Well, i'm finally getting ready to pick up a 24" iMac (i am currently using a 1.33 ghz g4 power book, and was using one of the first snow globe iMac g4s before that) but I am not sure whether or not it is worht spending the extra few hundred bucks for the 2.33ghz processor. I'll be doing plenty with it (final cut express, audio editing, as well as the day to day stuff and bootcamp) but still, is 2.33 ghz really necessary?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Ready to make the plunge, but 2.16 ghz, or 2.33?
- Thread starter notsam
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Personally I dont think so. I just ordered mine. I figured better spend the money on 2 gig of RAM, the faster graphics card and bluethooth mouse and keyboard. I think the RAM will do more than the ghz.
Good luck
Good luck
Thanks for the advice guys, $2800 later, here's what it looks like:
Final Cut Express HD preinstalled
NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB SDRAM
500GB Serial ATA Drive
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
SuperDrive 8X (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Final Cut Express HD preinstalled
NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB SDRAM
500GB Serial ATA Drive
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
SuperDrive 8X (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
I probably will, too. In a couple of months, it'll be the new "lowest spec", and the 2.16GHz will have disappeared. I'm still not quite decided, though. 
mrcammy said:
I look at it like... $250 for an 11% CPU Speed Increase... absolutely.
However, everyone has different price/pain points... I dropped $215 for dinner on my date last night... so $250 for a CPU isn't really anything.
For others, $250 might be a little more important... so I understand the hesitation...
Of course, it would be NICE if it was more in the $99-$150 range... but if you are willing to pay $150 for an 11% improvement... then the extra is only $100 above what you MIGHT have paid...
I can talk anybody into anything... lol
MacProGuy said:
I can't even talk myself into paying $215 for any sort of 2-person meal. I actually had to talk myself into paying an extra $0.05 per ounce for hot dogs that would fit the bun correctly.
Lucky guy
As for the processor, the upgrade might be worth it for the OP. For me, a definite no, as I wouldn't ever use the power unless if I'm gaming - and that's still a rarity, as most games are GPU-bound. But if I did have to use that much power for important uses such as work, then maybe.
The impression I get is that the 2.33Ghz is the worst value option apart from the 3Gb RAM.
That's whay I got a 2.33/2Gb/500Gb/7600...
David
That's whay I got a 2.33/2Gb/500Gb/7600...
David
notsam said:
Actually at $2.8K I'd go the Mac Pro route... you may argue that a display costs heaps but I can always make do for the time being with a smaller Dell Ultrasharp, or even a Chimei 22" LCD for $350+, I will have way more expandability down the road and even the possibility of swopping in Quad core Clovertowns in the future to make it a Octo core workstation.
Sorry, I just cannot justify paying > $1.5K for an "All in one" computer, to me these are just toys, and not real computers.
skunk said:
Because I selected all the better value options, and the 2.33Ghz was next in order, and I could afford it!
David
Clydefrog said:
Yep. But here's the problem. It's not a matter of $2800 for the iMac and $2499 for the Mac Pro.
To get similar performance from the Mac Pro, you'd have to configure it to the tune of $4100 including monitor.
Personally, I swap computers WAYYYYY Too often to spend the money.
RAM is super-expensive on the Mac Pros, the Monitor is pricey, and... quite honestly... Mac's will retain 65-75% of their resale value on Ebay, so... when they come out with something bigger and better in the future, I can still get it by selling this one online
I don't think the 2.33 is "worth it"... but I ordered it anyway, because it seems virtually certain not to be upgradable. So I went for the little extra boost from the start.
A similar Mac Pro + 24" screen would have cost a good $800+ more... and while it would have had QUAD processors and more expandability, it would have lacked the Apple Remote. On a daily basis, that remote will improve my life more than quad Xeons
(A similar Dell, FWIW, would have cost around $300 more than the iMac, and would have been a big tower spouting cables all over.)
A similar Mac Pro + 24" screen would have cost a good $800+ more... and while it would have had QUAD processors and more expandability, it would have lacked the Apple Remote. On a daily basis, that remote will improve my life more than quad Xeons
(A similar Dell, FWIW, would have cost around $300 more than the iMac, and would have been a big tower spouting cables all over.)
nagromme said:I don't think the 2.33 is "worth it"... but I ordered it anyway, because it seems virtually certain not to be upgradable. So I went for the little extra boost from the start.
A similar Mac Pro + 24" screen would have cost a good $800+ more... and while it would have had QUAD processors and more expandability, it would have lacked the Apple Remote. On a daily basis, that remote will improve my life more than quad Xeons
(A similar Dell, FWIW, would have cost around $300 more than the iMac, and would have been a big tower spouting cables all over.)
Not to mention have sounded like a magnificent jet engine at takeoff, I'm sure
) Lots of loud, noisy fans...