Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Imac 2.33GHz Intel core 2 duo for editing
- Thread starter f1davis
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm using iMac 20" with just the 2.0Ghz Intel Core Duo, and Final Cut runs great.
But I have 2Gbs of RAM, 500GB HDD, and 256Mb ATI Radeon X1600.
But I have 2Gbs of RAM, 500GB HDD, and 256Mb ATI Radeon X1600.
ANY Mac is good enough for consumer editing in FC.
Even my old 700 MHz G4 eMac was ok for that.
Yeah. More than enough i say.
Nowadays a 24 inch iMac is all you need. Big screen, processor power all in one beautiful machine.
Get the max amount of RAM memory.
Nowadays a 24 inch iMac is all you need. Big screen, processor power all in one beautiful machine.
Get the max amount of RAM memory.
Do we think there will ever be a firmware update that will allow it to address the full 4g of RAM? Or is this completely out of the question?
That is a limitation of the physical hardware. While the CPU is a 64-bit compatible device (and will run 64-bit code no problem), the memory controler is part of the mobile intel chipset used by Apple. The chipset is limited to a 32-bit memory address space (which is 4Gb in size), but other hardware elements such as the graphics system map their address space into this 4Gb region. Even if the iMac were able to operate with 2x2Gb memory modules, it would only be able to access about 3.4 Gb.
While some manufacturers (Dell) are happy to sell their customers that second 2Gb memory module, you would be paying a horrific premioum for very little additional memory. And other manufacturers have to deal with all the "Dude! Where's the 4Gb I paid through the nose for!???" support calls and law suits.
Apple (corretly IMO) chose to just avoid the whole problem in what is (after all) a commodity consumer item.
The next generation of chipsets from Intel will provide full support for 64-bit systems and eliminate this problem (as the chipset in the Mac Pro does already). But that is another 4 to 6 months away easy - unless Apple completely redesign the iMac to use an Intel desktop CPU and chipset (which would also give the iMac quite a bost in CPU and memory speed). Apple would win here, as it could reduce the component costs. They could drop the price of the iMac and still make more money per unit. Problem would be cooling the beast. It could probably require a thicker form factor and/or more powerful active cooling. Steve may not be ready to compromise on the iMac's size and noise output to create a "better" iMac.
Then again - perhap Apple can figure it all out and we will see a new iMac design Tuesday!
can't the cd address 4gigs as well? will apple make it so the cd machines can have 3 gigs at least?
In theory yes. I'd have to go digging around in the specs. It may be a limitation of the chipset they used (in which case the chipset was updated with the move to Core 2 Duo too), or Apple just limited things to 2x1GB modules max because the 2GB memory modules were very uncommon and very-very expensive at the time. Now they are just very expensive...
I don't need to eat a roast dinner on sundays or to shower more than twice a week but why should a lack of need undermine get?
May I say MacsAttacks really knows their stuff! I'm in two minds as to whether I wan't those upgrades to come through at MWSF as it would mean I would have to cancel my imac that's on its way now... Also the system is powerful enough to handle anything I'd want to throw at it, Pro tools LE, HD video and maybe a sneaky bit of HL2... Does this mean that a similarily configured MBP and Imac would perform the same?
May I say MacsAttacks really knows their stuff! I'm in two minds as to whether I wan't those upgrades to come through at MWSF as it would mean I would have to cancel my imac that's on its way now... Also the system is powerful enough to handle anything I'd want to throw at it, Pro tools LE, HD video and maybe a sneaky bit of HL2... Does this mean that a similarily configured MBP and Imac would perform the same?
I was going to say the same thing, except with them both bumped up one gig. More RAM always helps, but don't go bankrupt over RAM because you you can always buy seperately in the future.
Santa Roas - the mobile chipset - is slated for a March releae... Which by my guess puts it in an April/May timeframe for updates to the iMac, MacBook, and MacBook Pro to start to appear...
...if Apple do not do something unexpected and completely redesign the iMac or iintroduce a completly line with a new form factor that would allow them to use desktop components.
My instinct is that they will just wait. We will get Leopard about April, and then upgrades to the iMac and MacBook in their current form. The MacBook Pro could use a ground-up redesign. Now that the Intel transition has been completed (using the same old form factor for the most part), i can see Apple wanting to phase in a new look over the next year.
On the question of memory... I have a MacBook with 1GB, and a Mac Pro with 4GB. Except when doing some "heavy lifting" I don't see that much difference in performance. Looking at the memory usage on the Pro, I think 2GB would be fine. The only time more really makes that much difference is when running Parallels. Now there is an application that loves more memory.
I would expect an iMac to come out slighty ahead of a MacBook Pro - mostly because of the stock Hard Disk in and iMac. For general usage I doubt you would notice the differnce.