iMac 2.4GHz vs. iMac 2.66GHz

Discussion in 'iMac' started by icibaqu, Jun 11, 2009.

  1. icibaqu macrumors newbie

    Jan 23, 2009
    I was curious of peoples opinions on the below comparison. The price difference is $150 more for iMac 2. I see that bringing the RAM equal would be $25-30 on Crucial, and for both to bring it up to the 4GB supported is like $50-60. so not a big difference, and I'd probably do that regardless of which one was purchased.

    So really, the main dividing factors are the 1) processor speed bump, 2) 250 vs 320 GB drive and 3) the graphics card. Also, is there a difference between "fronside bus" and "system bus" that greatly impacts performance? Do you think these differences are worth $150 price increase?

    Lastly, if you think it is worth it, is the ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO or the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M a better/more reliable choice for graphics card?

    iMac 1: 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
    20-inch glossy widescreen display
    1GB memory
    250GB hard drive
    L2 Cache 6MB Shared
    1066MHz System Bus
    8x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
    ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory
    8x SuperDrive with 4x double-layer burning

    iMac 2: 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
    20-inch glossy widescreen display
    2GB memory
    320GB hard drive
    L2 Cache 6MB Shared
    1066MHz Frontside Bus
    8x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
    ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB memory OR NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics processor with 256MB of DDR3 SDRAM shared with main memory
  2. Hellhammer Moderator


    Staff Member

    Dec 10, 2008
    Previous gen 2.66GHz iMac with ATI 2600 is the way what I would go. The only major and noticeable difference is GPU, so if you will only surf on the net and read e-mails, 2.4GHz will be fine.
  3. icibaqu thread starter macrumors newbie

    Jan 23, 2009

    Hm, well I do more than that, but more along the lines of editing photos, occasionally making some small video w/ iMovie. Im not gaming or anything like that, so I'm admittedly not TOO intense on the machine, but do obviously want it to last.

    What does the ATI 2600 handle that the NVIDIA doesn't or that the ATI 2400 doesn't?
  4. trose macrumors regular

    Dec 28, 2002
    The 2600 is an all-round more powerful card than the 9400M... BUT... the 2600 is not going to support OpenCL, which should help speed things up a bit once Snow Leopard arrives. The 9400M will support OpenCL, so for general computing (I.E.- Not games, or anything that does heavy 3D rendering) the 9400M should be a better card.

    The 2400 is much weaker than either, and I wouldn't recommend it. It also won't do OpenCL. It should still be fine for everything you do, but if it's only a minor cost difference and you're getting a larger hard drive & faster CPU with a 2600 or 9400 equipped machine, I'd go with one of those instead.

    So, in summary- The 9400M sounds like the best card for you.
  5. zedsdead macrumors 68040

    Jun 20, 2007
    Do not get the iMac with the 2400xt.

    As stated above, the new NVIDIA card supports Open CL, and once Snow Leopard arrives you should get some performance boosts, so I say go with that.
  6. PhixionFilms macrumors 6502

    Dec 6, 2008
    Deployed atm
    If i was you, id wait for the 9400m graphics chip. They are coming standard in the 2.66 models anyways. This way, then snow leopard comes along, it will take advantage of your GPU.
  7. icibaqu thread starter macrumors newbie

    Jan 23, 2009
    Thanks for your help and comments everyone.

    old iMac G5 2.0 sold to happy craigslist customer. refurb iMac 2.66 w/ the NVIDIA now sitting on desk. I'm amazed by just how much faster it is. I can't imagine the improvement when I decide to upgrade the RAM from the current 2 to 4gb (8 I think is overkill for me). This computer should have some real longevity since I didn't really need to upgrade, but the idea came from my wife so I obviously grabbed that bull by the horns ;-)

Share This Page