PDA

View Full Version : Real world difference btw. the two 20" iMacs



jmufellow
Aug 20, 2007, 01:02 PM
I've been going back and forth in my mind so much now trying to decide between the 20 inch imac models. I will be using it to edit video in iMovie, backup DVDs, manage/edit photos, play around in garageband with my electric guitar, and internet. No gaming or using professional apps.

Which one is right for me? How much of a real world difference will I notice by having a slightly better graphics card and .4 more GHz of cpu power?


DemNoir
Aug 20, 2007, 01:27 PM
I think you can safely save the $300, i'm glad I did. There is very little performance difference between the two units.

Look at the Macworld benchmarks online.

http://www.macworld.com/2007/08/firstlooks/imacbenchmarks/index.php
gamerz
Aug 20, 2007, 01:44 PM
Sorry to kind of jump into your thread, but I am having the same dilemma.

I will be using the imac for web stuff, a little graphics, imovie, and gaming. I have been told that if you are gaming, the higher of the 20 inch models is the one that you want, but after looking at the Macworld benchmarks, the 2.4 model was only 16fps faster while playing UT4. I'm not sure if that is a graphically intense game, but 70fps is fine for me.

The games that I will be playing are WoW (raiding, pvp), Age of Empire 3, Warcraft 3. How will those run on the 2.0ghz model?
AlexisV
Aug 20, 2007, 03:05 PM
If you're playing any game at all, get the 2.4Ghz. You'll never have another chance to get the better GPU.
simontarr
Aug 20, 2007, 03:08 PM
If you're playing any game at all, get the 2.4Ghz. You'll never have another chance to get the better GPU.

Yep, what he said. You will only regret it in 18 months/2 years if you're a gamer and you don't.

EDIT- Woop! 300th Post!
flopticalcube
Aug 20, 2007, 03:13 PM
Sorry to kind of jump into your thread, but I am having the same dilemma.

I will be using the imac for web stuff, a little graphics, imovie, and gaming. I have been told that if you are gaming, the higher of the 20 inch models is the one that you want, but after looking at the Macworld benchmarks, the 2.4 model was only 16fps faster while playing UT4. I'm not sure if that is a graphically intense game, but 70fps is fine for me.

The games that I will be playing are WoW (raiding, pvp), Age of Empire 3, Warcraft 3. How will those run on the 2.0ghz model?

Read the 2600xt? thread. Gaming on the mid-range model is great. According to notebookcheck (http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html?&or=&search=&sort=3dmark06), the 2400XT (actually they use the 2300 but just look at the X1450 for a comparable figure) is far below the 2600XT.
vendettabass
Aug 20, 2007, 03:29 PM
gaming aside, how good is the 2400XT for light iMovie & some Aperture work. Coming from a GMA Macbook, how substantial would the 2400XT feel for me?
AlexisV
Aug 20, 2007, 05:57 PM
The GPU doesn't have much affect on 2D work such as Aperture.
atari1356
Aug 20, 2007, 06:06 PM
The GPU doesn't have much affect on 2D work such as Aperture.

Not true actually. Aperture makes use of the GPU quite a bit.
vendettabass
Aug 20, 2007, 06:09 PM
yeah thought so, would the 2400XT be cool for pretty light Aperture stuff? I'm buying in September, and the price difference between the 2.0 and 2.4 can buy me another GB of RAM and .mac
atari1356
Aug 20, 2007, 06:13 PM
yeah thought so, would the 2400XT be cool for pretty light Aperture stuff? I'm buying in September, and the price difference between the 2.0 and 2.4 can buy me another GB of RAM and .mac

The 2600XT would be better... but, if it's between that and an extra GB of RAM, then the RAM will probably give you a bigger performance improvement in Aperture.

If possible, I'd go with the better graphics card/processor for now - and save up for the extra RAM since you can always add that later. (even if you have to wait a few months to get the extra RAM)
suneohair
Aug 20, 2007, 06:34 PM
If you're playing any game at all, get the 2.4Ghz. You'll never have another chance to get the better GPU.

Getting a faster CPU is hardly going to help you. Most games don't even utilize multiple cores effectively. The GPU will be the limitation.

Not to mention, he said he won't be gaming.
flopticalcube
Aug 20, 2007, 06:43 PM
Getting a faster CPU is hardly going to help you. Most games don't even utilize multiple cores effectively. The GPU will be the limitation.

Not to mention, he said he won't be gaming.

To be fair, I think he was answering gamerz question, not the OP and was indicating that the main advantage of getting the 2.4GHz model was for the better GPU.