Is it worth spending $100 more for the 2.66 24 inch iMac

[panatha]

Hi guys. I'm so confused don't know what to do. Is it worth spending $100 more on the new 24 inch 2.66 ghz iMac because of the extra ram and 650 g hdd. Or should I get the old 24 inch 2.8 ghz. Which one runs faster!!

Is there a difference in the speed or is it pretty much the same.

Please reply.

 

[Baunkjaer]

I would go for the new one which has a new chipset. I don´t think you will notice the diffence from 2,66 to 2,8GHz, but the increased FSB on the new one, you probably will notice.
If you plan to use the iMac for gaming the discrete graphic card in the old one, might be a benefit for you. Otherwise not.
Personally I´ll shop the new 24" 2,66 next month. They´re still damn too expensive in Denmark, but I want one

 

[panatha]

I would go for the new one which has a new chipset. I don´t think you will notice the diffence from 2,66 to 2,8GHz, but the increased FSB on the new one, you probably will notice.
If you plan to use the iMac for gaming the discrete graphic card in the old one, might be a benefit for you. Otherwise not.
Personally I´ll shop the new 24" 2,66 next month. They´re still damn too expensive in Denmark, but I want one

So the graphics card in the old one is better? Is 320 gb hdd allot. I'll be storing mostly music movies etc photos. Is 2 g ram enough just for family use. Internet microsoft word for school?? But it's still 100 dollars difference. I still dunno farout

 

[Baunkjaer]

So the graphics card in the old one is better? Is 320 gb hdd allot. I'll be storing mostly music movies etc photos. Is 2 g ram enough just for family use. Internet microsoft word for school?? But it's still 100 dollars difference. I still dunno farout

Well, 100 bucks is a fair price for doubling the HDD as well as the amount of RAM.
I don´t know your need for space.. 320GB is what I´m using in my MBP, which is about adequate for now.
I still consider 2GB as a minimum for Leopard, thus the 4GB standard in the new 24" will fits me well. The new one also has the opportunity for RAM upgrade to 8GB, which the old one doesn´t.
Your office suite will run smothe on both machines.

 

[panatha]

Thankyou I'll take this into consideration.

BOTTOM LINE..........

Between the 2.8 ghz model there isn't a major change with speed. But you are better of getting the 2.66 ghz model due to the double hdd and ram. 'if u buy the 2.8 ghz model and want to upgrade to 4 gb you would have to spend $100 and is is not worth it because you even will have x2 hdd with the 2.66 ghz"

Does that sound rite???

 

[Baunkjaer]

There´s still the graphic to take into consideration. If no need for the HD 2600 Pro, go for the new one.

 

[panatha]

There´s still the graphic to take into consideration. If no need for the HD 2600 Pro, go for the new one.

So the HD is a big difference? If I get the 2.8 ghz and upgrade to 4 gs ram will that be good?.

 

[The Hammer]

There´s still the graphic to take into consideration. If no need for the HD 2600 Pro, go for the new one.

What's the difference in the front side bus and what difference would that have?

 

[panatha]

Hammer what do u mean?

 

[Baunkjaer]

What's the difference in the front side bus and what difference would that have?

The old ones = FSB800
The new ones = FSB1066.
As the new one runs with faster FSB and FSB/RAM ratio 1:1 it means faster performance.

 

[panatha]

So the 2.66 is better

 

[Baunkjaer]

So the 2.66 is better

Yes, as long as you keep the graphic issue in mind.

 

[The Hammer]

So the 2.66 is better

If the new FSB and the DDR3 ram of the new machine negates the graphics advantage of the 2600 pro card. But does it?

 

[Baunkjaer]

If the new FSB and the DDR3 ram of the new machine negates the graphics advantage of the 2600 pro card. But does it?

If you plan to use it for gaming the older will perform better than the new. As I understand it, you don´t, thus the new will give you better performance.

 

[The Hammer]

If you plan to use it for gaming the older will perform better than the new. As I understand it, you don´t, thus the new will give you better performance.

Thank you I've since been told by a friend that the integrated graphics will bottle neck the system for gaming.

 

[trip1ex]

I would get the new one for $100 more. The extra hard drive space is worth it and needed if you're storing movies and music and photos. It's not too easy to upgrade the hard drive on an iMac yourself at least for most people.

the extra ram is icing on the cake.

You may lose a bit on the videocard in the new iMac as far as gaming goes, but not that much. Both are low-end gaming solutions anyway.

 

[Shivetya]

I like the new ones compared to the older ones simply for the inherent bump in memory and drive space. As for the which card is better... or which cpu will do you better... well I doubt you will notice much real world between 2.66 and 2.8..

Where are you finding 2.8s so cheap?

 

[Baunkjaer]

Thank you I've since been told by a friend that the integrated graphics will bottle neck the system for gaming.

Same goes for the 2600 Pro - I doubt you will be able to run any recent game in native resolution (1920x1200).

 

[Mike in Kansas]

The old ones = FSB800
The new ones = FSB1066.
As the new one runs with faster FSB and FSB/RAM ratio 1:1 it means faster performance.

Both the 2008 and 2009 have a FSB of 1066 MHz. The 2007's have a FSB that runs at 800MHz.

The 2007 uses DDR2 RAM runnig at 667 MHz. The 2008 uses DDR2 RAM running at 800MHz; the 2009 uses DDR3 RAM running at 1066MHz.

The newer ones should be slightly faster; however, Geekbench doesn't support that:

http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/

 

[Baunkjaer]

Both the 2008 and 2009 have a FSB of 1066 MHz. The 2007's have a FSB that runs at 800MHz.

The 2007 uses DDR2 RAM runnig at 667 MHz. The 2008 uses DDR2 RAM running at 800MHz; the 2009 uses DDR3 RAM running at 1066MHz.

The newer ones should be slightly faster; however, Geekbench doesn't support that:

http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/

Oops, my bad.