Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

stevieapollo

macrumors member
Apr 26, 2008
66
0
Whittier, CA
Hmmm

I purchased the 2.8ghz imac last week. Now i don't know what i should do. trade it in for the 3ghz or trade for the new 2.8 and save about 400 bucks. anybody?
 

smatty007

macrumors member
Sep 21, 2007
31
0
Germany
More RAM possible???

Glad I waited for this speed bump.

Just ordered the 3.06 with a 750GB HDD and here in Germany Apple quoted 1-2 weeks for delivery.

But I have a question: Will I be able to add more than 4 GB of Ram to this iMac, or is 4GB the max that Apple supports?

My C2D MB 2GHz was supposed to only handle 2GB, but with 2X2GB it actually is able to use 3GB...
 

HiRez

macrumors 603
Jan 6, 2004
6,250
2,576
Western US
Supposedly the 3.06 GHz CPU runs at 55 watts, that seems pretty hot for the iMac enclosure, is that going to be a potential problem? vs. only 35 watts for the 2.8 GHz. Are we going to be hearing a screaming jet-engine fan crank up to deal with that? And how much hotter does the 8800 GPU run than the Radeon 2600?
 

Anaxarxes

macrumors 6502
Feb 27, 2008
406
502
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Glad I waited for this speed bump.

Just ordered the 3.06 with a 750GB HDD and here in Germany Apple quoted 1-2 weeks for delivery.

But I have a question: Will I be able to add more than 4 GB of Ram to this iMac, or is 4GB the max that Apple supports?

My C2D MB 2GHz was supposed to only handle 2GB, but with 2X2GB it actually is able to use 3GB...

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe 4GB is the limit. And a 4GB SO-DIMM is extremely expensive today. There are some PC manufacturers who support 8GB RAM on their business lines (Dell, IBM), but if Apple did that, they would possibly mention it strongly.
 

swagi

macrumors 6502a
Sep 6, 2007
905
123
Finally

These things will fly off the shelfs in Europe. 999€ for the base model is a real good price.

Finally Apple starts to acknowledge the weak dollar! Oh, I'm so tempted to buy one ;)
 

milo

macrumors 604
Sep 23, 2003
6,891
522
In this article speculating about Montevina in the context of MBPs....

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3246&p=2

They say:

"The Mobile GM45/47 chipsets are an integral part of Montevina and will feature the new GMA X4500HD graphics core. The X4500HD will add full hardware H.264 decode acceleration, so Apple could begin shipping MacBook Pros with Blu-ray drives after the Montevina upgrade without them being a futile addition. With full hardware H.264 decode acceleration your CPU would be somewhere in the 0 - 10% range of utilization while watching a high definition movie, allowing you to watch a 1080p movie while on battery power."

So does anyone have a clue whether the new iMacs can do H.264 decoding in hardware like this, leaving the CPU free?

Hasn't apple already shipped machines with h.264 support in the graphics hardware? And I thought they didn't take advantage of that ability? Or am I just misremembering that?
 

lilbrwnjumpsuit

macrumors newbie
Apr 28, 2008
3
0
RAM too!

I don't know if anyone has previously mentioned this (don't feel like reading all posts) but RAM also received a price drop and is $200 for 4Gb or $180 with the education discount. Finally Apple listens.
 

MacsAttack

macrumors 6502a
Jul 2, 2006
825
0
Scotland
Anyone know if these new machines are packing 10.5.3? What with the seeding of builds to developers for testing over the last month or so I expect it can't be too far off.
 

ditzy

macrumors 68000
Sep 28, 2007
1,719
180
Looking at these brand-new iMacs, the cheapest model, with applecare (a silent gotcha, it would be foolish to purchase a machine without it)...

$1468

:eek:

That $1468 gets you a machine with a mediocre display (and glossy whether you like it or not), a less-than-mediocre graphics card, as small a hard drive as you will find nowadays, a mediocre cpu... and about all you can upgrade at a reasonable cost is the RAM, from third-party sources.

The iMac line starts as a rip-off on the unwary consumer, and only gets more expensive as you go up the line.

By the time you reach the "decent machine" configs, you are easily over $2000.

I will skip the top-of-the-line 3.06 model for consideration, because of course the customer gets dinged extra hard there.

Nope, let's just take the stock 24" 2.8 model, add the silent rip-off of $169 to have a warranty that lasts three years, add what is currently above average (if that) in a graphics card (although it will be average at best during the lifetime of this current model)...

And here's the kicker: because the hard drive is such a pain in the neck to replace, you really want to lock yourself into a big one from the start; or else, deal with firewire extensions forever. So let's go ahead and make that a 750GB drive (the 1TB is such a rip-off, that I cannot bring myself to consider it).

Total: $2268

:confused:

That is just a ridiculous price tag, specially since, for that kind of money, one would expect a non-glossy display (at least as an option!).

For $2268, you are stuck at a mediocre-to-slightly-above-mediocre hardware tech level for the consumer market in mid-2008. With a glossy display. With no chance to upgrade at a reasonable cost.

You will, of course, want to put the max of RAM on this machine, which third-party sources will provide for you at around $100. But that's it; if, at some point during this machine's (hopefully long) lifetime, you decide that 4GB is just a little tight, well, sorry, that's all you can do there.

$1468 for the least expensive option: a premium price for below-average hardware. An out-and-out rip-off which will only get worse as the months go on and the configuration ages.

$2268 for the more expensive option: an extra-premium price for average-to-slightly-above average hardware. That is pretty much a rip-off, although if $2268 is within your budget for a computer, then perhaps you are expected to be casual about repeating the same expenditure in a couple of years when your machine is clearly lagging in specs behind the current models.

As of today, the only Apple desktop computer that is a good purchase is the top-of-the-line, circa $3000 Mac Pro; the iMac is somewhere between an out-and-out rip-off for the least expensive option, to pretty much a rip-off towards the more expensive options.

A couple of years more like this and only the well-moneyed clueless will keep buying these things. A couple of years like this and only the hackintosh clones will keep OSX from becoming an incestuos little OS.

A couple of years more like this, and anybody with a brain for computers will either be running a legacy Mac, a hackintosh or that year's Ubuntu. :cool:

This year, I went for a Mac Pro. It fits some of my needs, but unfortunately one of my needs is to be able to peer with other people computer-wise, and at the moment I'm only able to peer with the ones that are rich enough to buy these expensive machines, or who bought apple machines in previous years (when they were a good deal).

I cannot currently recommend such a purchase except for a Mac Pro. :mad:

This time around, I gave the linux option a good hard look, and chose to pass. Three years from now, it'll probably be a good time to make a pretty permanent switch. :D

I've read these sort of posts many times hey I used to think the same thing myself.
I used to and to be honest still do think that the arguement that you are paying extra for OSX is a ridiculous one, after all which operating system you prefer is simply a matter of choice. Some prefer vista others OSX still others prefer linux.
However if you compare the imac with products like it, and by that I mean other all-in-ones. (Comparing an all in one with a tower makes no more sense that comparing a tower with a laptop.) The imac is very competively priced.
If what you actually want is a mid-range tower I genuinely feel your pain, and if you compare an imac with mid range tower it is expensive. But for what it actually is it is more that fairly priced.
I don't want this to be about apple needs to make a mid range tower, because they don't and really that just the end of it.
 

Anaxarxes

macrumors 6502
Feb 27, 2008
406
502
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Hasn't apple already shipped machines with h.264 support in the graphics hardware? And I thought they didn't take advantage of that ability? Or am I just misremembering that?

Read my previous post.

Currently, Macbook's and Apple Mini's graphics units do not fully decode/encode HD content. X4500 will change that.

iMac, Macbook Pro and Mac Pro, on the other hand, have been capable of doing this for ages.
 

occamsrazor

macrumors 6502
Feb 25, 2007
419
16
Hasn't apple already shipped machines with h.264 support in the graphics hardware? And I thought they didn't take advantage of that ability? Or am I just misremembering that?

Contrary to what previous replier said... that was my impression too. See reader comments in these threads:

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/08/29/new-imac-video-card-stealth-upgrade-mobility-radeon-hd-2600-xt/
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=77624

I know iMacs can do H.264 decoding, and it seems some have graphics cards that that are capable of doing it, but does the OS *actually* offload the decoding task onto the Graphics card, or does it use the main CPU?

If you play a 1080P H.264 movie on previous model iMac does the CPU sit close to zero, or fairly high?

I don't know... I'm currently on a G4/933Mhz that can't even play 720P... ;-) Thus why I am asking...
 

Anaxarxes

macrumors 6502
Feb 27, 2008
406
502
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Looking at these brand-new iMacs, the cheapest model, with applecare (a silent gotcha, it would be foolish to purchase a machine without it)...

$1468

:eek:

That $1468 gets you a machine with a mediocre display (and glossy whether you like it or not), a less-than-mediocre graphics card, as small a hard drive as you will find nowadays, a mediocre cpu... and about all you can upgrade at a reasonable cost is the RAM, from third-party sources.

The iMac line starts as a rip-off on the unwary consumer, and only gets more expensive as you go up the line.

By the time you reach the "decent machine" configs, you are easily over $2000.

I will skip the top-of-the-line 3.06 model for consideration, because of course the customer gets dinged extra hard there.

Nope, let's just take the stock 24" 2.8 model, add the silent rip-off of $169 to have a warranty that lasts three years, add what is currently above average (if that) in a graphics card (although it will be average at best during the lifetime of this current model)...

And here's the kicker: because the hard drive is such a pain in the neck to replace, you really want to lock yourself into a big one from the start; or else, deal with firewire extensions forever. So let's go ahead and make that a 750GB drive (the 1TB is such a rip-off, that I cannot bring myself to consider it).

Total: $2268

:confused:

That is just a ridiculous price tag, specially since, for that kind of money, one would expect a non-glossy display (at least as an option!).

For $2268, you are stuck at a mediocre-to-slightly-above-mediocre hardware tech level for the consumer market in mid-2008. With a glossy display. With no chance to upgrade at a reasonable cost.

You will, of course, want to put the max of RAM on this machine, which third-party sources will provide for you at around $100. But that's it; if, at some point during this machine's (hopefully long) lifetime, you decide that 4GB is just a little tight, well, sorry, that's all you can do there.

$1468 for the least expensive option: a premium price for below-average hardware. An out-and-out rip-off which will only get worse as the months go on and the configuration ages.

$2268 for the more expensive option: an extra-premium price for average-to-slightly-above average hardware. That is pretty much a rip-off, although if $2268 is within your budget for a computer, then perhaps you are expected to be casual about repeating the same expenditure in a couple of years when your machine is clearly lagging in specs behind the current models.

As of today, the only Apple desktop computer that is a good purchase is the top-of-the-line, circa $3000 Mac Pro; the iMac is somewhere between an out-and-out rip-off for the least expensive option, to pretty much a rip-off towards the more expensive options.

A couple of years more like this and only the well-moneyed clueless will keep buying these things. A couple of years like this and only the hackintosh clones will keep OSX from becoming an incestuos little OS.

A couple of years more like this, and anybody with a brain for computers will either be running a legacy Mac, a hackintosh or that year's Ubuntu. :cool:

This year, I went for a Mac Pro. It fits some of my needs, but unfortunately one of my needs is to be able to peer with other people computer-wise, and at the moment I'm only able to peer with the ones that are rich enough to buy these expensive machines, or who bought apple machines in previous years (when they were a good deal).

I cannot currently recommend such a purchase except for a Mac Pro. :mad:

This time around, I gave the linux option a good hard look, and chose to pass. Three years from now, it'll probably be a good time to make a pretty permanent switch. :D

Lets have a look:

Dell XPS One (performance)

65nm Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33Ghz ( vs 2.4Ghz 45nm iMac )
2GB DDR2-SDRAM ( $100 extra )
Radeon HD 2400 ( iMac has HD2400 XT, a higher clocked version )
320GB HDD ( $50 extra on iMac )
8x DVD/CD Burner (same)
Wireless Keyboard and Mouse ( $50 extra on iMac )
MS Office Home and Student ( $150 extra )
TV Tuner (n/a on iMac)

Dell: $1799
iMac: $1548

Now please tell me what is wrong with Apple.

You seem to b*tch about that there are $399 desktops around, I'm sorry that Apple does not have an entry level offering. iMac is very reasonably priced, I agree that the screen is outdated though.
 

diamond.g

macrumors G4
Mar 20, 2007
11,067
2,420
OBX
Contrary to what previous replier said... that was my impression too. See reader comments in these threads:

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/08/29/new-imac-video-card-stealth-upgrade-mobility-radeon-hd-2600-xt/
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=77624

I know iMacs can do H.264 decoding, and it seems some have graphics cards that that are capable of doing it, but does the OS *actually* offload the decoding task onto the Graphics card, or does it use the main CPU?

If you play a 1080P H.264 movie on previous model iMac does the CPU sit close to zero, or fairly high?

I don't know... I'm currently on a G4/933Mhz that can't even play 720P... ;-) Thus why I am asking...
AFAIK Apple doesn't use the GPU for decoding h.264. I think they do use it for DVD playback though. It probably has a lot to do with the Macbook's use of IG and it's lack of acceleration. (My best guess)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.