+'s of having 2.8GHz core 2 extreme?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by bluedoggiant, Nov 4, 2007.

  1. bluedoggiant macrumors 68030

    bluedoggiant

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    MD & ATL,GA
    #1
    what are the extra punches that you get with it over the 2.4GHz C2D?
     
  2. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
  3. bluedoggiant thread starter macrumors 68030

    bluedoggiant

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    MD & ATL,GA
    #3
    like how much faster? more gaming power? what?
     
  4. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #4
    400 MHz faster. ;)
     
  5. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #5
    400Mhz faster.
     
  6. bluedoggiant thread starter macrumors 68030

    bluedoggiant

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    MD & ATL,GA
    #6
    be less technical, app wise, power? what can i do with it?
     
  7. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #7
    Save time?
     
  8. bluedoggiant thread starter macrumors 68030

    bluedoggiant

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    MD & ATL,GA
    #8
    no, no, not like that, will i see better game power or anything? is it worth it over the 2.4GHz C2E?
     
  9. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #9
    The video card didn't change.
     
  10. bluedoggiant thread starter macrumors 68030

    bluedoggiant

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    MD & ATL,GA
    #10
    well, is it really worth the $225 upgrade?
     
  11. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #11
    If you have any time critical CPU bound applications and aren't going for a Mac Pro, yes.
     
  12. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #12
    Only you can decide that.
     
  13. bluedoggiant thread starter macrumors 68030

    bluedoggiant

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    MD & ATL,GA
    #13
    is the 2.4Ghz good with vista playing FSX? or terrible?
     
  14. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #14
    I doubt the extra 400MHz will make a difference in almost any game. Most games are GPU bound. I can play most games at full res with graphics on high (except for AA and AF).
     
  15. wellmac macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Location:
    England
    #15
    I'm one of the weirdos who ordered the 2.8 iMac. The reason? Well yes it is more money but once you've specced the 2.4 up with a 750GB disk and 2GB of RAM
    (Yeah could have gone third party) it's £150 difference.

    Now that's a fair amount for 400mhz, but not over the potential life of the computer, say 2-3 years. My guess is it will also help with the resale value in the future (hopefully!) and maybe make it useful that little bit longer. Secretly I also need a computer faster than my current one (2.4) to justify buying it ;)

    In answer to your question. It will make some encoding/compression/decompression a bit quicker.

    p.s. The extreme moniker is a bit of a nonsense in the iMac chassis, since you're hardly likely to be able to overclock it.
     
  16. bluedoggiant thread starter macrumors 68030

    bluedoggiant

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    MD & ATL,GA
    #16
    what do u mean "overclock"?
     
  17. czachorski macrumors 6502a

    czachorski

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    #17
    The Macworld benchtests shows it to be about 15% faster than the 2.4. 15% for about 15% more money - seems like an ok deal. I just wanted the fastest processor possible, to keep the iMac going as long as possible.
     
  18. vansouza macrumors 68000

    vansouza

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Location:
    West Plains, MO USA Earth
    #18
    bragging rights

    Not much beyond that, but I love mine.
     
  19. wellmac macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Location:
    England
    #19
    Overclocking is the name given to running a processor faster than it's labelled speed, e.g. running a 2.8 Ghz processor at 3.0 Ghz It's a way of getting extra speed cheaply (unfortunately it can cause side effects such as lots of extra heat amongst other things)
     
  20. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #20
    Any luck finding software to do it?
     
  21. wellmac macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Location:
    England
    #21
    For an iMac? No, but then I don't have one yet. For some reason they take ages from order to delivery. I don't think I'd go there anyway.
     
  22. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #22
    Does that mean you're not going to overclock it?

    Why bring it up then?
     
  23. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #23
    If it came with a larger cache, the 2.8GHz upgrade would be more worth it.

    But you are more likely to make use of a larger drive, or more RAM.
     
  24. wellmac macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Location:
    England
    #24
    If you read the entire thread, I explained that the Extreme moniker name on the processor was a nonsense on the iMac since the design would probably be a limiting factor, Since the Extreme processor is an unlocked processor, technically it should be possible to do it. I didn't say that I would or that it was a sensible thing to do on an iMac!

    I was then asked what overclocking was, so I explained.
     
  25. jatkins123 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    #25
    i'm not trying to flame before people blow up, but I don't see how your 5 useless posts helped this guy with his questions at all..

    granted he didnt specify exaclty what he wanted answered in full clarity but anyone with a bit of sense could work it out after his 1st or 2nd reply...there was no need to be what I view as a smartarse just so you could have a good chuckle to yourself about how "whitty" your replies were...

    the original poster probably doesnt mind it but it really grinds my gears when people waste other people's time just to stroke their ego's a bit...clearly regardless of how ambigious his questions were, anyone with half a brain could determine that the answer to his query was not to "save time"...you made it much more painful for the rest of us to read this thread.

    you'll probably argue that yes your posts were correct and i agree they were completely factual, but "400mhz faster" really isnt doing anything but making the rest of us ignore your subsequent posts.

    i normally wouldnt care about this as it always happens online but when someone goes out of their way to post some 7 times on a thread which they clearly have no interest in assisting someone has to say something
     

Share This Page