Is the Apple Rep right? ghz?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by cfs, Feb 12, 2008.

  1. cfs macrumors 6502a

    Feb 8, 2008
    So I went to Apple today to finalize in my mind what I wanted and check for the ability for Japanese language language functioning. All went well until the rep. confused the hell out of me.

    I am definitly getting the 20" Alum. Now the question is 2.0 or 2.4.

    Everyone on this site has given me solid opinions-thank you. However, there is still a mixed bag of opinions and probably always will.

    Some in the forum say the 2.4 because it will last longer and notice the difference in the future. Others say 2.0 is enough and I won't notice any difference.

    At the Apple Store the rep. mentioned something totally different. After explaining to her I am not a graphics designer or gamer and will use computer to:

    When asked her what would be best for someone who does the following:

    web surf
    video chat
    watch movies
    watch internet tv
    make home movies
    listen to music
    download pics
    maybe make webpage from

    She said, "Oh! Definitley the 2.4Ghz. you will notice the difference. Especislly when watching videos and video chatting online.

    can someone explain if she is accurate. Although my hardware knowledge is limited, this didn"t sound right to me. So I left empty handed and typing all of you on my PC.

  2. Eric Lewis macrumors 68020

    Eric Lewis

    Feb 4, 2007
    CANADA? eh?
    just load a 2.0ghz with 2Gb of ram(third party)

    and its the same as a 2.4ghz with 1GB ram

    apple just wants more $$$$$$
  3. Muzzway macrumors regular

    Jul 21, 2007
    You won't notice the difference, really, though you might want to consider upgrading to 2GB of RAM.

    Edit: As said above. :p

    You might notice something when video editing, though if it is light, as you imply, the extra money would definitely not be worth paying.
  4. benlee macrumors 65816


    Mar 4, 2007
    That is why I tell my friends and family to ask me questions and not apple store reps.

    At least if I'm not sure I can come and ask the macrumors community.

    With what you are doing you probably will not notice a difference. I definitely suggest upgrading to at least 2GB. However, It comes with a 1X1GB so get the other stick from a third party vendor. (I recommend OWC []).

    As far as lasting longer? Depends how often you plan on upgrading your computer (by buying a new one). But I don't you will decide to do so sooner because you have a 2.0 GHz rather than a 2.4 GHz.

    Good Luck....

    GO buy a Mac
  5. speakerwizard macrumors 68000


    Aug 8, 2006
    i think it is usually best to get the highest speck you can afford if you use it a lot and plan to keep it a while, for several reasons 1) resale, great on macs, better the speck better the resale,2) future proof, you never know the requirements of future software and you want to stay relevent for as long as possible, 3) speed, well faster Is better isnt it!?! 4) you may start to use a machine for something you didnt originally intent (video editing is a good one) and things like rendering are very effected by the cpu speed. just some reasons, although if ya just wanna do a bit of web and some letters it doesnt really matter, you would never notice the cpu difference.
  6. motulist macrumors 601


    Dec 2, 2003
    Just do the math:

    2400 mhz          x
    ----------  =  ------  
    2000 mhz         100

    So at most the 2.4 will be 20% faster. Sounds like a lot right? But in reality if you only need the power of the 2 ghz, then you're paying for 20% more power then you'll ever use.

    Then you wonder, what about the difference in resale value? Just take a look in ebay at the difference between the the price of the high mhz version of an old machine vs the low mhz version of a similar spec'ed machine from the same generation. From what I've seen there's usually very little difference between the two.

    'What about my future needs?' I hear you ask. When a person's computing needs go up, they usually go up a lot all at once. That's because the only real reason that your computing power needs will go up is because you start doing a new thing with your computer or upgrade to a new version of a piece of software that expects a more powerful computer. In those cases, the 20% maximum theoretical difference between the 2 models probably won't be enough to make the difference between being able or not to run that new application or updated software.

    Buy the low end and take the cash you save to buy more RAM and or a bigger hard drive. Spending the money that way will give you a MUCH better benefit for your dollar.
  7. benlee macrumors 65816


    Mar 4, 2007
    You make very strong points. I was looking at if from my point where I don't see myself selling my old machine. After looking at I would say to go for the 2.4 GHz. The $300 gets you a better graphics card (with 256 mb) and 70GB more of hard drive space as well as the processor bump. So if you can fit the bill I change my mind and say go for it.
  8. kyleaa macrumors regular

    Jun 20, 2006
    Also, the new iMac takes up to 4gb of ram. Why stop at 2gb? Especially since a 4gb upgrade from newegg is now around $85.
  9. Leon Kowalski macrumors 6502a

    Leon Kowalski

    Sep 20, 2007
    Gondwanaland Reunification Front HQ
    Yep, 20% gain -- but only for apps that don't use disk or RAM. For real world
    apps, you'd be lucky to see a 10% improvement in overall performance.

  10. cfs thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Feb 8, 2008
    1. Thanks for all the replies. If you may enlighten me again, what is the big deal with the graphics card if I am not a gamer or designer?

    2.Also, I still can't see why the rep. mentioned web chat as a difference when I am currently using a Toshiba Dynabook Intel Celeron 2.5Ghz. with a 500mb hd with no issues. Movie editing (rendering) takes forever on it though and watching is awful.

    3. Is 2.0ghz enough to watch in hd?

    Thanks Again. Soon you will actually see a post saying I bought one.

  11. neiltc13 macrumors 68040


    May 27, 2006
    1. The graphics card is used by the computer to render video. However, as the card included with the slower Mac is still fast enough to play back any video you throw at it you won't see any performance boost whatsoever by going with the faster model. It's like buying a car with a 6 litre engine that has a top speed of 200mph but only using it on roads with a 70mph speed limit. You're buying more than you need.

    2. I'm not sure if you understand this or if it has been explained to you but doing a direct GHz to GHz comparison of Celerons and Core 2 Duos is not valid. The Core 2 Duo in the iMac will completely kill the Celeron in terms of raw power.

    3. I have no idea what format ABC uses for its online service (and I'm kinda shocked they offer streaming HD) but I would imagine that it would be. Certainly the 2.4GHz won't really help it because it's at this "more than you need" point again where both computers will be capable of doing what you need them to.
  12. Smoogz macrumors member

    Feb 13, 2008
    Lafayette, LA

    The 2.0 GHz iMac should be fine for what you want to use it for. Because it's dual core the life time of the computer should be fine. Now for streaming video the 2.4 GHz won't make a difference. The only thing that will make a noticable difference will be your video card and your internet connection.

    I'm not sure if the iMacs ethernet is on-board or an independent card but the 2.0 GHz is more than enough to handle the packet flow and applications at the same time.
  13. kyleaa macrumors regular

    Jun 20, 2006
    If is using a flash video player, it could possibly be processor related.
  14. cfs thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Feb 8, 2008
    Sorry. I never was concerned about video cards in the past, but the 2.0ghz comes with a ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory. How could I find out if this video card is acceptable? Anyone out there willing to try for me?

    Thanks Again,
  15. AlexisV macrumors 68000


    Mar 12, 2007
    Manchester, UK
    Absolute rubbish. A 500Mhz processor is capable of both those tasks.

    Any modern video card can display 2D images such as for streaming videos no problem at all.

    Even my dad's 1.3Ghz AMD Duron with an ATI Rage 16Mb can do it.

    If anything, a slow hard drive is what hinders video playback.

    See above. The only reason to get the ATI Radeon 2600 is if you frequently use 3D applications such as games or 3D rendering. The extra video memory is also useful for high definition movie editing.

    The Radeon 2400, like any video card produced in the last decade, can perform 2D tasks such as playing movies off the internet on its head whilst reading War and Peace backwards.
  16. themoonisdown09 macrumors 601


    Nov 19, 2007
    Georgia, USA
    It sounds like you definitley need the Mac Pro with two 3.2GHz Quad-Core processors and about 8 GB of RAM.

    I'm just kidding.
  17. MattyP30 macrumors member

    Oct 30, 2007
    although... the 2.4 comes with a better graphics card so the combination of .4mhz and a better card probably will be noticable!
  18. MrT8064 macrumors 6502a


    Jun 7, 2006
    If your not playing games, go with the 2ghz, its a huge saving.

    you can always pump it up with ram!
  19. cfs thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Feb 8, 2008
    Enjoyed that.
  20. Mac Addict macrumors member

    Mac Addict

    Feb 12, 2008
    That made me laugh :D

    cfs: any iMac is going to allow you to do what you stated with ease. I purchased a 20" Core Duo 2.0 like 18 months go. Just picked up a new 24" Core 2 Duo 2.4 and the real world difference would probably not even be noticeable for the tasking you're talking about.

    Bottom line: figure how much $$ you can spend, buy your iMac & have a blast with it ;)
  21. yoyo5280 macrumors 68000


    Feb 24, 2007
    Melbourne, Australia & Bay Area
    I do everything you want to do with 1.25GHz PPCG4 and 1gb ram. 2.0 would be great...but if you can get more, get more. sim ple :p

Share This Page