Is there a reason to not get an iMac 2.4Ghz? These refurb prices are tempting me, and I want the 24" but don't necessarily wanna spend the extra money for the different chip. just wondering if there are any issues with the lower model 24"s...
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.
imac 2.4 or 2.8?
- Thread starter tderemigis
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I got my 24" 2.4 iMac about a month ago and I have no reason to wish I had gotten a 2.8 instead. I did max out the RAM with 4 GB of after-market (Crucial) memory. This is one fine machine and unless you do superintensive video editing, I don't think you'd notice the difference between 2.4 and 2.8. Congrats on looking at one fine computer.
Morod
Morod
no problems with the 2.4 at all. people who want the 2.8 either want bleeding edge and something they want to last a long time or the need it for intensive works. the added memory and hdd size are the reason the 2.8 is that much more. if you need the extra ram don't buy it from apple in the first place and if you need more hdd than 500gb, externals are great and cheap
agree with previous posts. love my 2.4, perfect size. however, now that we got rid of our TV and use slingbox only, I wish I had the 24" screen, but not the best reason to upgrade the whole system for all people.
2.4 fine, 2.8 better...
People say go 2.4GHz, as .4GHz is not that mauch faster, but then they also didn't chosse the 2.0GHz comp either... (I know graphics card is marginally different). The point is you can always compromise, but why if you don't have to?
If you can afford it go 2.8Ghz, it just feels better!
People say go 2.4GHz, as .4GHz is not that mauch faster, but then they also didn't chosse the 2.0GHz comp either... (I know graphics card is marginally different). The point is you can always compromise, but why if you don't have to?
If you can afford it go 2.8Ghz, it just feels better!
When you buy an iMac, your computer already has a massive bottleneck in it before you even start to think about processor clock speeds. The GPU on all of them is awful in comparison to the other components.
It's like buying a Ferrari and getting windows made of plastic film or something.
Here we go again with this crap. The video card in the higher end aluminum iMacs is an underclocked Mobility Radeon HD2600XT. It is neither awful" nor a "bottleneck". It is, in fact, a very good solution considering the restrictions of being run in such a tightly constructed and slim machine.
If you are a "gamer" and want a high end "gaming machine" platform you wouldn't be looking at notebooks or all-in-one computers to begin with. You would build your own box with massive cooling, a powerful CPU, SLI video cards, etc.
It's getting monotonous at this point but go search Youtube for 24" aluminum iMac gaming clips and you will see for yourself that it is quite capable of satisfying the needs of the "casual" gamer while still being a beautiful, near-silent Macintosh running OS X. (Let's see your gaming machines do that)
Your analogies are as bad as your misinformation.
I don't have a new iMac, but I've used them at the store and I couldn't tell too much of a difference in the performance of 2.4 vs 2.8.
Of course. Watch the Activity meter. The ONLY time a 2.8 is faster then a 2.4 is if the Activity meter is showing 100% CPU usage. How often does then happen?
If you are rendering video or trans-coding some kind of media it might matter. but mostly the meter is not pegged.
I totally agree. The 2600xt is decent, if not under-rated by the press. It excels at all the games I play (not saying much, but it works for me
).
If you can afford the 2.8 then get it, and sleep well knowing you have the "best". I am very happy with my 24" 2.8GHz, even though it is running as a base system (2GB RAM + 500GB HD). It absolutely flies through Handbrake and any other processor-intensive video tasks I throw at it. I look forward to doubling the RAM, but so far it's been fine with 2GB standard. 
