iMac 20"- Sweet Spot?

carfac

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 18, 2006
1,217
1
Hey:

Just looking over specs, it l;ooks to me like the 20" is the sweet spot for the iMac line, if not for the whole Apple computer line. Consider the differences between a 17" and 20"

160=>250 Gig HHD
512m=>1 Gig RAM
3 inch more screen
2.0 => 2.16 CPU

All this, for a mere 300 clams.

All I see between a 20 and 24 is 4 inches more screen real estate. Don't get me wrong, that is a BIG 4 inches... but that's $125 per inch!

So the 20 seems to really be a major sweet spot. Am I missing anything else that justifies the 24?

Dave
 

Allotriophagy

macrumors 6502a
Sep 5, 2006
917
0
FW800, higher resolution (not just bigger screen), much better base graphics card, more graphics card upgrade options.
 

carfac

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 18, 2006
1,217
1
Thanks- does anyone have a link about this new vid card? Want to judge for me how "worth it" the card is...
 

puckhead193

macrumors G3
May 25, 2004
9,235
456
NY
it is a big 4 inches, if i don't get a mac pro, i'm gonna get 20" loaded. If i wasn't living in the dorms and had a bigger desk, i would get that in a hart beat
 

BadgerMac

macrumors regular
Jan 6, 2003
121
0
From a cost effectiveness standpoint, at least for me, upper-end 17" model was the best bang for the buck. WIth my ed discount I got it for $1100, it cames with everything the 20" had minus the resolution. I could have upped the CPU or the HD, but I left them stock. No doubt I would have LOVED to have gotten the 20" model, but for $300 more I couldn't justify the extra real estate, especially with a 21" LCD already on my desk from my "MAcBook Pro as a desktop" experiment.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,546
1,186
As I understand it, the 24" doesn't have a much better GPU. But it has the OPTION of a much better GPU--the 7600. That and the screen size make it worth it for me.

Actually, for non-gamers, the BOTTOM 17" may be the sweet spot.
 

tomacintosh

macrumors regular
Aug 25, 2005
234
0
I'm looking forward to seeing barefeats.com compare the 20" 2.33GHz, X1600 256mb with the 24" 2.33Ghz 7600 256mb. If the PC world is anything to go by there won't be that much in it. I don't really see why everyone is raving about the 7600 anyway, it's not that good a card.
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,055
6
Yahooville S.C.
Apple should offer some type of upgraded graphics on all of its machines, I would hate to buy a new imac with a 7300GT only wanting more in the next yr. 7600GT should be offered in all iMacs for consumer gamers but Apple keeps playing the all in one vs Powermac game. They need to think different and getting every customer by selling to the customers needs and wants. The iMac 20" is almost the sweetspot but ...gpu. Fact is any of these new Intel CPU's mated with a fast GPU = Hot Rod. So Apple will continue with the crippling GPU stuff in everymodel. Saturday morning rant over.:)
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,546
1,186
tomimacg5 said:
I'm looking forward to seeing barefeats.com compare the 20" 2.33GHz, X1600 256mb with the 24" 2.33Ghz 7600 256mb. If the PC world is anything to go by there won't be that much in it. I don't really see why everyone is raving about the 7600 anyway, it's not that good a card.
The 7600 is better than most people buy, PC OR Mac, and offers high framerates at high detail in modern games, much better than the 1600, not to mention double the VRAM. It also ain't half bad for a near-silent, ultrathin all-in-one :)

In short, it's not a top-end card, but it IS that good. (Maybe not for your individual needs.)
 

I'mAMac

macrumors 6502a
Aug 28, 2006
786
0
In a Mac box
The 7600 might not be a great card, but in Macs gfx cards always run better. Probably because macs are better made and have better processors than PC's. I had a 3.0 Ghz pentium D 930 with 1.5 gb RAM and an X1300 Pro and I was getting liike 20-30 fps on BF2. I got the iMac 20" Core Duo with 1.5 gb RAM and the x1600 mobility and im getting 20 more fps at least. Spiked to 100:eek:
 

zerolight

macrumors 6502
Mar 6, 2006
486
71
Glasgow
I went for the 24 for the screen. Big screen and lots of resolution. That's what made me take the plunge and sell off my Power Mac which I bought 6 months ago. I've been itching for a 24" Dell screen to go with the Power Mac for ages. The cost to change to a 24" iMac is less than the cost to replace my screen, has a better graphics card, similar performance to my outgoing Dual 2.7, and looks better than the Dell monitor. As far as I'm concerned the 24 is the jewel in the iMac line, and a real bargain. Infact all the iMacs, like the MacBooks are bargains, especially in comparison to the very expensive (though very sexy) Mac BookPro's.
 

zerolight

macrumors 6502
Mar 6, 2006
486
71
Glasgow
I'mAMac said:
The 7600 might not be a great card, but in Macs gfx cards always run better. Probably because macs are better made and have better processors than PC's. I had a 3.0 Ghz pentium D 930 with 1.5 gb RAM and an X1300 Pro and I was getting liike 20-30 fps on BF2. I got the iMac 20" Core Duo with 1.5 gb RAM and the x1600 mobility and im getting 20 more fps at least. Spiked to 100:eek:
The irony in this statement is that now PCs and Macs have the exact same processors, not that I'd agree that Mac's get more performance than a PC in terms of Graphics anyway.

The fact that they are generally better made has no affect on performance either.

The difference in performance between the two will be because

(a) you're currently running a dual core processor vs a single core processor

and

(b) your now running a more powerful gfx card than you had in the past. Both cards pale in comparison to the still average performance of the 7600GT.
 

amin

macrumors 6502a
Aug 17, 2003
977
9
Boston, MA
carfac said:
Hey:

Just looking over specs, it l;ooks to me like the 20" is the sweet spot for the iMac line, if not for the whole Apple computer line. Consider the differences between a 17" and 20"

160=>250 Gig HHD
512m=>1 Gig RAM
3 inch more screen
2.0 => 2.16 CPU

All this, for a mere 300 clams...
The $1199 17" model comes with the same 1GB RAM standard as the 20" model. Swapping out the HD later is possible and HDs are cheap. 2GHz->2.16 is very little. Therefore, for me the 17" model was the sweet spot. All four models represent great value IMO. The "sweet spot" is based on how great one's budget.
 

carfac

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 18, 2006
1,217
1
Hey Amin:

I did not indend to slight the 17", nor your choice. I just thought, looking at things after taking a step back, the 300 bucks that gets you from the 17 to a 20 seemed like a very good deal, whereas the 500 from 20 to 24 was (in my case) a bit harder to justify. But different striokes, right? I am not a gamer, so the 7300 and all means zilch to me- as long as I see a picture, I am happy! But for me, the thought of trying to open up an iMac is scary- I have no problems on a PC, but an iMac is NOT a PC! So I would love the extra HDD.

I went down to the App store the other day to look at the 24 and 20, side by side. Unfortunately, the store was over-ridden with teeny boppers checking out their MySpace accounts, and IMing each other across the store. So I could not actually use one. (Side note- why do they allow slackers to take over all the iMacs for hours on end??? I waited 45 minutes, and the same people were still on MySpace IMing each other when I finally got fed up and left. I do not think the App store needs to be rude, but they should control things better for real customers... but I digress.) Anyway, though, from looking at them, the 24 almost (to me!) seemed too big. Perhaps I will regret that decision in 2 years, but for now, tis is coming at you from a 20!

I guess that is why Apple makes different models, huh??? :D

Bottom line, we all- 17, 20 and 24- have a greart OS, and that is the important thing!