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

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by ajbrehm, Jun 6, 2008.

  1. ajbrehm macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Location:
    Zurich, Switzerland
    #1
    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?
     
  2. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #2
    Don't get the one with 2400! Its significantly slower than 2600 - in some cases a 2x difference!
     
  3. trip1ex macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    #3
    Well since you're going to play SC2 then the decision is easy. You have to get the 2600 pro.
     
  4. BlizzardBomb macrumors 68030

    BlizzardBomb

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Location:
    England
    #4
    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.
     
  5. ajbrehm thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Location:
    Zurich, Switzerland
    #5
    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.
     
  6. ajbrehm thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Location:
    Zurich, Switzerland
    #6
    Really? Surely the difference cannot be so dramatic?
     
  7. ajbrehm thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Location:
    Zurich, Switzerland
    #7
    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. :)
     
  8. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #8
    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.
     
  9. BlizzardBomb macrumors 68030

    BlizzardBomb

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Location:
    England
    #9
    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.
     

Share This Page