Why is the 27" only £150 more than the 21"?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Hibernia, May 5, 2011.

  1. Hibernia macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Location:
    Scotland
    #1
    Hi guys
    Still trying to decide on my first Mac and i've narrowed my choices down to either the higher spec 21" or the entry lvl 27" one.
    Both have the 1TB drive i would like and both have the same graphics adaptor but the 27" screen is only £150 more?

    I'm sure i must be missing something obvious but i would have thought 6" more screen would be a lot more than just £150?

    Is the screen size a drawback on the larger Mac using the same video card specs?

    My desk has room for a larger screen and gaming will be its main use if that makes a difference.

    TIA
     
  2. AFSTER macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 4, 2011
    #2
    i am thinking the same as yourself

    i only wanted the 21 but for £150 its daft not to go for 27

    i am going then just buy some ram from elseware for £70sih for 8gb
     
  3. Hibernia thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Location:
    Scotland
    #3
    Oooh geat minds think alike. Was going for the additional memory elsewhere as well as it seems an easy upgrade option.

    Would have gone for the baisc 21" screen but i need the extra HD space and don't really want the external option.
     
  4. AFSTER macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 4, 2011
    #4
    i would like to get SSD but just want it for operating system, so even a 60gb would have been good but i am not paying them prices for what they offering

    i think il get the ram and thats it as its my first mac :)

    i get student discount so i will get applecare aswell
     
  5. MythicFrost macrumors 68040

    MythicFrost

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #5
    It's not just a 27" screen, it also has a 2560x1440 resolution. It's better to get it for the little price difference, imo. I buy RAM from OWC btw, they've got 2x2GB for $50 up to 4x4GB for $200.

    The higher resolution will result in less FPS in games than the lower resolution. 1920x1080 is ~2.1 million pixels, whilst 2560x1440 is ~3.7m. You'll have to play on lower settings in some games. To be honest, if gaming is your primary use. I'd suggest going to the $1999 model. The 6970M will be much better. If you can't do that, either the 21.5" with higher settings, or 27" with lower settings.

    Check out the FPS w/ a 6970 here at 1080p: link

    Here's some FPS for the 6750M: http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6750M.43958.0.html
    (mouse over the "ultra" / "high" / "medium", etc., settings to see the resolution and other details)

    Your graphics card will be a bit better than that. At 1440p you'll get even less FPS than the listings at 1080p.

    Cheers
     
  6. Hibernia thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Location:
    Scotland
    #6
    Cheers Mythic for the links. I thought games would be the potential problem. I can't justify the cost for the top end 27" screen , can barely afford the entry 27" one :)

    Playing on lower graphic settings is not a major obstacle , my current lap top has to have the graphics turned down a bit anyway.

    So it sounds like the 27" model for me then...
     
  7. MythicFrost macrumors 68040

    MythicFrost

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #7
    No worries, enjoy :)
     
  8. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #8
    He is in the Uk so he should get his ram from crucial. I've bought ram from owc before, but after shipping and customs in the uk it worked out more expensive. Oh well.
     
  9. Hibernia thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Location:
    Scotland
    #9
    I was going to use Crucial for the RAM but used Mythics link to get a price comparison against the Apple Store rates , thought they'd be similar in difference.
     
  10. MythicFrost macrumors 68040

    MythicFrost

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #10
    Ah, I see. Interesting, thanks for the info.
     

Share This Page