Somebody make my mind up...

Discussion in 'iMac' started by iSlave, Aug 14, 2007.

  1. iSlave macrumors 6502

    Jun 19, 2007
    I recently got a new 24'' iMac, which ended up having display problems. It's being sent back for a refund, and I'm looking at getting a 20'' instead. I just found the 24'' to be overkill. Now, this is the problem - do I go for the 2ghz model with an upgraded hard drive? Or the 2.4ghz model as standard? There's quite a lot of price difference for only gaining .4ghz.....however, I'm concerned that it'll be out of date quicker than the 2.4ghz. I mean, I can't see it existing the next time Apple do an update on the iMacs.

    Anyway, I'm using the iMac for Final Cut Pro, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, After Effects stuff.

    Any advice/answers would be VERY much appreciated!!
  2. hawaiian macrumors member


    I say go for the upgrade. You're getting more than just .4GHz boost in processor clock speed. Check out all of the specs and ask yourself what programs you may run in the future. How future proof do you want your new computer to be?

    And if you just want me to make up your mind, then...I say go for the upgrade.
  3. daneoni macrumors G4


    Mar 24, 2006
    Also the HD2600 Pro is better than the XT model. Get the 2.4GHz
  4. DemNoir macrumors member

    Aug 9, 2007
    You would be OK with the 2Ghz model. Look at the Macworld benchmarks online.
    They show very little speed difference between the 2 and the 2.4, A 20% increase in clock speed does not yield a 20% increase in real speed, not even close. The GPU is not a factor with the applications your running.
  5. NtotheIzoo macrumors regular

    Jan 24, 2005
    I agree with daneoni and hawaiian. It's not just a processor upgrade but much better video card and larger harddrive. My 2 cents.
  6. Jimmdean macrumors 6502

    Mar 21, 2007
    The upgrades aren't worth $300.00. You're getting +400MHz, a slightly larger hard drive, and a video card that costs about $10.00-$15.00 more in the real-word. It is not a "much better videocard" - it is only a little better. They are both horrifically underpowered (for gaming), but that's the tradeoff for this form-factor. I went with the base model and I'm glad I did...
  7. mzd macrumors 6502a

    Jul 25, 2005
    there is another thread on here about somebody who tried final cut on the base 20" at the apple store and the 128MB 2400XT couldn't handle it. tried it on the 2.4 20" and it ran fine. based on what you plan on doing, i would definitely recommend getting the upgraded 20".
  8. slffl macrumors 65816


    Mar 5, 2003
    Seattle, WA
    You obviously go for the best you can afford. Either way your coming out the same.

    Lets say you keep it for 2 years and then sell it. If you get the 2.0, it's going to re-sale for less than the 2.4. So it comes down to how much money you want to tie up in a computer.

    Now if you plan on keeping it for the rest of your life, then maybe the cheaper model might be your best bet.

    Oh, and these people who talk about the CPU upgrade not being that much. It's 400mhz and 400mhz is 400mhz. If you had the choice between a 1.6 or 2.0, wouldn't you go with the 2.0?

    Go with the best you can afford. Don't skimp, you'll regret it.
  9. Toddgabweg macrumors member


    Jan 17, 2007
    I love the overkill... I am all for a 30" imac...

    Attached Files:

    • fam2.jpg
      File size:
      14.3 KB
  10. BennyK macrumors 6502

    Sep 14, 2004
    Appleton, WI
    I would go with the upgrade, actually I did go with the upgrade. It is not so much that they are slightly better, it is that you can't change anything but the ram. Therefore for more HD space, an increase by 400 Mhz, and a better video card with twice as much Video Ram, I'd say that is worth the $300, then get another stick of Ram for (OWC).
  11. iSlave thread starter macrumors 6502

    Jun 19, 2007
    Thanks to everyone for their advice. Much appreciated. I think I'll go for the 2.4 version after all...:apple:

Share This Page