Help me pick an iMac!

[dKran]

Hey Guys.

So basically i'm torn.

I just sold my older Macbook Pro (15', 2.33 Ghz Core2Duo, 256Mb ATI X1600), which I am kind if regretting now lol, though my girlfriend purchased a new 13' pro the same day

Anyways, I sold it because it rarely leaves the house, and it was really uncomfortable to do serious work on, so I wanted a desktop (got $1100 for it by the way, is that a good price or not?)

I get paid on Friday, and will have ~1500 dollars.

I've was originally looking at this system:

http://store.apple.com/ca/product/FB325LL/A?mco=MjE0NjA3MA
(24 Inch, 2.8GHz, 2GB DDR2, 320Gb HD, 256MB ATI 2600HD)

First question, how much of a performance boost would that give me compared to the Macbook Pro I had?

Then I started looking on craigslist, and not too far from the area i'm in, it is not super uncommon to see the newer 2.93 Ghz model, with the nVidia GT120 card in it, for around the same price.

How much different are these two systems going to be? If I put the ram in the 2.8 system to the 4GB maximum, it seems that the systems would be nearly even, besides the video card of course, how much better is the GT120 going to be?

Sorry if these questions have been answered before, couldn't find another thread, but thank you for the help in advance!

Also, is the difference between the 20, and 24 inch systems that great? Because the 20 inch iMacs are a lot more common on craigslist.

Thanks again!

 

[pinak]

Hello, dKran, the difference between the 20" and the 24" models, are :

-Screen Size
-The 20" model ( if not customized ) the hard drive is 320 GB compared to 640 GB on the 24"

There are more but those are all I can think of right now.

 

[dKran]

Hey.

Thanks for the response

The question about the differences was more like "How noticeable is the difference in the screen sizes?"

Thanks a lot guys !

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

Hey.

Thanks for the response

The question about the differences was more like "How noticeable is the difference in the screen sizes?"

Thanks a lot guys !

The screen size change from 20'' to 24'' will be quite noticeable.

 

[techound1]

The screen size change from 20'' to 24'' will be quite noticeable.

But the OP is going from a 15" MBP, so 20 will seem like a whole lot more real estate (esp. if he's sneaking onto the gf's 13" now). It is toss up - the 20's are more common (and smaller) and therefore cheaper. If money's tight (or if you want to get the gf a shuffle as a thank you for letting you use her machine...), do the 20 - I think the bump up to the 24 may not be worth it.

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

But the OP is going from a 15" MBP, so 20 will seem like a whole lot more real estate (esp. if he's sneaking onto the gf's 13" now). It is toss up - the 20's are more common (and smaller) and therefore cheaper. If money's tight (or if you want to get the gf a shuffle as a thank you for letting you use her machine...), do the 20 - I think the bump up to the 24 may not be worth it.

AFAIK, the 20'' uses a lower quality panel, not that it makes a difference.

My 2209 has a TN panel and it produces near-print quality images, so I don't see the need for an IPS.

The jump from 15'' to 20'' will be huge, but the leap from 15'' to 24'' will be bigger. IIRC, the 24'' also has a higher resolution, too.

 

[dKran]

Thanks guys.

I still think i'd be a lot happier with the 24, since it's a lot bigger lol, full HD, the higher panel as you guys said. Plus it will be a screen for us to watch movies/TV on in the bedroom.

Does anyone know how much of a performance difference there is going to be between the 2.8 and 2.93 system? Mainly with video?

Thanks guys!

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

Thanks guys.

I still think i'd be a lot happier with the 24, since it's a lot bigger lol, full HD, the higher panel as you guys said. Plus it will be a screen for us to watch movies/TV on in the bedroom.

Does anyone know how much of a performance difference there is going to be between the 2.8 and 2.93 system? Mainly with video?

Thanks guys!

It is 130 MHz. You won't notice a difference at all.

The 2.8 is the previous revision, so the RAM is DDR2 and a bit slower. IIRC, the HDD is a bit smaller too. You'll be able the find the 2.8 much cheaper than the 2.93.

 

[dKran]

It is 130 MHz. You won't notice a difference at all.

The 2.8 is the previous revision, so the RAM is DDR2 and a bit slower. IIRC, the HDD is a bit smaller too. You'll be able the find the 2.8 much cheaper than the 2.93.

Thanks

And yeah, the RAM in the 2.8 is only expandable to 4GB, though that shouldn't really be an issue, as I don't expect to be running anything that expansive lol.

The biggest thing I'm worried about with the 2.8 vs 2.93 is the Video card (HD2600/GT-120) How is the 2600 going to be in everyday use, with video/photo editing, and some gaming (Basically The Sims 3, WoW, and hopefully Bioshock on the Windows side)

Is the HD2600 going to suit my needs?

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

Thanks

And yeah, the RAM in the 2.8 is only expandable to 4GB, though that shouldn't really be an issue, as I don't expect to be running anything that expansive lol.

The biggest thing I'm worried about with the 2.8 vs 2.93 is the Video card (HD2600/GT-120) How is the 2600 going to be in everyday use, with video/photo editing, and some gaming (Basically The Sims 3, WoW, and hopefully Bioshock on the Windows side)

Is the HD2600 going to suit my needs?

It should be plenty. My mini with GMA 950 graphics does most of that stuff. I did some gaming with Vista awhile ago using Sim City 4 and Flight Simulator X. Both were a bit choppy (probably because they were installed on an external HDD), but bearable.

I also do some mid-level Photoshopping with my 733 MHz PowerMac and it keeps up just fine.

 

[dKran]

Thanks guys

Not too worried about the difference now lol.

If anyone else has any input, glad to hear it!

Thanks again