How much bang for my buck? What iMac is the best invest? - Version 2!
- Thread starter Felias
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow, you are quite fast my friend
Let me get at least 7 hours sleep per day please I've already been working on a new version differentiating between the screen sizes to make it more useful. I'll update ist in the next hours. And i gladly put in your optimization hints, if they are useful, so don't worry.
As much as i respect your activity:
Please give me at least a day before altering the table and loading up your own one. This will only confuse everybody here. Several versions of the same document are not helpful
As said above, i have a new version that takes care of this issue. Just reducing 200 is a personal choice, depending on what you would pay for the bigger screen. This might be different for others, so the spreadsheet is not objective any more. I thought about this before, but decided against it so far.
Another thing is the graphics card, which also does make a difference, but is not included in the calculations. I'm not sure if changing the prices does really help here. Instead I planned to get Cinebench-results, which include the graphics card performance so you can see a difference.
As far as i know there are several education programs (at least here in germany), so which one to take? I'll look into it, thanks for the suggestion.
Thanks, i'll change that.
Again, thanks for the dedication, but please let me continue with this and not make 2 seperate "streams" here. Thanks for your understanding
Well I used the US program prices, since you used dollar value of each models in your first version.
Well I used the US program prices, since you used dollar value of each models in your first version.
Fair deal
Please see my work-in-progress-version here:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?...3VyRjJJMVVfVE5ZMFZPQ2c&hl=en&authkey=COqBvfAF
Maybe we can find a way to work on it together? Let me just finish the corrent edits (will take about 2 hours).
Since OP hasn't responded, I just created a new spreadsheet with adjusted price for 27inch model as I described in the quote.
Click here to see the Updated Spreadsheet with few more columns(adjusted price for 27inch and education pricing)
And for the (geekbench score / price) ratio, I have added two more columns that might be interesting to some readers here.
1. Performance / Adj. Price - Ratio column:
Same as what OP did but instead, I divided it by the adjusted price(which is same for all 21.5 inch models, 200 less for 27 inch models)
2. Education discount with iPod touch value calculated as 160 column:
This is for ppl who are looking to buy with education discount. When i calculated the price I subtracted 160 more from education discount(-200 more ontop if 27inch model)
Also, I fixed the minor errors in pricing as OP had $1679 for i5 - 3,6Ghz (corrected to 1699) and $2179 for i7 - 2,93Ghz(corrected to 2199)
As we can see on the table, for new 2010 iMacs, the 21.5 base model and 27inch i7 is giving the biggest bang for your buck.
Obviously, the 21.5 base model dominates more for education pricing ( 5.76 vs 5.41 GeekScore/dollar)
Refurb i7 definitely stands out... it would really stand out if they gave iPod touch for refurbs..
However, if you have dollars to spend and access to education pricing, i guess new iMacs(only base 21.5 and core i7 27inch model) aren't bad at all, as their score/dollar values look pretty comparable to those of refurbs. After all refurbs aren't exactly new. (Although some of them might be new as apple may be busy burning the previous generation stock
BTW, the reason why i only subtracted 160 for 200 dollar ipod touch is that i figured many people will sell it on ebay around 170 ~ 180 + shipping then there are fee that ebay charges and paypal charges(EVIL!!!!
fwi there is no discount, education or free ipod for refurb models. Also like other have said this is incredibly skewed as geekbench is HT biased, and only focuses on memory and CPU, not GPU, not harddrive. That 500 GB drive is small and is not factored in. The GPU is THE limiting factor for all macs especially the upper level ones and will be the first thing to become outdated so going for the i5 to get that GPU is a VERY important upgrade. I think the lack of the GPU being in the chart is a huge over sight as the 1 GB and slight GPU upgrade is a big difference between the old and new imacs
As said above: I totally agree. Please take a look at the "work-in-progress"-version to see a GPU-integrated version.
But generally i agree about the GPU-situation: I much more would like to see Cinebench-Benchmarks on the new iMacs.
So if you have an owner of a new iMac at hand: Please ask him to run Cinebench and post the results here. I'll add those results into the chart then to get an even more valid one. For now, we'll just have to add the GPU in a less accurate but still "better-than-now"- way.
Guys, i could use some help here...
We've got the following cards:
gForce 9400M
Radeon 4670
Radeon 5670
Radeon 4850
Radeon 5850M
Im trying to find comparable benchmarks for them, but i haven't really been lucky. You can see the result on the right side of the "work-in-progress"-spreadsheet. After what i found on the web, i personally would give them the following result:
(0-100, whereas 0 is the 9400m of the old series)
9400M - 0
4670 - 50
5670 - 70
4850 - 70
5850M - 85
Do you thing this is realistic? Other proposals?
Thanks in advance...
We've got the following cards:
gForce 9400M
Radeon 4670
Radeon 5670
Radeon 4850
Radeon 5850M
Im trying to find comparable benchmarks for them, but i haven't really been lucky. You can see the result on the right side of the "work-in-progress"-spreadsheet. After what i found on the web, i personally would give them the following result:
(0-100, whereas 0 is the 9400m of the old series)
9400M - 0
4670 - 50
5670 - 70
4850 - 70
5850M - 85
Do you thing this is realistic? Other proposals?
Thanks in advance...
DoFoT9
macrumors P6
hmm where are you getting those results from? i think handbrake benchmarks would be good
actual real world results.hmm where are you getting those results from? i think handbrake benchmarks would be good
I'm just talking about the graphic cards themselves in a comparable environment. So taking the results from "notebookcheck" should do that, as they are indeed testing in the same environment.
I'm just looking at the GPU now, please remind that.
For the future we should work on getting comparable real-world-results like handbrake for all the old and new iMacs. But this will take quite a lot of time, so for now we need something which has the biggest significance...
Offtopic: Dammit, this really is A LOT of work... feels like writing my diploma all over again ;-)
UPDATE: Version 2 just needs a sanity check. you're welcome to assist.
Version 2 is ready and linked in the original post.
About the GPU-importance: Let me say in advance, that the basic conclusions that are mentioned in the inital post do not change whatever you put in there:
The best iMac for your money will provide the smallest (21,5" i3) and the biggest (27" i7) version. Of course only if you can live with the screen-size
Harddisk is still not relevant in the test. In my opinion it's way less important compared to the rest, but still... just keep that in mind ;-)
----
This has been quite a lot of work already. I'll happily update the chart again as soon as a real-world-comparison method has been found and results of the new and old iMacs are available.
About the GPU-importance: Let me say in advance, that the basic conclusions that are mentioned in the inital post do not change whatever you put in there:
The best iMac for your money will provide the smallest (21,5" i3) and the biggest (27" i7) version. Of course only if you can live with the screen-size
Harddisk is still not relevant in the test. In my opinion it's way less important compared to the rest, but still... just keep that in mind ;-)
----
This has been quite a lot of work already. I'll happily update the chart again as soon as a real-world-comparison method has been found and results of the new and old iMacs are available.
meat popsicle
macrumors newbie
When I look at this carefully again, I think some flaws are actually making the 21.5 inch base model more attractive.
Since it only comes with 500GB HD and can't even customize to upgrade!!!
Also there seems to be a significant difference for GPU for the base model.
But all of the iMacs now have a discrete graphics card. That helps out comparisons. Plus, it has plenty of room to add ram and if you plug in an external drive you are all set that way too.
Not ideal, but easy enough to work with. I have been thinking about the $1499 iMac, but I am really consindering going with the base instead.
I am very well aware of the fact that there is no discount or free ipod for refurbs. That's why I only included such discount in the calculation only for 2010 iMacs. Only if you actually looked at the spreadsheet,.....
Click on "File" (at the top left beneath the Google-Logo) -> "Download as" -> Choose your format.
Fair deal
Please see my work-in-progress-version here:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?...3VyRjJJMVVfVE5ZMFZPQ2c&hl=en&authkey=COqBvfAF
Maybe we can find a way to work on it together? Let me just finish the corrent edits (will take about 2 hours).
Of Course we can. haha.. Maybe we should do this for all other Macs(mbp, mac mini, and Mac Pro)
On the menu bar, click "File" --> "download as" then choose the whatever the format you want to use. Hope this helps.
Pizan
macrumors newbie
They tell my browser (Safari 5.0.1) is not compatible.
Il flush all of my google coockies and it's still the same situation.
Wich browser do you use?
Pizan
macrumors newbie
On the menu bar, click "File" --> "download as" then choose the whatever the format you want to use. Hope this helps.
I am sorry, i think i have a big glitch.
I just got i html version. I can not edit this format.
I virtually use all browsers(safari, firefox, chrome) but for this specific task I use firefox and chrome. I did notice that there is some error message when i try to open it with safari.
Macworld benchmarks
Just to throw the Macworld benchmarks using Speedmark 6 into the mix...
21.5- and 27-inch iMacs (Mid 2010)
Just to throw the Macworld benchmarks using Speedmark 6 into the mix...
21.5- and 27-inch iMacs (Mid 2010)
Thanks for the hint. I'm anxiously waiting for results for the i7 and the dualcore i5, then i can add the results to the list. Until we don't have results for all of them, it doesn't really make sense to add this information.
But the results of Speedmark match the results from Geekbench basically... The best bang for the buck is the i3 21,5" (and probably the 27" i7).
But the results of Speedmark match the results from Geekbench basically... The best bang for the buck is the i3 21,5" (and probably the 27" i7).
Just wanted to say thank you for pulling together all of this information and presenting it so neatly to us.
Cheers!!!