iMac questions

[kinkster]

I have two questions about the iMac:

1: How difference is there in performance between the 2600 XT and the 2600 Pro? Is it worth $150 more for the XT or not even close?

2: How well would an iMac with a 2600 XT/Pro perform powering it's own display and another 20 inch display also? I plan on getting 4GB of RAM if that makes any difference.

 

[Acornz]

1. The XT is definitely faster than the PRO, I don't know how much faster the XT is. The XT isn't available on the iMac anyways so it wouldn't make a difference if it was worth it.

2. The 2600 Pro should be able to handle two displays just fine, if the macbook can drive an additional 24" display the iMac will handle almost anything you throw at it (except for a 30" of course).

 

[kinkster]

Wow, all this time I though one of the iMac models offered the XT. Must have mixed it up with the 2400 XT... Speaking of which, how does the 2400 XTcompare to the 2600 Pro? Worth a $150 difference?

Good to here it works with dual screens just fine.


*five minutes later* ah, Amazon lists the iMac as having the 2600 XT. No wonder I was confused.


Edit: Also, would it be $50 to get and exactly the same spec'd iMac with the mid-2008 penyrn update instead of the same thing without that update?

 

[Acornz]

The the two cards are barely different from each other, I guess if you are one of those people who need every bit of performance then I would say yes. I don't understand the last question. If it were me buying it, I would spend an extra $300 and get a better processor, bigger hard drive, better GPU and more RAM.

 

[AlexisV]

They are listed as the 2400XT and the 2600Pro.

It's emerged that the 2600 is a slightly underclocked XT, although I assume they have to sell it as a Pro for legal reasons.

If you'll never ever play games, save your money and get the 2400. Otherwise, get the 2600.

 

[kinkster]

Ah, that's good to here. I assume they underclocked it to make it cooler?