Cool! Comparison of 17" vs. 24" iMacs

Discussion in 'iMac' started by odedia, Sep 16, 2006.

  1. generik macrumors 601

    generik

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    Minitrue
    #2
    Would be great if he puts something besides the screen for scale though, it doesn't look that much of a diff now that they are put back to back ;)
     
  2. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
  3. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #4
    Has anyone done a comparison between the various 24" iMac options? I'm looking for a 24", but can't decide whether it's worth going for the upgraded processor and video card. I'll be using mainly PS and AI, besides the usual stuff. No iMovie, no rendering, no demanding games.
     
  4. Applespider macrumors G4

    Applespider

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    looking through rose-tinted spectacles...
    #5
    Yes, Macworld have one here
     
  5. odedia thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    #6
    Basically, I think there's an agreement that the 2.33Ghz upgrade for 250$ is pointless for MOST people. of course some need it, but probably not you.

    Graphics card, IMO, is a must upgrade. Not just for games - for everything. This screen is huge, and it needs a decent video card. Core Animation in leopard will need as much juice as possible.

    Max the RAM to 2GB. 3GB is pointless at this point due to pricing.

    you MIGHT consider upgrading the hard drive IF you have tons of stuff to store, but if you already have an external drive, you don't need the upgrade.
     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    Thanks, AS and odedia. :)

    Does anyone know if the HD is user-upgradeable?
     
  7. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #8
    For stuff you've mentioned you;ll be just fine with 7300.
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #9
    The card seems to make quite a difference, and with more OS stuff being offloaded to the GPU, wouldn't it make more sense? It's only £75 more.
     
  9. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #10
    Of course, if you can afford it, get it, but if you dont really need it, why pay extra? 7300 is a good graphics card, its just slightly slower in Motion than X1900 XT.

    I bet he wouldn't notice any difference between 7300 and 7600 in Photoshop and AI.
     
  10. Applespider macrumors G4

    Applespider

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    looking through rose-tinted spectacles...
    #11
    For £75, it's probably as well to do it - remember the difference in that benchmark is partly made up with the higher processor speed too. You can see the difference the processor makes comparing the 2Ghz 17" to the 2.16Ghz 20". You're likely to feel happier further down the line. I've always been relieved that I paid the extra for my 15" PB back in 04 since my dearer model had 64MB of video RAM and is Core Graphics compatible whereas the lower one wasn't. Does mean that I've been less likely to upgrade!

    I'll not be in the market for the 24" until early next year but I'll likely go through the same angst then. If I go stock model, I get 12% off it which would mean that video card upgrade costing me £200 :(

    I do have a 10% off Apple card for Regent St but again, since the store only has stock models (unless they decide to do an 'Ultimate' version as they have for Powerbooks/MBPs), that won't help either.
     
  11. jodders macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    #12
    thanks for the link..been waiting ages to see the comparison
     

Share This Page