Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iMac' started by bchamorro, Jan 2, 2010.
Is the 3.3ghz upgrade available at an Apple Store (not the online store)?
The best way is to call the store - but I don't believe so.
Apple stores carry the base configurations, so for the iMac:
21.5" with 500 GB HD and NVIDA 9400M
21.5" with 1 TB and ATI HD 4670
27" 3.06 GHz with ATI HD 4670
27" 2.66 GHz i5 with ATI HD 4850
They have had the 3.33s 9400M as refurbs for $999.
Id spend the $200 on RAM before I would spend it on .22 ghz processor.
$1050AR new for the 3.06/9400M at macconnection.
The Apple Store offers the factory-refurbished Apple iMac Core 2 Duo 3.33GHz 21.5" Desktop, model no. MB950LL/A, for $999 with free shipping. That's $200 under what Apple charges for a new unit and tied with our mention from two weeks ago as the lowest total price we've seen for this current-generation iMac. It features an Intel Core 2 Duo 3.33GHz dual-core processor, 21.5" 1920x1080 widescreen LED-backlit LCD, 4GB RAM, 500GB Serial ATA hard drive, NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics, SuperDrive, Bluetooth 2.0+EDR, AirPort Extreme, iSight, Apple Magic Mouse, and Apple Aluminum Keyboard (small).
Also available is the factory-refurbished, current-generation Apple iMac Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz 21.5" Desktop, model no. MC413LL/A, for $1,299 with free shipping. Again, that's $200 under Apple's price for a new unit and another price low. This configuration includes a 1TB Serial ATA hard drive and ATI Radeon HD 4670 graphics. Both refurbs are covered by a 1-year Apple warranty.
The 3.33 machines do have double the L2 cache.
True enough, L2 cache just isnt as important as it used to be...
The cache helps in multitasking. Besides the 3.33 has a different processor (happens to be the best Core 2 ever made).
Some kind of dismissed the value of the upgrade at first, because the GeekBench grade didn't show a huge difference. But that's just one objective measure. I'd take a look at the different results posted here http://eshop.macsales.com/Reviews/Framework.cfm?page=/Benchmarks/iMacSnowBench.html. The 3.33 ghz model gives a significant boost to many graphic and game applications, as well as a boost to everyday tasks and compiling.
I'd say go with the 3.33. You'll have the best 21.5 mac out there (esp. with the Radeon card), and you might get a little extra life out of your machine. Buy some extra RAM later--at a rate cheaper than the Apple store. From the above link, you'll see that the 3.33 model takes good advantage of that extra ram.
That's actual the model and price of the refurbished 3.06, but I'm sure that the poster caught that.
Doesn't matter if its the best ever made if the new generation is thrice as good.
The question is whether worth the E8600 processor for the 21.5. Actually, the original poster just wanted to know where they could buy it. That said, for it's price range and size (some of us even prefer the smaller screen), it's a good buy (which is what I think the question is), and, as you can see from the frame rates at the link, it compares well to the lower end 27". For most applications, those are hardly thrice as good.
Since you can get a refurbished 3.33ghz with a radeon for $550 less than the I5, it can make a lot of sense, depending on the income you have to work with. It's a midrange option.
Fabricated benchmarks are not comparable to real-world performance.
Are the new dual core i3 and i5 processors three times as good. No. Are they better clock for clock. Yes they are. But he is right the 3.33 E8600 is a different processor from a different processor family. It can hang in most applications with the new i3's and i5's dual core processors. Comparable but the new i3's and i5's are beasts.
It's like comparing the old pentiums with the newer Core 2 Duo when they were released. He E8600 is on par with the dual core very lower end of the Core i3 family desktop processor the i3 530, maybe a bit faster.
Here are some benchmarks.
Processor families in question.
Note the number of transtitors on the E8600, compared to the new processors from intel. Also note that Intel doesn't even have the C2D's on their site under "current' processors. You have to look for them under "previous generation'.
I would not buy a Mac right now if I were buying a 21.5. Wait a month or two.
Thank you for proving my point.
Is it a Core 2 processor? Yes. Does that mean its "dead man walking"? Yes.
Pentium was always trash from day 1. Thats what allowed PPC to succeed. It wasn't until the Core series that Intel had a viable processor again so its understandable why they were so eager to drop the name.
Transistor count is meaningless. The G4 got 3 times the transistors in its first revision, was it better than its stuck-at-500mhz predecessor? Very little.
Well, I didn't really, they are not three times as good. Almost, though.
They are defiantly dead man walking.
You missed my point on this one. The new i3's and i5's have a smaller transistor count than the E8600 but they (the E8600's) are slower clock for clock. The new 'Core' series of chips are more efficient. But the last and most powerfull C2D (E8600)needs that type of 'transistor' count to come close to the performance of the new chips. Which it does. But it needs more transistors to do the same job as the lowest Core i3chips. The lowest i3 chips are the i3 530, which is a match for.
With that being said, the E8600 is more powerful than the E7600 3.06 than simple clock speeds suggest. It is a powerful chip. If you bought a imac with the E8600 you would be less "obsolete' than if you owned the E7600, but that is not saying much. A new mac with a core i3(just speculation) would not be much faster than a imac with the Core 2 Duo with the E8600 3.33. Add the i5 dual core and the performance difference widens.
The E8600 comes close to the performance of the new 'Core' chips. Even beats them in some applications. But overall the new 'Core' series of chips are faster. Much faster. Even though the E8600 is a impressive performing chip in it's own right.