Processors

I've noticed that some users have larger processors than the 2GHz that I'm currently using. I have a bunch of old vcr tapes that I am uploading and converting to DVD. Is a larger processor really necessary and can I upgrade to a larger processor without needing to buy a new Mac?

Also, what is the difference between RAM and a processor?

The correct terminology would be "faster" processor, and it really depends on how fast you want to encode. I am fairly certain that you can't upgrade an iMac's processor.

Ironically, a faster processor would actually be physically smaller

electricianron said:

I've noticed that some users have larger processors than the 2GHz that I'm currently using. I have a bunch of old vcr tapes that I am uploading and converting to DVD. Is a larger processor really necessary and can I upgrade to a larger processor without needing to buy a new Mac?

Also, what is the difference between RAM and a processor?

Click to expand...

Haven't heard of any1 changing their processor on an iMac, but 2Gigs is actually pretty good, I don't think you would see all that big of a difference switching maybe to 2.4 ... what you can do is monitor how much you use the CPU(=central processing unit=processor ) using either iStat Pro (a widget) or Activity Monitor, if you permanently have your cpu at 90, 100% then you would notice a difference in upgrading

as for RAM x CPU
the cpu is where all the calculations take place, the main computing power ... the ram (or memory) is something like temporary storage, think of it as the computers short-term memory, while the hard drive is long-term memory

the RAM is extremely fast (at least compared to a hard drive), so you will notice a significant boos in performance by upgrading your RAM (again, only if you use up your current memory)

so if you want to increase your iMacs performance, maybe upgrading your RAM (very easy to do) might help you out a bit, although video encoding is more of a cpu demanding process

Thank you for help. Larger, faster - thanks for that explanation too.

I am spoiled when it comes to how smooth my comp works, it's just that lately it seems as if it isn't running as smooth as it did when I first took it out of the box. I still have over 160GB left on the interior HD and over 40 on the exterior HD. I did the Disk Utility yesterday so I'll have to wait and see..

thanx again.

electricianron said:

Also, what is the difference between RAM and a processor?

Click to expand...

Not that I don't want to answer this question...but wouldn't it be MUCH MUCH faster to just do an internet search for this info (i.e. Google)!!!

This is hardly a Macintosh specific question/answer!

- Nick

pigoo3 said:

Not that I don't want to answer this question...but wouldn't it be MUCH MUCH faster to just do an internet search for this info (i.e. Google)!!!

This is hardly a Macintosh specific question/answer!

- Nick

Click to expand...

many of the posts here can be solved with google

scathe said:

pigoo3 said:

Not that I don't want to answer this question...but wouldn't it be MUCH MUCH faster to just do an internet search for this info (i.e. Google)!!!

This is hardly a Macintosh specific question/answer!

- Nick

Click to expand...

many of the posts here can be solved with google

Click to expand...

No kidding.

Looking at your specs, a RAM upgrade would be a wise choice. Not that 1GB isn't enough but doubling that (or quadrupling that ) would be noticeably better.

As for the CPU, you probably could replace it but it's probably not worth it.

vansmith said:

Looking at your specs, a RAM upgrade would be a wise choice. Not that 1GB isn't enough but doubling that (or quadrupling that ) would be noticeably better.

As for the CPU, you probably could replace it but it's probably not worth it.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of your post except where you said, "Not that 1GB isn't enough..." In my experience, Leopard runs quite poorly with just 1GB, even if you're not doing anything very demanding. 1GB really isn't enough. 2GB is the minimum, and 4GB should be the norm. RAM is so cheap that there's no reason not to go to 4GB on any machine that can take that much.

Mama Luigi said:

I agree with most of your post except where you said, "Not that 1GB isn't enough..." In my experience, Leopard runs quite poorly with just 1GB, even if you're not doing anything very demanding. 1GB really isn't enough. 2GB is the minimum, and 4GB should be the norm. RAM is so cheap that there's no reason not to go to 4GB on any machine that can take that much.

Click to expand...

"I agree with most of your post except where you" say that 1GB really isn't enough. My MB came with 1GB and ran well enough for basic tasks. If you're not doing anything intensive, it gets the job done. That said, I highly recommend getting more. It is cheap and well worth the investment.

2GB as a minimum? That might be overkill for those who don't use RAM intensive applications. But, then again, since RAM is cheap, the extra memory can't hurt.

vansmith said:

"I agree with most of your post except where you" say that 1GB really isn't enough. My MB came with 1GB and ran well enough for basic tasks. If you're not doing anything intensive, it gets the job done. That said, I highly recommend getting more. It is cheap and well worth the investment.

2GB as a minimum? That might be overkill for those who don't use RAM intensive applications. But, then again, since RAM is cheap, the extra memory can't hurt.

Click to expand...

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I used to have a 12" PowerBook G4 1.5 GHz with 1.25 GB (the max) and it was so sluggish in Leopard that I sold it just a few weeks after I put Leopard on it. Of course, it might also have had to do with the slow processor, but I remember looking in Activity Monitor to check and I never had much free RAM.

It was significantly slower than Tiger and also much slower than an old dual 500 MHz G4 I used to have that ran Jaguar and Panther. Leopard is RAM-hungry and essentially requires 2 GB and a G5 processor or better to perform well. It's not impossible to run it on a G4 with under 2 GB, but if you do have such a setup, you're better off sticking with Tiger or earlier.

Mama Luigi said:

No kidding.

Click to expand...

gotta love that site better then google itself

scathe said:

gotta love that site better then google itself

Click to expand...

"Was that so hard?" always reminds me of that SNL sketch.

Mama Luigi said:

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I used to have a 12" PowerBook G4 1.5 GHz with 1.25 GB (the max) and it was so sluggish in Leopard that I sold it just a few weeks after I put Leopard on it.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, mine ran fine with 1 GB but I do have a C2D which wouldn't hurt ;D.

It's amazing how well Tiger runs on lower end hardware. I ran it on a G4 (450mhz) with 640 MB RAM and it ran surprisingly well.

Yes, I'm sure my experience was tainted by that. Still, there's no such thing as overkill when it comes to RAM, especially with prices as low as they are.

You can't upgrade the processor on an iMac. It's soldered to the logic board. If you do replace it then you will most definitely void any warranty you may have. Also, it is very hard to get inside the iMac. It involves removing the glass and the LCD.

Mama Luigi said:

Yes, I'm sure my experience was tainted by that. Still, there's no such thing as overkill when it comes to RAM, especially with prices as low as they are.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.

Slow processors are killer. Imagine what its like to go home and help my parents who are still using a 450mhz P3, 128MB RAM. So painful...