Old 20" 2.16 or newer 20" 2.0? - Need Opinions!

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Nabooly, Sep 17, 2007.

  1. Nabooly macrumors 6502a

    Nabooly

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    #1
    Hi all :)

    So i ordered a white 20" 2.16 ghz imac. The only reason i went with it is because, while i like the new imacs, i liked the white design much, much better (lol im sure some of you guys expected this to be another "The new screens suck" thread :p).

    So i ordered it and well i stupidly put down my cell phone number as phone number. So ofcourse the cc didnt go through.

    After the guy from the site called me, i started having second thoughts of whether i made the right decision.

    Would i be making a horrible decision by staying with the white imac? Would it be better to go with the new, and forget about the old? Is there any advantage of the new one besides "latest and greatest"?

    Thanks :)

    PS. If i cancel i gotta do it soon ;)
     
  2. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #2
    What are you going to do with it?

    In terms of raw performance, they are pretty close, with the newer one having a slight edge due to the higher bus speed. The new one can also support and use 4 Gb of RAM as opposed to the 3 Gb limit on the white ones.

    I have a white 2.16 20" and prefer the overall look to the new alu iMacs, but that is a preference question.

    I would suggest that if you are getting a new or refurb white iMac for less than the entry level alu iMac you're fine--stick with it and max out the RAM.

    Bob
     
  3. Nabooly thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Nabooly

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    #3
    I dont do anything that is taxing on the system. Just some general browsing, email, some photoshop (but by no means nothing professional) playing music and video.

    Thisll be my first imac, so i do not want to make a bad choice :eek:
     
  4. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #4
    If it were me, I'd stick with the white. . .

    Bob
     
  5. Bill Gates macrumors 68020

    Bill Gates

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #5
    I believe they are very similar as far as raw performance is concerned. The new iMacs have better graphics cards, however.
     
  6. Nabooly thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Nabooly

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    #6
    Would the new graphics card be a big jump from the old one?
     
  7. Tracer macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    #7
    Are you trying to save money by ordering the white one?

    You could always wait for the new iMac's to become refurbished.

    Tracer
     
  8. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #8
    I think he said he prefers the design of the white version.

    Very good suggestion, though, on waiting for an alu refurb....

    B
     
  9. Nabooly thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Nabooly

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    #9
    No, im not one to cut corners to save a couple of bucks. I just prefer the white design, and i know the last thing you should care about in a computer is the look of it, but, i dont know, i just do :rolleyes:

    :)
     
  10. FatSweatyBlldog macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    #10
    Get the white one. The 20'' white iMac has a better LCD panel (S-IPS) than the new 20'' (TN), and it's a proven solid performer (with all the design kinks worked out).
     
  11. Nabooly thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Nabooly

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    #11
    Yep thats what i finally decided to do! It should be shipping out tomarrow and arriving by wedneday/thursday :) Im definitely excited!
     
  12. Bill Gates macrumors 68020

    Bill Gates

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #12
    No.
     
  13. Tracer macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    #13
    The 2.16GHZ will outperform the 2.0GHZ even with the FSB deficiency.

    Note that the processor (not the motherboard) is 64-Bit Capable.

    Go for 3GB of RAM and you won't be disappointed.

    Tracer
     
  14. bluefiberoptics macrumors regular

    bluefiberoptics

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    #14
    I am so worried about the screens (the bad quality, not the gloss) on the new AL iMacs that I am making my mom get a refurbished 20 inch iMac white.
     
  15. elcerrito494 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    #15
    I'd personally go with the AluiMac, but that's my personal preference. My personal preference is the correct choice, but to each his own. :p.
     
  16. KittyToy macrumors 6502

    KittyToy

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Location:
    Davenport
  17. HLdan macrumors 603

    HLdan

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    #17
    How is this possible? It's only 160 Mhz faster but has a slower system bus.
     
  18. suneohair macrumors 68020

    suneohair

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    #18
    The bus doesn't make that big a difference. it is only 133 Mhz faster. It will be fine no matter what you choose.
     
  19. Bill Gates macrumors 68020

    Bill Gates

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #19
    It still accesses the memory at 667MHz. In this case raw CPU clockspeed wins.
     
  20. Nabooly thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Nabooly

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
  21. Channard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    #21
    I'm in the same boat - £750 for a white iMac 20" refurb or £950 for an Aluminium one - if they make one with a matte scree at some point. I'd normally go for the 20" straight away, but the benchmarking at sites like Barefeats seems to indicate the 2600HD is twice as good as the X1600. And I do want the ability to play games via Boot Camp, albeit not cutting edge ones.
     
  22. Tracer macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    #22
    Go over to barefeats and see that the 2.2GHZ MBP vs 2.16GHZ has almost no advantage when it comes to pure CPU tasks.

    Tracer
     

Share This Page