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.
Apple Releases Core 2 Duo iMac, Adds 24" Model
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
balamw
Moderator emeritus
I beg to differ, while I love my 17" iMac for its intended purpose it is very clear now that Macs are Intel based that there is a real price/performance gap for Conroe based headless Macs. That gap is widening now that the mini remains Yonah based and the iMac has gotten Merom while the Mac Pro has Woodcrest.Sped said:
I don't want or need a quad processor Mac Pro, or a Mini crippled by integrated graphics and a 2.5" drive. Does that make me a performance zealot? Maybe I just need to buy a $1000 Conroe based Dell to replace my aging P4 instead of a new Mac. 🙁
B
Macrumors newbie
Hi - first post.
I am looking to replace our 5-year-old old Dell desktop, and am seriously considering an iMac (mini-tower would be nice, if they come out with one soon).
I was looking at the 20" iMac before, and now it looks like a really good deal. Am trying to assess whether the 24" (although no doubt beautiful) is worth the extra cash. Beyond the display, differences seem t be the better graphics card and the FW800.
Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere, but is the Nvidia 7300 on the 24" likely to be noticeably better than the x1600 on the 20"? In either case, is the available upgrade (i.e., to 256 MB on the x1600 on the 20" or to the Nv 7600 on the 24") worth it?
Also, just curious: Why does it cost $175 to upgrade from 1GB to 2GB of RAM, but another $575 to go to 3GB?
Hi - first post.
I am looking to replace our 5-year-old old Dell desktop, and am seriously considering an iMac (mini-tower would be nice, if they come out with one soon).
I was looking at the 20" iMac before, and now it looks like a really good deal. Am trying to assess whether the 24" (although no doubt beautiful) is worth the extra cash. Beyond the display, differences seem t be the better graphics card and the FW800.
Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere, but is the Nvidia 7300 on the 24" likely to be noticeably better than the x1600 on the 20"? In either case, is the available upgrade (i.e., to 256 MB on the x1600 on the 20" or to the Nv 7600 on the 24") worth it?
Also, just curious: Why does it cost $175 to upgrade from 1GB to 2GB of RAM, but another $575 to go to 3GB?
TBi said:
It doesn't even have to be turbocache-cards, all vid-cards can store textures in system-RAM. Turbocache just means that they treat all RAM (system and video) as one pool of RAM. And that means that they could keep framebuffer in system-RAM as well. Without turbocache they couldn't put the framebuffer there. And it might be that the GeForce does support Turbocache, the just might not advertize it as much as on their low-end models (which basically need the feature).
AidenShaw said:
Even Mr. Shaw couldn't resist joining the fray, this is amazing...
1 - your machine up there doesn't run Windows and OS X...therefore, it cannot be the most powerful;
2 - 64-bit support in Vista is gonna be lousy when compared to Leopard, including a crappy emulation mode for 32-bit apps...and the fake 64-bit in current XP systems shouldn't even be taken into consideration, since its adoption has been close to zero, to say the least;
3 - we have been exchanging picky arguments for a long time, Mr. Shaw...so you should know better that I love to state my support of the Mac platform, especially when the forum we call MacRumors is full of PC supporters...and I love to get rabid reactions from Thurrott's fans here, it's real fun... 🙄
By the way, could you show me again the price difference between a MP and a Dull? It was at least $500 the last time I saw, for identical systems...and please, don't mention academic SPECmark discrepancies...you know there are different system configuration and methodologies...
BEST OS + BEST DESIGN + BEST SUPPORT OF THE MARKET + BEST CHIPS AND MOBOS = MOST POWERFUL MACHINE...get it now? 🙄
BenRoethig
macrumors 68030
Eidorian said:
The front row iMacs were thinner and used the ow power version of the 970FX that was introduced with the 970MP. Even then, they were pretty loud. Yonah and Merom iMacs are almost dead silent.
Eidorian
macrumors Penryn
I have my doubts on Conroe in the 17" model. But the 20" and 24" ones have more then enough internal volume for it.BenRoethig said:
iMac Internals
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
The ProMac doesn't run Solaris or Linux.... Your point is?BRLawyer said:
Odd, but my current XP 64-bit systems don't seem fake, and the "crappy 32-bit emulation mode" is just as fast as real 32-bit mode. There's no ISA emulation, just some system API thunking. Not an issue if you understand the technologies...BRLawyer said:
It's funny how the Apple fans can claim that "Leopard will be much better", based on two Powerpoint slides from WWDC.
I'm also amused that your main response to the fact that the Dell is faster than the Mac Pro is to ask about the price of the Dell. Can't admit that you're wrong a second time? 😱
javierbds said:
This is all nonsense, a 1.83 Conroe is NOT on par with a 2.33 Merom, it is way slower. A 2.33 Merom is almost as fast as a 2.33 Conroe.
Eidorian
macrumors Penryn
I only see a die shrink from Penryn though. We get more cache but no more cores.DVK916 said:
The increased internal volumes gives us more room to work with when it comes to thermal envelopes. I've found the 20" models MUCH more quieter then the 17" ones. The Rev. A/B iMac design makes this obvious when going from 17" to 20".balamw said:
Not likely, I think, but...
Seriously, I think I'll drown in my own drool if that happens! Imagine the specs such a beast could have... The price would be ugly, obviously, but... wow!!! Just wow!!! I don't see it happening though. But... they do need *something* for that September 12th event, right? I mean, other than the movie downloads, since the whole world already knows about that.
joshwest said:
Seriously, I think I'll drown in my own drool if that happens! Imagine the specs such a beast could have... The price would be ugly, obviously, but... wow!!! Just wow!!! I don't see it happening though. But... they do need *something* for that September 12th event, right? I mean, other than the movie downloads, since the whole world already knows about that.
Anonymous Freak
macrumors 603
Hd?
The display on the 24" iMac is not made by Harley Davidson.
Nor can it be purchased at Home Depot.
It does not have Hip Dysplasia.
I doubt it has a Higher Diploma.
For the love of pete, I sincerely hope nobody ever desires to display Hillary Duff on that screen!
As an inanimate object, it has no Hit Dice, per se. (Although if animated, based on its size, it would likely have 1-2.)
Or did you mean "is it High Definition"? 😛
Yes, it is. But then again, so is the MacBook. Anything 1280x720 or higher can be called 'high definition'.
I assume what you REALLY mean is "Can the 24" iMac natively display 1080 HD content at full resolution?"
Yes. The native resolution of the 24" panel is 1920x1200. That means it can display 1080i/1080p content with no scaling. (Although I have yet to find 1440x900 or 1680x1050 to be 'lacking' when displaying 1080 content.
jesteraver said:
The display on the 24" iMac is not made by Harley Davidson.
Nor can it be purchased at Home Depot.
It does not have Hip Dysplasia.
I doubt it has a Higher Diploma.
For the love of pete, I sincerely hope nobody ever desires to display Hillary Duff on that screen!
As an inanimate object, it has no Hit Dice, per se. (Although if animated, based on its size, it would likely have 1-2.)
Or did you mean "is it High Definition"? 😛
Yes, it is. But then again, so is the MacBook. Anything 1280x720 or higher can be called 'high definition'.
I assume what you REALLY mean is "Can the 24" iMac natively display 1080 HD content at full resolution?"
Yes. The native resolution of the 24" panel is 1920x1200. That means it can display 1080i/1080p content with no scaling. (Although I have yet to find 1440x900 or 1680x1050 to be 'lacking' when displaying 1080 content.
Anonymous Freak
macrumors 603
Eidorian said:
According to Intel's roadmaps, quad-core or greater is not on the mobile roadmap. At all.
Desktop processors will get quad-core (likely the 'Extreme' part,) either at the end of this year, or by the middle of next year. Quad core is the most the desktop roadmap currently shows.
Server/workstation processors will get quad-core this year, and the roadmap has up to 8-core chips in late '08 or early '09.
Intel has talked about massively-multi-core chips, but the roadmap doesn't show any currently even in the planning stages of production.
Of course, as we saw with the abandonment of NetBurst, roadmaps do change. By '09, we could see 8-core everywhere.
Fabio_gsilva
macrumors 6502
Man, I reaaly want a new 24" iMac... it would fito so sweet in my room...
My Mini is jealous....
My Mini is jealous....
flopticalcube
macrumors G4
Does the video mem upgrade on the 20" make a significant difference? Apple.ca wants CAD$150 for it, which seems a bit cheeky.