Ready to make the plunge, but 2.16 ghz, or 2.33?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by notsam, Sep 23, 2006.

  1. notsam macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    #1
    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?
     
  2. yoak macrumors 65816

    yoak

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Location:
    Oslo, Norway
    #2
    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
     
  3. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #3
    Stick with the 2.16GHz and get the video upgrade and some more memory. It will serve you better as time goes on.
     
  4. notsam thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    #4
    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)
     
  5. MacProGuy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    #5

    I splurged for the 2.33Ghz... and couldn't be happier... I just knew that at some point down the line, It would bother me... so for my own piece of mind, I figured... whats a few dinners out to get the fastest available :)
     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #6
    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. :rolleyes:
     
  7. mrcammy macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
  8. MacProGuy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    #8
    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
     
  9. ZoomZoomZoom macrumors 6502a

    ZoomZoomZoom

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    #9
    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 :p

    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.
     
  10. orangezorki macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    #10
    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
     
  11. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #11
    So you got the second worst value option because?
     
  12. mrcammy macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    #12
    Actually it's more like 8%, but I know where you're comming from - I've blown far more for far less in the past...
     
  13. generik macrumors 601

    generik

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    Minitrue
    #13
    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.
     
  14. orangezorki macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    #14
    Because I selected all the better value options, and the 2.33Ghz was next in order, and I could afford it!

    David
     
  15. Clydefrog macrumors 6502a

    Clydefrog

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    Pittsburgh,PA
    #15

    yeah agreed i just would have bit the bullet i went with mac pro
     
  16. MacProGuy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    #16

    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 :)
     
  17. pianoman macrumors 68000

    pianoman

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    #17
    that is hilarious! :D
     
  18. nagromme macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #18
    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.)
     
  19. MacProGuy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    #19

    Not to mention have sounded like a magnificent jet engine at takeoff, I'm sure :)) Lots of loud, noisy fans...
     

Share This Page