iMac 24-inch, Worth the trouble cash?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Mr. MacBook, Apr 12, 2007.

  1. Mr. MacBook macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    #1
    I went onto the apple store today wondering about it and configured a 20-inch Screen iMac with a 2.33GHz Core2Duo, 2GB RAM, and 256mb ATIx1600.

    That price was only 1999.

    Seriously, you could get 256mb ATI x1600 for graphics power and buy a gateway 24inch 1080p LCD and STILL have 50 bucks off the iMac 24".

    Why do they price it so expensive?

    Oh, just a question, does the iMac use notebook processors? I don't think intel makes a 2.16GHz desktop one(its 2.13 instead) or a 2.33(its 2.4) or a 1.83 or 2GHz(they have a 1.8 and 1.86, but no 1.83 or 2.0)
     
  2. dartzorichalcos macrumors 65816

    dartzorichalcos

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Location:
    Atlantis
    #2
    The iMac right now uses a notebook processor called Merom.
     
  3. Mr. MacBook thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    #3
    No offense to apple, and i know what merom is,

    But notebook processors... well... that kinda sucks. Can't they spare the 3 extra inches to throw in a bunch of BETTER core 2 duos? I mean we'd be getting like 1.80 GHz Core 2 Duos w/ 800MHz FSB for low end education and 1.86 w/ 1066 FSB, 2.4 and 2.4GHz's for 20-24inch models, and customizable to like 2.66 w/ 1066FSB and 4MB l2
     
  4. dartzorichalcos macrumors 65816

    dartzorichalcos

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Location:
    Atlantis
    #4
    The iMacs should be at least using the Conroe CPU to differentiate from MacBooks/MacBook Pros. At the very least, the 24" iMac could of had the Conroe CPU.
     
  5. wizwaz3 macrumors 6502a

    wizwaz3

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Location:
    Northern Arizona
    #5
    The Mac line-up uses such high-end processors, that they don't need to go from mobile to desktop. I would rather have a thinner iMac with high-end mobile processors than a thick iMac with average desktop processors. Just my opinion...
     
  6. iW00t macrumors 68040

    iW00t

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Location:
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    #6
    The iMacs also saves you money over time with the current energy prices.

    Buying an iMac will easily pay for twice its initial cost over its lifetime.
     
  7. nateDEEZY macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2007
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #7
    Wow I didn't expect that, you're comparing them to desktop cpu's so yeaa it makes sense. Never thought it like that.
     
  8. netdog macrumors 603

    netdog

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #8
    I believe that the cores on the C2D have been great-grandparented by the Pentium M, developed by an Israeli outfit. The M, in its day, was a fantastic chip, in many ways preferable to the Pentium desktop chips of the time, and this is a very advanced version of the M core times two. Merom is a fantastic chip and does a lot of things really well, all the while conserving power.
     
  9. Vidd macrumors 6502a

    Vidd

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    #9
    With the way the iMac is built with its AIO design, there's probably a thin line between being cool and overheating.
     
  10. nateDEEZY macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2007
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #10
    Then that line must be even thinner with the macbooks, yea?
     
  11. RRK macrumors 6502

    RRK

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Location:
    USA/Ohio/Columbus
    #11
    I dont know.

    Im not sure I buy this idea of the iMac being unable to handle the heat from desktop cpus.
    I believe it was true when Apple first switched to intel but I think they are just waiting for the right pricepoint to switch over to full desktops.
    Intel is going 45nm soon anyway so I think they have to be close to the heat that the original core duos were.
    There is even an ultra low power xeon right?
    Also, since intel is changing chipsets now this may be a good time for them to fit desktop cpus in since they will probably need to redesign a bit inside the iMac anyway.
     
  12. Vidd macrumors 6502a

    Vidd

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    #12
    I thought that the drop in heat from the Core Duos was why they were made thinner?
    They've handled proper desktop processors before obviously but the case was thicker then.

    EDIT: The first sentence was ambiguous.
     
  13. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #13
    While I don't disagree with you and would love to see a Conroe based consumer Mac, I believe they consciously use the mobile CPU and chipset to allow for quieter/lower power consumption boxes. Even if the desktop CPUs are getting better in that regard, the mobile equivalents will always use less power/generate less heat.

    B
     
  14. Cybergypsy macrumors 68040

    Cybergypsy

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    Central Florida!
    #14
    Had a 24" and returned it, had soooo many issues, I would wait a bit....still love macs but Very Happy with Vista!
     
  15. Hls811 macrumors 6502a

    Hls811

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #15
    You really think that you'll save $4000 over the course of the lifetime of a Mac?

    Lets go on and say that its lifetime is 10 years (And even then, how many people still use the same computer today that they used in 1997?) - so thats 120 months.. it comes out to $33 per month.. I'm sorry - but I could shut my computer off completely and not save $33 per month. On average, running a computer costs about $3-$5 per month, depending on where you live.

    Assuming $5.00 per month - to pay even break even ($2000 initial cost), you'd have to keep the iMac for 400 months - 33+ years!
     
  16. aristobrat macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    #16
    Hang out in an Apple store on a busy weekend for a few minutes and count how many times you hear a potential customer ask about front-side bus speeds or L2 cache (or see a customer that would probably know about them).

    IMO, Apple makes money selling its consumer systems by taking the hardware mostly out of the picture. They push their OS and the applications (iLife and all that)-- the things that really set Apple apart from the Windows world -- and then provide hardware that's almost always more than fine for running it. Even with notebook processors, I find it hard to see how the average person would become CPU-bound on a regular basis.

    So yeah, I guess Apple could have put desktop CPUs in the iMac, but I really doubt that it would have generated them much more sales.

    I mean, not to underestimate the size of the switcher crowd that really knows their Intel hardware, but compared to the masses of "normals" that I see in my Apple store every time I'm in there, ... it's got to be an awkward ratio.
     
  17. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #17
    I've just been collecting actual data on this, and my 3 year old home Dell box which is on 24/7 (though usually idle) actually consumes 2.6kWh/day which works out closer to $10-$15/month.

    So, depending on the situation and location, you could actually come pretty close to a 10 year return on investment on energy alone.

    B
     
  18. JAT macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Location:
    Mpls, MN
    #18
    You've forgotten the price of 3 computers that have a shorter life than the Mac. Let's say $1500 each. You finish the math.
     
  19. AceWilfong macrumors regular

    AceWilfong

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #19
    Care to share?
     
  20. Ramsos macrumors regular

    Ramsos

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Location:
    Oakland, California
    #20
    I've had my 24" for 6 days now and I love it. I bought it from the Apple.com refurb store for $1699 and I think it's the best purchase I've ever made. Yeah it's the basic model with 2.16 C2D and 128mb video card and 1 gig of Ram but I could not be happier with my decision. I'm using it as a video editing and dvd authoring machine along with a little graphic design. I ordered 2 gigs of ram for it yesterday but honestly it performs pretty well with the standard one gig, I just want it to be a little snappier with switching and starting applications. The screen is amazing, I'm using a 20" ACD and a second display using a mini dvd to dvi connector and it really works well with FCP 5.1.4. I have the brightness turned down about half way so that it matches the 20". This s my first Mac desktop and I love it, I've had 4 g4 powerbooks but it's great to have a desktop with dual screens. :D :apple: :D
     
  21. synth3tik macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #21


    $20 is expensive for a Gateway. Remember what everyone always says,

    "You get what you pay for".
     
  22. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #22
    I think it's power and heat requirements. In reality, it just makes it a tad more expensive, not slower.
     
  23. ascender macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    #23
    I guess in answer to the price question, try and find something else out there from PC manufacturers which combines the features and functionality of the 24" iMac in a package which also looks as good as the Mac and also takes up such little space on your desktop.

    I tried and I couldn't find anything which came close.
     

Share This Page