2.4 vs. 2.66 20" iMac

Discussion in 'iMac' started by danny_w, Feb 2, 2009.

  1. danny_w macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #1
    What makes the 2.66 20" worth $300 more than the 2.4 model? All that I can see is a slightly faster cpu (not even noticeable most likely), a slightly larger hdd (320 vs 250) and 2GB vs. 1GB memory (memory is cheap - upgrade to 4GB by yourself). I am looking to buy, but don't see anything worth the price difference.
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    It's all of them together. 0.26Ghz is noticeable. 2.4GHz has crappy GPU, very crappy. And I heard somewhere that the screen is different (worse), that it can't display millions of color and so on, but I can't prove it. 1GB RAM is ridiculous nowadays.

    Wait for new models, should come out in a month. If you want it now buy 2.66 or save up for a 24" (much better)
     
  3. danny_w thread starter macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #3
    I agree that the 24" is better (I have one at work) but I don't want anything that big at home. I believe that all 20" models have the same TN display panel, the hdd is not that big of a deal to me, and I would upgrade the rAM regardless, so the 2.66 is no better in that regard. I guess it all boils down to the speed difference, but my 24" at work is also 2.4GHz (original 24" aluminum model) and I use it every day for software development work.
     
  4. josh88 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    #4
    From Macworld UK:

    'There’s a considerable performance gap between the new £949, 2.66GHz 20in iMac and the new £799, 2.4GHz 20in model. The 2.66GHz model’s Speedmark score was 24 points higher than the 2.4GHz model, a 10 per cent difference. If you spend the extra money for the 2.66GHz model, you not only get a speed boost, but also more RAM (2GB versus 1GB), a bigger hard drive (320GB versus 250GB), and a better video card (256MB Radeon HD 2600 PRO versus a 128MB Radeon HD 2400 XT). The extra £150 is worth it'.

    I personally went with the 2.66ghz model and am very glad I did ;)
     
  5. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #5
    Yea I'd also go for the 2.66GHz model. 2.4GHz problem is the GPU, which is very crappy, so you can't to do any editing with that or gaming.

    When I buy something which cost much, I always keep my eyes on future also. I made so big mistake when I bought this PC what I'm using now. Just wanted something cheap, becouse I did only web surfing, messenger and palyed few old games. Now I want to do photo and video editing, play some new games (eg. GTA IV) and so on. This can hardly do very light photo editing.

    So think what you'll do with your mac in future also, not just this day.
     
  6. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #6
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11 Safari/525.20)

    The graphics in the 2.66 smoke those in the 2.4. So if you game or edit video, it's a no brainer. Even if you don't, the better gpu may mean a lot more when snow leopard comes along.
     
  7. danny_w thread starter macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #7
    Yeah, I'm beginning to see what you mean about the gpu. My 24"/2.4GHz at work has a 2600 in it too. I just really don't want to spend the extra money for it, so I may end up waiting for a bargain. I don't do that much at home right now to justify the cost. Unfortunately I just sold my beautiful black Macbook hoping to get an iMac, so I am having to use an older 17" iMac G5 at the moment; if it were 20" I probably would not be in any kind of hurry at all.
     
  8. mastershakess macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Location:
    Bel Air, MD
    #8
    I play CoD4, FO3, WoW and Bioshock on my 2.4 without any problems
     
  9. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #9
    I don't want to play with 800x600 res and with lowest possible graphics
     
  10. gamer2502 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Location:
    near Pittsburgh,pa
    #10
    don't buy the 2.4 the gpu is pure crap please get the 2.66:apple:
     
  11. danny_w thread starter macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #11
    I ordered the previous generation 2.4 with the 2600Pro gpu from the refurb store for only $50 more than the current (low end) 2.4 on Monday, and it should be here next week.
     

Share This Page