iMac performance

stuuke

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 19, 2004
216
4
I had a couple of questions on the performance of the new iMac. I was looking at the new 24" iMac with 3gb of ram and upgraded graphics card. I am a photographer and would mostly be using the computer for Photoshop and Raw conversions in C1. How would the new iMac compare to the previous non-intel G5 towers? How would it compare to the current MacPro? I already have a 24" monitor but the idea of dual 24" monitors sounds pretty nice. The way I configured it I would also save $1000 over the MacPro and have the extra monitor space. I am currently using a Black Macbook. How would the performance of the iMac compare to my current machine? Also I know graphics cards are always a hot discussion around here. Is it worth the upgrade?

Thanks!
 

Danksi

macrumors 68000
Oct 3, 2005
1,554
0
Nelson, BC. Canada
stuuke said:
I had a couple of questions on the performance of the new iMac. I was looking at the new 24" iMac with 3gb of ram and upgraded graphics card. I am a photographer and would mostly be using the computer for Photoshop and Raw conversions in C1. How would the new iMac compare to the previous non-intel G5 towers? How would it compare to the current MacPro? I already have a 24" monitor but the idea of dual 24" monitors sounds pretty nice. The way I configured it I would also save $1000 over the MacPro and have the extra monitor space. I am currently using a Black Macbook. How would the performance of the iMac compare to my current machine? Also I know graphics cards are always a hot discussion around here. Is it worth the upgrade?
Thanks!
You should see a significant performance increase over your MacBook. You should see another increase, once Photoshop is a Universal app.

In terms of iMac upgrades, I'd suggest upgrading all that you can afford at the time of purchase, as it'll be differcult if not impossible to upgrade later on. Upgrading the graphics card would seem worthwhile.
 

crees!

macrumors 68000
Jun 14, 2003
1,921
26
MD/VA/DC
I've been reading that the new displays shipping with the iMac aren't good for photography work as they're too bright. Whatever that means.
 

amin

macrumors 6502a
Aug 17, 2003
977
9
Boston, MA
crees! said:
I've been reading that the new displays shipping with the iMac aren't good for photography work as they're too bright. Whatever that means.
I think it's too early to know. People are assuming it will be exactly like the Dell.
 

Josias

macrumors 68000
Mar 10, 2006
1,908
1
Well, the 24" iMac display is as bright as the 23/30" ACD. You can always turn down the brightness.;)

I believe that is an excellent PS machine. Just max it out with 3 GB RAM, 256 MB 7600 GT and if you require it, 2.33 GHz and 500 GB HDD.:D
 

hob

macrumors 68010
Oct 4, 2003
2,004
0
London, UK
Incase you didn't already know - RAM is cheaper from somewhere like Crucial than buying it direct from the Apple Store! (you'll be surprised!)
 

amin

macrumors 6502a
Aug 17, 2003
977
9
Boston, MA
stuuke said:
I had a couple of questions on the performance of the new iMac. I was looking at the new 24" iMac with 3gb of ram and upgraded graphics card. I am a photographer and would mostly be using the computer for Photoshop and Raw conversions in C1. How would the new iMac compare to the previous non-intel G5 towers? How would it compare to the current MacPro? I already have a 24" monitor but the idea of dual 24" monitors sounds pretty nice. The way I configured it I would also save $1000 over the MacPro and have the extra monitor space. I am currently using a Black Macbook. How would the performance of the iMac compare to my current machine? Also I know graphics cards are always a hot discussion around here. Is it worth the upgrade?

Thanks!
Now that it is a universal binary, C1 is shockingly fast on my Mac Pro, so I know it is going to fly on any of the Core 2 Duo iMacs. Photoshop will be fine as well, and certainly faster than your MacBook, though you won't really feel great speed until the universal binary (CS3) is released (supposedly next year). As for RAM and video card, I think you'd do fine with 2GB RAM, waiting until 2GB sticks become a bit more-reasonably priced (just my opinion of course). As far as the graphics card, do you do anything other than photography? So far the 7300GT is faring well for me, but it is easy for me to swap it out later. With an iMac you may be better off getting the better graphics card up front.
 

stuuke

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 19, 2004
216
4
C1 is much faster on the new intel machines such as my macbook which is why I was thinking I might not need the full power of the MacPro. I can actually convert images and work instead of having the machine batch convert while I'm sleeping. It has pretty much been my experience that no matter what level machine I get that I'm going to upgrade in 3-4 years which also has me looking at the less expensive option.
 

stuuke

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 19, 2004
216
4
And I have the 24" Dell which I calibrate with Eye One. I turned the brightness all the way down and it works great.
 

FFTT

macrumors 68030
Apr 17, 2004
2,952
0
A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
I'm assuming that these 24" displays are built like the Dell/Samsung 2405 FPW

Hopefully they do not have the issues of the 2407.

I run my Dell at about 25% brightness and everything is crisp and clear.
 

aristobrat

macrumors G5
Oct 14, 2005
12,255
1,333
hob said:
Incase you didn't already know - RAM is cheaper from somewhere like Crucial than buying it direct from the Apple Store! (you'll be surprised!)
I thought so too, but was surprised to see that Apple was charging $175 to upgrade a 24" iMac to 2GB of memory (2x1GB).

That's only roughly $10 more than getting generic memory from NewEgg.com

Crucial is charging $275 for the same memory, making Apple $100 less expensive. :eek:
 

stuuke

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 19, 2004
216
4
Is the graphics card of the 24" that big of an improvement? Other than a 800 firewire port that was the only difference I noticed.
 

milozauckerman

macrumors 6502
Jun 25, 2005
477
0
$500 is a helluva premium to go from 2GB (purchased from NewEgg) to 3GB, IMO.

I'd be tempted to put in my own 2x1GB memory and see if 2GB sticks drop in price over the next six months (should I need that extra 1GB).

FYI, if you pay Apple's $175 upgrade to 2GB, you don't get the original sticks. Purchase online for less, and you've got the stock 2x512MB to throw on Ebay to recoup.
 

milozauckerman

macrumors 6502
Jun 25, 2005
477
0
Is the graphics card of the 24" that big of an improvement? Other than a 800 firewire port that was the only difference I noticed.
The 7300GT is at best even. The $113 7600GT option makes the iMac a much better solution for Aperture and other apps that use the GPU.
 

stuuke

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 19, 2004
216
4
If you add the additional memory on the 20" graphics card is there much difference?
 

reflex

macrumors 6502a
May 19, 2002
721
0
aristobrat said:
I thought so too, but was surprised to see that Apple was charging $175 to upgrade a 24" iMac to 2GB of memory (2x1GB).

That's only roughly $10 more than getting generic memory from NewEgg.com

Crucial is charging $275 for the same memory, making Apple $100 less expensive. :eek:
Are you buying 2x1GB for that $275, or 1x1GB?
 

reflex

macrumors 6502a
May 19, 2002
721
0
stuuke said:
If you add the additional memory on the 20" graphics card is there much difference?
Mostly in games. It means that more or bigger textures can be held in memory, possibly speeding up games. But it all depends on what you do and I think it's next to impossible to predict what kind of impact it'll make.
 

aristobrat

macrumors G5
Oct 14, 2005
12,255
1,333
generik said:
At that kind of pricing I'd suggest you look at Apple's pricing again, it is not like huge savings.
Huh?

It's on par with NewEgg, cheaper than Crucial, and significantly cheaper than the same upgrade for other Apple machines. It's less of a great deal if you planned on hocking the stock 2x512MB on eBay. :)

But seriously, Apple memory cheaper than Crucial? The fact that there's any savings is unusual.

$175 = 2x1GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM Apple installed in an iMac

$500 = 2x1GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM Apple installed in a MacBook
$500 = 2x1GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM Apple installed in a MacBook Pro
$250 = 2x1GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM Apple installed in a mac mini