iMac with ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT or ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO?

[ajbrehm]

I am thinking about buying a new iMac.

I have two iMacs currently, Xerxes and Hokem.

Xerxes: Core 2 Duo, 2.16 GHz, 3 GB
Hokem: G5, 1.6 GHz, 1 GB

I would replace Hokem and ship him to my parents on the continent (I'm in Ireland).

I want as much memory as possible (i.e. 4 GB) but don't really care if the CPU is 2.x or slightly more than 2.x GHz. This means that both 20" iMacs seem appropriate and the only (costly) difference is the video card.

Can anybody who knows something about video cards and games suggest whether the (presumably) better video card (the 2600 Pro) is worth the money? Or should I stick to the 2400 XT (and hence cheaper) iMac?

I'm not playing games, but will play StarCraft II. I also run VMware and was wondering whether a better video card would dramatically help VMware's DirectX support. (I don't play Windows games, but would be interested in running DirectX because I find VM stuff fascinating.)

Also, what's a good method to ship an iMac to somebody else? I still have the box. Do I call UPS or something?

 

[eXan]

Don't get the one with 2400! Its significantly slower than 2600 - in some cases a 2x difference!

 

[trip1ex]

Well since you're going to play SC2 then the decision is easy. You have to get the 2600 pro.

 

[BlizzardBomb]

The high-end 20" is generally better value for money anyway, larger hard drive, more RAM, better graphics card, faster processor. I'd say go for it.

 

[ajbrehm]

Well since you're going to play SC2 then the decision is easy. You have to get the 2600 pro.

Is there reason to believe that SC2 won't work well with only 128 MB?

My current iMac has a Radeon X1600 with 128 MB.

 

[ajbrehm]

Don't get the one with 2400! Its significantly slower than 2600 - in some cases a 2x difference!

Really? Surely the difference cannot be so dramatic?

 

[ajbrehm]

The high-end 20" is generally better value for money anyway, larger hard drive, more RAM, better graphics card, faster processor. I'd say go for it.

Apple Store Ireland:

20", 2.4 GHz, 128 MB (video), 4 GB, 500 GB: €1,319.01
20", 2.6 GHz, 256 MB, 4 GB, 500 GB: €1,499.00
20", 2.6 GHz, 256 MB, 4 GB, 750 GB: €1,578.99

Do I want to pay 180 quid more for 200 MHz more and 128 MB video memory more? Do I want to pay another 80 quid more for 250 GB hard disk more?

1300 just sounds like so much less than 1500.

 

[eXan]

Really? Surely the difference cannot be so dramatic?

http://barefeats.com/imacal.html

One of the benchmarks. 2400 is usually slower by ~30%, but can be up to 2x (50% slower than 2600)

It depends on how GPU-intensive the game is.

 

[BlizzardBomb]

Apple Store Ireland:

20", 2.4 GHz, 128 MB (video), 4 GB, 500 GB: €1,319.01
20", 2.6 GHz, 256 MB, 4 GB, 500 GB: €1,499.00
20", 2.6 GHz, 256 MB, 4 GB, 750 GB: €1,578.99

Do I want to pay 180 quid more for dual 200 MHz more, a stronger graphics card and 128 MB video memory more? Do I want to pay another 80 quid more for 250 GB hard disk more?

1300 just sounds like so much less than 1500.

I would, but it's completely your choice. No-one is forcing you The 2600 PRO would be a lot better for your gaming needs than the 2400 XT though. Remember it isn't only about the VRAM, it's about the graphics card itself too.