Previous gen 2.8 Imac vs new 2.66

[bajee]

can you provide that benchmark you're saying. And also I'm talking about non-gaming environment. The thread starter, was asking about Previous gen 2.8 Imac vs new 2.66 for photoshop and video editing. and not gaming.

It is really a shame though that mac benchmark focus more on games, rather than productivity. If you want a game machine then get a pc, you can build one cheap for around 300$ that plays all the latest game, faster than 2000$ mac.

I for one love the mac for its OS, and not on gaming.

 

[papucla07]

can you provide that benchmark you're saying. And also I'm talking about non-gaming environment. The thread starter, was asking about Previous gen 2.8 Imac vs new 2.66 for photoshop and video editing. and not gaming.

It is really a shame though that mac benchmark focus more on games, rather than productivity. If you want a game machine then get a pc, you can build one cheap for around 300$ that plays all the latest game, faster than 2000$ mac.

I for one love the mac for its OS, and not on gaming.

photoshop and video will be better on the previous 2.8 machine, the processor is faster, I actually bought one of those but returned IT yesterday due to a problem I had with it, I wen to my local apple store and they wanted to replace the 2.8 2GB with the new 2.66 4GB machine, this new machine is actually more expensive than the Clearance 2.8 imac, I payed for this one 1399 and the new one costs 1499, without thinking about it I immediately said no, I told them that they were giving me a slower machine with a slower CPU and GPU so I said no thanks, I can upgrade the RAM of the 2.8 to 4GB for just $50 and that will be more than enough for what I do, I do photo editing using Light Room and DPP using large RAW files. At the end they gave me a gift card and just a couple of hours ago I ordered a Refurbished 3.06 Prev Gen top of the line imac for 1599.00, I feel more comfortable now knowing I am getting a better machine than both the 2.66 and 2.8 for just about 250 more.

Even though for many people the 2.66 seams better compared to the previous gen 2.8 to me it is a downgrade in all aspects except the RAM 8GB vs 4GB MAX and like I said before the the 2.8 one can be maximize for just $50 bucks, I mean not for nothing the majority of people bought the Previous Generation 2.8 imac rather than buying the new 2.66 imac. Check these Benchmarks and convince yourself. http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2009/03/imac-and-mac-mini-benchmarks-early-2009/

 

[bajee]

In raw power, 2.8ghz will beat the new iMac 2.66ghz but not so much, I would trade for more memory options than raw power any day, especially when using photoshop. Photoshop is a memory hungry app, the more memory you feed it, the faster it will become.

Just try it for yourself, have multiple layerrs in photoshop, history cache set to 200, opening RAW files from your digital camera or whatever, you will always find your photoshop using your scratch disk. That's where bigger ram comes in, coz it will use all available ram used in photoshop instead of using the scratch disk, making photoshop snappier, and faster.

I myself always find myself opening several psd files to work with and indeed more memory is always welcome.

I just wanted to point out that more memory is a sure winner, its like getting a cheap mac pro.

However, I admit that you're selection of the older gen is valid, and make sense. Since photoshop in mac is 32bit, the only advantage of having an 8gig ram is that you can use your spare ram to other applications, but photoshop will not utilize all 8gig.

Though again I'm still sticking with new mac, and use my 4gigger, until cs5 is released. By then, an upgrade kit for 8gig ddr3, will be cheap. Ergo the new iMac will last you longer compared to the old iMac.