As like many of you who are about to pull the trigger, I'm weighing up all the options.
I'm just curious why Apple have two processors at the high end that are similar clock speeds (2.93GHz vs 3.06GHz).
Is there more to it than that? i.e. is there more L2 cache on the 3.06GHz model that would make it worth the extra bucks?
UPDATE:
Can someone confirm the following assumptions:
The 2.93GHz option looks like the T9800 Penryn with 6MB L2 cache, FSB of 1066 MT/s, 35W TDP, and Dynamic Front Side Bus Throttling between 400MT/s and 800MT/s.
The 3.06GHz option looks like the X9100 Penryn XE with 6MB L2 cache, FSB of 1066 MT/s, 44W TDP, and Dynamic Front Side Bus Throttling between 400MT/s and 1066MT/s. Features an unlocked clock multiplier.
So based on that alone, it would seem the 3.06GHz version of the iMac could perform better in the most demanding situations, thanks to the dynamic FSB throttling running at the full speed memory/FSB of 1066MT/s rather than 800MT/s.
I'm just curious why Apple have two processors at the high end that are similar clock speeds (2.93GHz vs 3.06GHz).
Is there more to it than that? i.e. is there more L2 cache on the 3.06GHz model that would make it worth the extra bucks?
UPDATE:
Can someone confirm the following assumptions:
The 2.93GHz option looks like the T9800 Penryn with 6MB L2 cache, FSB of 1066 MT/s, 35W TDP, and Dynamic Front Side Bus Throttling between 400MT/s and 800MT/s.
The 3.06GHz option looks like the X9100 Penryn XE with 6MB L2 cache, FSB of 1066 MT/s, 44W TDP, and Dynamic Front Side Bus Throttling between 400MT/s and 1066MT/s. Features an unlocked clock multiplier.
So based on that alone, it would seem the 3.06GHz version of the iMac could perform better in the most demanding situations, thanks to the dynamic FSB throttling running at the full speed memory/FSB of 1066MT/s rather than 800MT/s.
