Which iMac?

A little while ago I started saving up for a Mac. I have decided to go for the iMac, because I am on a tight budget (£20 a week neye: ). However, I can't decide whether I want the 17 inch 1.83 ghz or the 17 inch 2.0 ghz. The thing thats baffling me is the 'Shared L2 Cache'. Could anybody tell me what this is? Also any advice on which to buy would be nice.

Liamki

The Cache is kind of like superfast on die RAM, that can store data to be accessed superfast by the Control Unit. Basically its just on the die RAM which is superfast. The larger it is the more data that can be stored on it.

What are you intending to use it for?

Oh and its Shared Chache because the two cores share it.

Cache RAM sits between the processor and the main memory. Its got much faster access times than main system RAM and so the processor tries to put copies of data & program that it's currently using into this Cache RAM to improve performance.

In simplistic terms, the more Cache you have, the better the performance. It's something that can't be upgraded later so it's best to go with the most you can afford.

The 1.83GHz, 17" model has 2MB of shared cache, whereas all other iMac models have 4MB. That aside, have you weighed up the other differences between the 1.83 and the 2.0GHz? Processor speed, RAM, Bluetooth/Apple remote inclusion, dedicated graphics as opposed to integrated, ability to burn DVDs...? If these things don't worry you, don't let the cache thing get to you either. You'll probably be happy with your purchase either way.

If I were you (which I'm not)... I would certainly go with the upgraded 17"... The extra $200 is a very small price to pay for the additions it adds... If need be just save a bit longer, in order to have the funds for the upgrade.

my $0.02 (USD)

OK thanks.

I have also considered that the 2.0ghz model has many more features, and knowing that the cache can't be upgraded helps. I have just one more question - I spoke to a friend of mine who owns a Mac about whether all Mac screens are HD. He said that they aren't quite, but on full resolution it would be pretty much the same. Would the graphics card in the 2.0ghz iMac be able to handle this? Also, whats the difference between intergrated and dedicated graphics cards?

All iMacs are able to handle HD content. No need to worry about that.

The difference between integrated and dedicated graphics cards is that an integrated graphics card is, as the name suggests, integrated into the computer's motherboard. They are usually slower than a dedicated card and share memory with the main system RAM, reducing the computer's overall available memory. However, they are cheaper and use less power (which is good for laptops, where they are more often used), and for normal desktop use - ie. internet, typing, watching movies (including HD) - they are perfectly fine.

Dedicated graphics cards are more powerful and they also have their own memory, and for normal usage as I said above this is the main difference, because no amount of system RAM is compromised for graphics display. Also, if you're into gaming at all this would be a must.

You've mentioned that the inability to upgrade cache may be a concern, and it's the same with the graphics card in this case. Whichever option you choose, you'll be stuck with.

OK, I think I have decided to go for the 2.0ghz model and just leave it standard (1gb of Ram and 2.0ghz will do fine for me). Thanks for all your help.