Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Buying Imac 2.8 or 3.06 ?

B

Babba

macrumors member
Original poster
Feb 6, 2008
32
0
Well, i'm buying one tomorrow. But can't decide between models.
I don't play any games...(never)..I mainly use Photoshop, After effects and some 3d software...
Does 3.06 worth some extra bucks..?

btw: i still couldn't understand one thing..in the website of my local applestore, it says 3.06 Core 2 Duo Extreme. And 2.8 Core 2 Duo.
Does that mean 2.8 is not extreme? does anyone know anything about it ?
Can any 2.8 owner check if it's extreme or not :) ?
 
Good question, I want to know the exact same thing !. But I will definitley want the higher grade Graphics, because the main use for the iMac for me is Photo editing, but I'm debating if it's worth the extra £.

NStock
 
Both the 2.8 and the 3.06 are Core 2 Duo processors, so in the current iMac line-up you can't get any Extreme processor.

If you don't play any games, the 2.8 with ATI graphics is fast enough. :)
 
That must be a mistake, because it can't be a Core 2 Duo Extreme. It is a Core 2 Duo or a Core 2 Extreme and according to the US and NL store, it's a Core 2 Duo. Even if it was an Extreme, it wouldn't matter because it's pretty much only a name. Apart from the clockspeed, the processors (2.8 vs 3.06) are both the same.
 
The 3.06 (in terms of clock speed) is 9% faster than the 2.8, and as you mentioned, the better processor is "EXTREME".

How much is that really worth to you?
 
Babba, they have different graphics cards as well (unless you get the 2.8 built to order). That may be something else for you to consider. If you search ATI NVIDIA in this iMac, eMac, Mac mini subforum, you'll find a number of threads about it.
 
Invest the money you would use on the minor speed increase elsewhere - I'd suggest maxing out the RAM and buying an external drive. You'll appreciate the benefits much more.

AppleMatt
 
isn't ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO an ok card? should i waste more for nvidia ?
 
the 2.8 used to be extreme (thats what i have) but now none of the options are extreme :(

Oh yeah, get the 3.06 u will never regret it
 
Babba said:
isn't ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO an ok card? should i waste more for nvidia ?
Click to expand...

If you don't play games or run a lot of 3d OpenGL apps you will not miss the NVidia (8800). The ATI 2600 out performs the 8800 or comes out the same in most desktop apps.

That's with today's public version of OS X. Apple may tweak the drivers on the NVidia side in the next update and change the balance some. Nobody knows but Apple.

The next major release, Snow Leopard is expected to make more use of the GPU for general purpose processes. If this is the case the NVidia, with its extra memory and processing power might see a big performance gain over the 2600 equipped iMac.

What ever you do, don't buy your extra memory from Apple. It is more then twice as expensive as memory available from places like NewEgg. I paid under $70 for 4GB for my iMac and have seen it as low as $61.
 
Get the 2.8

The 2.8 option is fine and spending that much money is not necessary for the .26GHz. Anyways, you can overclock the processor to 3.06 by yourself, producing no more heat than the overclocked 3.06 from Apple will. :D
 
Id say because an iMac is such a significant investment, get the best you can afford. I cant imagine you regretting it and it makes it a little more future proof, because that extra processing power may make all the difference once the new Snow Leopard OS is released and you want to upgrade.
 
CastrolSyntec said:
The 2.8 option is fine and spending that much money is not necessary for the .26GHz. Anyways, you can overclock the processor to 3.06 by yourself, producing no more heat than the overclocked 3.06 from Apple will. :D
Click to expand...

Exactly how do you do that? I'd like to overclock my 3.06.
 
http://www.macworld.com/article/133332/2008/05/alumimac2008.html

Halfway down the page is a comparison table with benchmarks. Not sure what tests they did exactly but the 3.06 is quicker, not drastically, but if you're working with large photoshop files or move on to video then it would be worth it.

Remember i imagine that you'll want it to last a good 3-5 years or so. Therefore the 3.06 would be best if you can afford it. You can always upgrade the RAM at a later date.
 
CastrolSyntec said:
Anyways, you can overclock the processor to 3.06 by yourself, producing no more heat than the overclocked 3.06 from Apple will. :D
Click to expand...

Really, is that soo....would you mind telling us how you hacked into the EFI to change your clockspeed....oh wait you can't because it isn't possible!
 
CristobalHuet said:
Actually, the 3.06 is Core 2 Extreme, at least that's what I picked up on the Apple site the other day and Wikipedia.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac_(Intel-based)#Models
Click to expand...

Please post a link to the Apple web page that states the 3.06 and the early 2008 2.8 iMac's use Core 2 Extreme chips.

Your Wiki data does not agree with Apples tech specifications nor with specs provided by Mactracker (These sources state that they are C2D, not Extreme). The chips used are E8235 and E8435 Penryn's
 
gehrbox said:
Please post a link to the Apple web page that states the 3.06 and the early 2008 2.8 iMac's use Core 2 Extreme chips.

Your Wiki data does not agree with Apples tech specifications nor with specs provided by Mactracker (These sources state that they are C2D, not Extreme). The chips used are E8235 and E8435 Penryn's
Click to expand...

I could've sworn it said "Intel Core 2 Extreme" on Apple's site when I bought it, can't find the page anymore. :(

Nevertheless, isn't "Extreme" just a term to show what's the best option available as of now? (in our case the 3.06 model) :confused:
 
CristobalHuet said:
I could've sworn it said "Intel Core 2 Extreme" on Apple's site when I bought it, can't find the page anymore. :(
Click to expand...

Yeah I was going to say the same thing. When I ordered mine on Wednesday, it said Intel Core 2 Extreme... now it says Core 2 Duo.

Hmm... Even the article in Wiki gave the model numbers and said they were Extreme.

I don't think it's that big of a deal, though.

Edit: Actually, here's the Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...2Penryn_XE.22_.28standard-voltage.2C_45_nm.29

It probably is a Core 2 Extreme (unlocked for overclocking, faster FSB), but Apple is choosing to not show the "Extreme" part (anymore) because there's no way to overclock. Instead, they're marketing it as a "Core 2 Duo with a faster FSB." Either way, it's all good to me. It's still the fastest dual-core, mobile processor on the market! (regardless of what they call it)

Edit 2: Anyway, all that stuff aside. My recommendation is to get the best you can afford. Remember, it's an all-in-one unit... so you can either save yourself $200 now and then spend another $2000 in two years, or spend that $200 now and get something that will last you for 3-4 years. There's no upgrading down the road with the iMac.
 
"If you don't play any games, the 2.8 with ATI graphics is fast enough."

That is wrong. Even if there will always be someone faster, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2600 XT is pretty good for gaming!

"there's no way to overclock"

I do not know if it may be possible to overclock the mainboard, the frontside-bus or the CPU of the iMac, but to overclock the ATI card is easy in Windows!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back