2.4Ghz 4 GB Ram vs 2.8Ghz 2 GB ram ?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Triplenickle, Aug 29, 2007.

  1. Triplenickle macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    #1
    I would upgrade ram via OWC. also, I will be choosing a 750 GB HD. Which is best to spend the extra money.. on the processor or extra ram? or BOTH? I am trying to find a middle ground.. suggestions? I do a fair amount of iPhoto (photos and some video), Photoshop Elements, iTunes, and the usual, email, surfing, streaming video, etc.
     
  2. taylorwilsdon macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #2
    It really comes down to whether you want the extra 4 inches. I already had a 24'' monitor so I went with the 20'' 2.4 with 4gb RAM but if you want a bigger screen, theres not much of a choice at all. Either way, you should be happy with both configurations.
     
  3. Jasonbot macrumors 68020

    Jasonbot

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Rainbow Nation RSA
    #3
    He's asking about processors not size.

    If you want to future proof your mac even more go with the 2.8. It's a lot easier to upgrade RAM (1 screw) than to upgrade to processor (like 40 screws+ voided warranty) in the future.
     
  4. profit42 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    #4
    If you want to edit photo's go for 4GB RAM. Photoshop will be way more happy with extra RAM than with a slightly better CPU (slow CPU means that filters will take longer to load, though more RAM means that you get more history states and that Photoshop won't get sluggish after editing an image for an hour).

    In iTunes and in Firefox you won't notice a lot of difference if you have a better CPU, so again, go for the RAM.

    If you want to edit video's, render 3D things, work with large files or other CPU intensive tasks, go for BOTH CPU and RAM.

    And btw, if you want to upgrade the RAM after you bought the iMac you have to trow away the original 2Gb of RAM and buy 4GB. if you want to upgrade the CPU you have to trow away the whole iMac and buy a new one.
     
  5. Bengt77 macrumors 68000

    Bengt77

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2002
    Location:
    Europe
    #5
    I did both. Very happy with it. Haven't gotten the chance yet to really stress the system. Have installed XP the day before yesterday and will try to install some games tonight. Very exciting. Should prove itself to be a really fast system. But, yes, the GPU. Should be better as better, more mature drivers surface, though. Not too worried about that yet.
     
  6. jbellanca macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    #6
    My opinion: Hands down, no question, go with the 2.8 processor. You can always upgrade your RAM later to 4GB if you want to down the road sometime. You can't upgrade the processor later, though.
     
  7. TSE macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Location:
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    #7
    I would go for the processor. By todays standards, 2 Gbs of ram is still plenty, and a 2.8 GHZ extreme processor is awesome. And plus, future proofing your mac really depends more on processor than it does amount of ram.
     
  8. Triplenickle thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    #8
    Thanks for all the replies.

    I wonder when the next speed bump for the iMac will be? Jan 2008? Whats next? 3.0 ghz? other?
     
  9. taylorwilsdon macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #9
    There is no such thing as a 2.8ghz 20'', so the biggest difference is going to be the screen size. The speed difference from 2.4 to 2.8 is so negligible because its still dual core, still restricted by other components.
     
  10. Triplenickle thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    #10
    Sorry, I was referring to the 24" the whole time. I want the higher resolution screen.
     
  11. Jasonbot macrumors 68020

    Jasonbot

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Rainbow Nation RSA
    #11
    Whoops, never noticed that. But at least I didn't refer to any specific screen size while making my post so it doesn't really mater.
     
  12. AlexisV macrumors 68000

    AlexisV

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #12
    I don't know what games you're playing, but without AA, it's not the slouch people are making out.

    Some more benchmarks at http://xtreview.com/review209.htm

    AA makes sod all difference really anyway. Games don't look that much better with it on.


    It also depends on the specific game:

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Triplenickle thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    #13
    I believe this has been posted in the wrong thread?
     
  14. powerbook911 macrumors 68040

    powerbook911

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    #14
    New egg has a 2 GB stick for about $90 after rebate.

    Why not get the 2.8 GHZ machine and then add the 2 GB stick, for 3 GB total for now, and then you could change the 1 GB stick to 2 GB someday, when you had the cash.

    3 GB with 2.8 GHZ would be a sweet machine, for a lot of stuff even 2.8 GHZ with 2 GB would be fine too.

    Personally, I think maybe it is a lot of money to upgrade from 2.4 GHZ to 2.8GHZ, but if you have the money and you don't get a new computer very often, it is worth it.

    if you replace your computer regularly, I say get the 2.4 GHZ.
     
  15. Squonk macrumors 65816

    Squonk

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    #15
    2.8GHz

    Since you cannot upgrade that later, go for the faster CPU now and upgrade the RAM when you can afford it and if/when you actually need it.

    This assumes that you are planning to keep this machine for 2 or more years. If you swap out systems frequently, then save the bucks and stick with the 2.4GHz.
     
  16. Triplenickle thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    #16
    Thanks again... I usually upgrade every 3 yrs or so. I currently have a 20 inch G5 iMac.
     
  17. Squonk macrumors 65816

    Squonk

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    #17
    You are welcome! I bought my current system as a refurb. So I've had it 3 years but the machine is 4 years old. I've got the hankering for a new machine - it will be in Dec or Jan. I'm probably going to go for the high end model for longevity.
     
  18. Triplenickle thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    #18
    The TOTAL cost with all other features equal (each upgraded to 3GB RAM),.. with tax included.. it is $400 more for the 2.8Ghz iMac vs 2.4Ghz iMac 24".

    It it truly worth $400 ?
     
  19. powerbook911 macrumors 68040

    powerbook911

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    #19
    In my opinion, no, but that is just me. :)
     
  20. Doctorsti macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    #20
    i'm in the same boat as the OP. so far I have gathered that it's likely not worth it but a lot of posts in this thread seem to state that it would "future proof" it more.
    my questions:
    What exactly is the "extreme" part of the cpu?
    Are the other limiting factors outside of the cpu that limit performance likely to change with time or would they also need upgrade or be impossible to upgrade?
     
  21. rainydays macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    #21
    I think that you are only fooling yourself if you think the the 2.8GHz will "future proof" the iMac. What you should be asking yourself is: do I need the extra speed right now?

    It is only a matter of 10-20% increase depending on the task. If you don't do a lot of number crunching like rendering media or working with many plugins in audio production it will probably not be worth it. And for regular tasks, you won't even notice it.

    In just a couple of years there will most likely be quad core processors that are cool enough to put into the iMac. And compared to those the extra 0.4GHz will seem like nothing. So as far as "future proofing" goes, it's simply not worth it in my opinion, and it's better to save that money towards a future upgrade instead. But if you need the speed increase right now, then go for it!
     
  22. Triplenickle thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    #22
    Thanks again for all the feedback. I believe I will choose the 2.4Ghz and maximize the Ram to 4GB.....
     
  23. kingtj macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Location:
    Brunswick, MD
    #23
    Smart choice!

    This is exactly what I did (went with a 20" model though, not a 24").
    While it's true that upgrading the CPU after the purchase would be impractical - I don't see why you'd ever really care?

    The typical iMac user considers selling the old machine and buying a whole new one when it comes to a point where the CPU inside is too slow for their needs. The resale value on 3 year old iMacs is surprisingly good too - so this option isn't quite as costly as it might be for a generic Windows PC.

    Maxxing out the RAM, on the other hand, has an immediate benefit - and gives you a component you can actually remove and sell separately or possibly even re-use in a different system, down the road.


     
  24. raysmd macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    #24
    I look at it this way. The best deal is the baseline 2.4GHz 24" iMac for $1,799.
    Now, just go out and buy a 2G stick of RAM for ~$130 and you're all set at a total of 3Gig system RAM. Total outlay $1,929 before taxes.


    However, you could just pay an additional $250 for the CPU upgrade to the baseline 24" iMac. i.e., $2,049 for the faster CPU and 1Gig RAM.


    You're right it's either $250 for the CPU for $250 for memory upgrades. Sure you could spend that money to get 4Gigs of RAM, but then that's not a cost effective upgrade when compared to buying just 1 stick of 2GB memory. Why? Because that makes your current 1GB stick useless.


    For me it would be between the following two choices. BOTH presume that memory will not be purchased from Apple.

    A. $1,929 for 24" 2.4GHz, 320G HD, 1 G RAM, + extra 2GB RAM

    B. $2,049 for 24" 2.8GHz, 320G HD, 1 G RAM, (extra memory to be added when funds are more abundant).


    That makes a difference of $120 between choices A and B. I would go with B and then buy the extra memory a day later. :)
     

Share This Page