iMac 2.4 GHz or iMac 2.66Ghz?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by the jedi, Feb 17, 2009.

  1. the jedi macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Location:
    South Africa
    #1
    I am a graphic designer and I am stuck between the choice of either the iMac 2.4GHz or iMac 2.66GHz. I work with Adobe CS4 and run many applications at once. Which iMac would suit my line of work better and would it make much difference if I just bumped up the RAM on the smaller machine to accomodate what it lacks that the 2.66GHz machine boasts?
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    Definitely 2.66GHz, 2.4GHz has crappy GPU. How about 24" 2.8GHz with 8800? It costs more but suits better for your needs
     
  3. ditzy macrumors 68000

    ditzy

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    #4
    If you can afford the 2.66 it is worth it. While the RAM is upgradable in the 2.4 model, the GPU is not. I personally would not buy the 2.4 for this reason.
     
  4. AlexisV macrumors 68000

    AlexisV

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #5
    • the difference between the 2.66Ghz and 2.4Ghz is minimal. 6 or 7 mins in a an hour's video encoding is about it. You'll notice no difference in everyday use.

    • CS4 is a 2D software package, with some apps utilising the extra power of modern 3D cards. There will be no difference between the GeForce and the Radeon. Unless you're going to be playing games, you won't be using the extra horsepower of the GeForce at all in Photoshop!

    Get the 2.4 and spend the extra money on another 2gigs of RAM.

    The three posts above confuse me. The OP is a graphic designer who will be using CS4. Whether you have a Radeon X1600, 2600 or GeForce 8800 in there won't make any difference.
     
  5. gixxerredliner macrumors regular

    gixxerredliner

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    #6
    Impressive


    Someone who knows what they are talking about :) great post
     
  6. TrapOx macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Location:
    Denver
  7. nusynergy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Location:
    Kent - UK
    #8
    I have the 2.4ghz processor in my MBP and it performs very very well. I suggest get the 2.4 and up the RAM.
     
  8. ditzy macrumors 68000

    ditzy

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    #9
    The MBP has a better GPU than the iMac. Infact the GPU in the new macbook is better than the GPU in the base iMac. If it wasn't for this I would suggest the base iMac as the processor is a good one.
     
  9. gixxerredliner macrumors regular

    gixxerredliner

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    #10
    Really?

    Well for everyday use it wouldnt matter, why pay $1999.99 for a MBP when i only use a computer to surf the net, watch youtube, and write papers? Now if I was interested in some serious movie editing than a Pro would suit me but for my needs the base 2.4 its just fine.
     
  10. ditzy macrumors 68000

    ditzy

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    #11
    I was not suggesting that they buy the $1999 MBP, I was suggesting that they buy the $1499 2.66 iMac. Infact I would suggest that they bought the $999 macbook over the 2.4 iMac.
    I was just pointing out that comparing the 2.4 MBP to the 2.4 iMac was not comparing like with like. It would be closer to compare the iMac with the 2.4 macbook and even that has a better graphics card.
     
  11. gixxerredliner macrumors regular

    gixxerredliner

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    #12
    Did you read that post??

    • the difference between the 2.66Ghz and 2.4Ghz is minimal. 6 or 7 mins in a an hour's video encoding is about it. You'll notice no difference in everyday use.

    • CS4 is a 2D software package, with some apps utilising the extra power of modern 3D cards. There will be no difference between the GeForce and the Radeon. Unless you're going to be playing games, you won't be using the extra horsepower of the GeForce at all in Photoshop!

    Get the 2.4 and spend the extra money on another 2gigs of RAM.


    AlexisV who posted the above post knows what hes talking about, why purchase a 2.4 macbook with small screen estate and an average screen? I think a person should purchase a computer/laptop based on there needs. Whats the use of a top notch graphic card if you arent playing video games or using graphic extensive applications?
     
  12. ditzy macrumors 68000

    ditzy

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    #13
    I read it and disagreed with it as he or she disagrees with me. I am not a big gamer the only game I play regularly is Sims 2 which does not need a great graphics card. But whenever I've bought a computer with a not very good graphics card I've found that I've ended up having to replace it for reasons of my sanity. It is not possible to upgrade the graphics card in the iMac, so I would make sure that I started off with a half decent one.
    I've just read the thread that you just started, If the OP found a referb like yours with the better graphics card I would tell them to go for that even though the RAM and the front side bus are not as good, as it was last generations iMac.
     
  13. gixxerredliner macrumors regular

    gixxerredliner

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    #14
    hmmm


    And in this case for an imac are you saying that the nvidia 9400 is king when compared in bench mark test to the 2.66's graphic card?
     
  14. ditzy macrumors 68000

    ditzy

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    #15
    No I said it is king when compared to the graphics card in this generations 2.4 iMac. The 2.66 graphics card beats the 9400m.
     
  15. gixxerredliner macrumors regular

    gixxerredliner

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    #16
    ohhhhh

    Wow so the 2.66 graphics card actually performs better than the Nvidia 9400, I wonder why so many ppl are waiting for the so called "upgraded imacs" when the current cards fuction as well if not better than the new macbooks minus the MBP.
     
  16. mastershakess macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Location:
    Bel Air, MD
    #17
  17. TrapOx macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Location:
    Denver
    #18
    Because the MB is a LAPTOP and the iMac is a DESKTOP.
     

Share This Page