for $2200, you could either get an iMac with 3.06Ghz processor, 2GB RAM, 500GB drive and a GeForce video card.
OR
for the same price, you could get the 2.8Ghz version with 4GB RAM, a 750GB drive, and upgrade to the same Geforce card.

which setup is faster / better, and why?

I would have to say the first one as it provides more potential than the second one, which is essentially maxed out. You can upgrade the RAM on the first one for dirt cheap, making it a faster computer for slightly more than $2200

blankenship said:

hee hee.
i should phrase it differently. how about this:

for $2200, you could either get an iMac with 3.06Ghz processor, 2GB RAM, 500GB drive and a GeForce video card.
OR
for the same price, you could get the 2.8Ghz version with 4GB RAM, a 750GB drive, and upgrade to the same Geforce card.

which setup is faster / better, and why?

Click to expand...

"Faster" is easy to answer. The 3.06 Ghz processor is physically 260~ Mhz faster than the 2.8 Ghz processor.

"Better" is subjective. The definition of "'better" relies solely on an individual's perspective. It all depends on what a person would use the machine for. Different people would have different opinions on what makes one better than the other.

I have used and owned both and still think that PPC Macs are "better" than Intel models, regardless of their processor clock speeds.

Like I said in my last post:

You'll never get a straight answer, no matter how you phrase the question. You think the one setup is better... someone else may not.

Click to expand...

An individual is the only one that can determine which is "better" for his needs. Other people's input is simply opinion and their own personal preference.

i guess

looks like it costs $200 to upgrade the 3.06Mhz to 4GB RAM, and another $100 to get up to the 750MB drive.

so, one way to look at is is:
if you had these same options on the 2.8Ghz, you'd be paying $300 to upgrade to the faster 3.06 processor. think it's worth it?

what i really AM interested in IS exactly

Other people's input...opinion... and their own personal preference.

Click to expand...

like, for instance, why D3v1L80Y do you feel the PPC Macs are better?

Kash said:

I would have to say the first one as it provides more potential than the second one, which is essentially maxed out. You can upgrade the RAM on the first one for dirt cheap, making it a faster computer for slightly more than $2200

Click to expand...

Bingo.

Having said that, when I was building gaming rigs in the later 1990's and early 20's, anyone doing that always knew that getting the very fastest processors was a complete waste of money, and the real trick was RAM and a decent gfx card. The same still applies today, although if you don't intend to game, a slightly faster CPU is peferable to a killer GPU.

In terms of real world performance, the 3ghz model will five you about 3 or 4% more speed.

Now the really exciting thing to look for is Nehalem, at the end of this year. at the same clock speed, with the same number of cores, Nehalem has been shown to be more than 120% faster than a Quad Core Penryn. Nehalem will boast 8 cores and 16 threads, possibly making it anything up to 200% faster, clock for clock.

Nehalem could be one of the biggest jumps in CPU performance from one generation to the next, ever.

So... rather than eeking out 3% now, for an extra $300 or whatever, I'd either stick with what you have and get one of these bad boys, or get the one with more memory.

into the future, and beyond

well, i can't stick with what i have now. it's a freakin' dual-500Mhz G4, and i do lots of intensive photoshop work, usually on 150-200MB files. i'm in the stone-age, and spend a LOT of time twiddling my thumbs.

having said that, which do you think i should buy?
(or, the 3rd interesting $2200 option: 2.16Ghz used MacBook Pro with additional 23" display).

realistically, how long do you think it would be before this "Nehalem" makes it into the iMacs?

blankenship said:

looks like it costs $200 to upgrade the 3.06Mhz to 4GB RAM, and another $100 to get up to the 750MB drive.

so, one way to look at is is:
if you had these same options on the 2.8Ghz, you'd be paying $300 to upgrade to the faster 3.06 processor. think it's worth it?

Click to expand...

And you'd be a fool to pay Apple to upgrade those parts for you. You can get a third party 2x2GB set for a fraction of the price Apple charges, and hard drives are dirt cheap nowadays. You can get a terabyte drive for around $150.

blankenship said:

well, i can't stick with what i have now. it's a freakin' dual-500Mhz G4, and i do lots of intensive photoshop work, usually on 150-200MB files. i'm in the stone-age, and spend a LOT of time twiddling my thumbs.

having said that, which do you think i should buy?
(or, the 3rd interesting $2200 option: 2.16Ghz used MacBook Pro with additional 23" display).

Click to expand...

OK, ok - well the difference between your G4 and the C2D is so huge, really you'd never see the difference between 2.8ghz and 3.06ghz. I'd get the former, and the additional RAM - but upgrade the RAM afterwards, via 3rd party. Spend the spare cash on CS3 or something.

realistically, how long do you think it would be before this "Nehalem" makes it into the iMacs?

Click to expand...

January '09 for Mac Pros and MBP, March '09 for iMac and MacBook. Don't wait that long. I thought maybe you have a G5 or a Core Duo.

I have a CD MacBook '06, and my next machine will likely me a MBP with this chipset and the new nVidia chipsets.

The iMac you're looking at will be a fine machine, you'll be blown away by the speed difference.

well, then

okay, but the problem is, if i get the lesser 2GB RAM option from Apple, then i have to literally throw the included RAM away if i want to upgrade to 4GB, because it comes as (2) 1GB sticks which will use up both my slots (not (1) 2GB stick that I can just add to). wouldn't it be better to just get the 4GB from Apple at the outset?

would you advise getting the 2.8Ghz iMac instead of a 2.16Ghz used MacBook Pro with external 23" display? i'd like the flexibility of the MacBook, but i'd guess it's significantly slower than the iMac (bus, RAM capacity, and whatnot).

blankenship said:

okay, but the problem is, if i get the lesser 2GB RAM option from Apple, then i have to literally throw the included RAM away if i want to upgrade to 4GB, because it comes as (2) 1GB sticks which will use up both my slots (not (1) 2GB stick that I can just add to). wouldn't it be better to just get the 4GB from Apple at the outset?

Click to expand...

Either order it with 2GB of RAM, replace them with 4GBs of Crucial (for $109) and saving yourself $90 from the Apple price, and then sell what you removed for $50. Meaning you got 4gb's of RAM effectively for $40.

or

Buy the 2GBs version and just keep it as it is. It'll be plenty fast enough for you by the sounds of it.

Or if you're lazy, just suck it up, and get the 4gbs version, afterall I am an Apple Shareholder and this is how they make so much money... ;D

would you advise getting the 2.8Ghz iMac instead of a 2.16Ghz used MacBook Pro with external 23" display? i'd like the flexibility of the MacBook, but i'd guess it's significantly slower than the iMac (bus, RAM capacity, and whatnot).

Click to expand...

Now there's an option... but how much memory will it have and should you get a 7200rpm drive to replace the existing one? Decisions decisions. The MBP is a great machine and will still blow your G4 away, but it's quite a bit slower than either iMac.

Did you buy your G4 new? Sounds like you only do this occassionally, so get the best machine you can afford. For me, this is the iMac 2.8ghz with 2GBs of RAM with the option to upgrade the memory if needed.

uh huh

yep, i bought the G4 new...with a couple Lacie electronblue 19" monitors. and a couple months later, a new PowerBook G4 15" 550Mhz. ah, 2001 was a great year. ;D

i should probably get the iMac and keep my old PowerBook (adding a new battery or two) just to use for traveling/email/web. then add a storage/photo viewer device to take on photoshoots, and just tell my clients 'you didn't really wanna see these on a laptop, did you?"

i could get a used 17" macbook...2.4Ghz w/ 2GB RAM and a 320GB drive, i'm guessing, for around $2000, but it wouldn't do me any good without a 23" display, and a new mouse, keyboard, additional external drive...so, i'd be in for significantly more dinero than the imace (probably $8-1200 more, depending on if i could find good, used stuff) and, ultimately, have a slower machine....

hee hee.
i should phrase it differently. how about this:

for $2200, you could either get an iMac with 3.06Ghz processor, 2GB RAM, 500GB drive and a GeForce video card.
OR
for the same price, you could get the 2.8Ghz version with 4GB RAM, a 750GB drive, and upgrade to the same Geforce card.

which setup is faster / better, and why?

Click to expand...

The price of CPUs scales in an upward curve and you will always pay substantially more for the fastest and newest processor.

There is no point whatsoever in buying the first option. You're 100% correct.