Refurbished imacs, 2007 vs 2008

[rjp]

I am interested in buying a refurbished imac and I see two products on the Apple site that look to be very good prices now.

FA877LL/A (mid 2007)
20" 2.4GHz 320HD 2600 pro GPU
849.00

and

FB324LL/A (early 2008)
20" 2.66GHz 320HD 2600 pro GPU
999.00

The only difference I can find is the processor and FSB.
The 2007 model is slightly slower 2.4 vs 2.6, smaller cache 4MB vs 6MB, and slower FSB 800 vs 1067 (RAM 667 vs 800).

Are there any other differences in these machines?
How about the display panels?

Do you think the processor difference is worth 150.00?

Thanks for any help.

 

[supernet33]

I am interested in buying a refurbished imac and I see two products on the Apple site that look to be very good prices now.

FA877LL/A (mid 2007)
20" 2.4GHz 320HD 2600 pro GPU
849.00

and

FB324LL/A (early 2008)
20" 2.66GHz 320HD 2600 pro GPU
999.00

The only difference I can find is the processor and FSB.
The 2007 model is slightly slower 2.4 vs 2.6, smaller cache 4MB vs 6MB, and slower FSB 800 vs 1067 (RAM 667 vs 800).

Are there any other differences in these machines?
How about the display panels?

Do you think the processor difference is worth 150.00?

Thanks for any help.

Yes! Snow Leopard will run better also

 

[rjp]

Yes! Snow Leopard will run better also

Why would Snow Leopard run better? Just because of the small CPU speed bump, or something to do with the FSB or cache?

Can you point me to some benchmarks for these machines?

 

[OldMike]

Why would Snow Leopard run better? Just because of the small CPU speed bump, or something to do with the FSB or cache?

Can you point me to some benchmarks for these machines?

Here is a benchmark that measures processor, memory and FSB speed. Personally, I think the speed bump would be worth the extra $150. But then again, I started looking at the 20" iMacs and rationalized myself up to a 24" 2.8 ghz - so don't listen to me

http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2009/01/mac-performance-january-2009/#consumer_desktop

 

[rjp]

13% faster.

Here is a benchmark that measures processor, memory and FSB speed. Personally, I think the speed bump would be worth the extra $150. But then again, I started looking at the 20" iMacs and rationalized myself up to a 24" 2.8 ghz - so don't listen to me

http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2009/01/mac-performance-january-2009/#consumer_desktop

Thanks for the benchmarks. So it looks like for 150.00 I get a 13% speed increase. Since this machine is too old to be future proof anyway, I'm leaning towards saving the 150, but I'd still like to hear other's opinions. Does Snow Leopard have any minimum requirements?

iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo E8335 2.66 GHz (2 cores) 3553

iMac (Mid 2007)
Intel Core 2 Duo T7700 2.4 GHz (2 cores) 3138

 

[mreg376]

Thanks for the benchmarks. So it looks like for 150.00 I get a 13% speed increase. Since this machine is too old to be future proof anyway, I'm leaning towards saving the 150, but I'd still like to hear other's opinions. Does Snow Leopard have any minimum requirements?

iMac (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo E8335 2.66 GHz (2 cores) 3553

iMac (Mid 2007)
Intel Core 2 Duo T7700 2.4 GHz (2 cores) 3138

I think the $850 is the better buy. Unless you're going to sit there running benchmarks, you'll never miss the difference in speed in the real world. Spend $52 at Crucial to upgrade to 4gigs, and you'll be golden.

 

[OldMike]

Does Snow Leopard have any minimum requirements?

Either machine you are looking at would be way above the minimum requirements for Snow Leopard.

It is tough to beat spending only $850 for an iMac.

No matter what you choose, I don't think you can go wrong...

 

[Hellhammer]

Go for 850$. FSB and cache aren't so important in normal use. I have 512KB cache and 667MHz FSB in my laptop and it does everything OK. Save that extra 150$ and buy 4GB RAM and some nice speakers.

 

[rjp]

24" for another 200?

Go for 850$. FSB and cache aren't so important in normal use. I have 512KB cache and 667MHz FSB in my laptop and it does everything OK. Save that extra 150$ and buy 4GB RAM and some nice speakers.

Thanks guys. I'm going to go for the 2007 model.

One other consideration came up yesterday. I saw the 2007 24" for 200 bucks more (1049). Same specks otherwise. Is the screen ump worth 200? I hear it's better quality (8 bit and not TN).

 

[Hellhammer]

Thanks guys. I'm going to go for the 2007 model.

One other consideration came up yesterday. I saw the 2007 24" for 200 bucks more (1049). Same specks otherwise. Is the screen ump worth 200? I hear it's better quality (8 bit and not TN).

Yes it is. The screen is better and I love its size. It looks huge in beginning but when you get use to it, 20" looks tiny. o for 24" if you can afford it and you have enough space for it

 

[OldMike]

Thanks guys. I'm going to go for the 2007 model.

One other consideration came up yesterday. I saw the 2007 24" for 200 bucks more (1049). Same specks otherwise. Is the screen ump worth 200? I hear it's better quality (8 bit and not TN).

Same boat. Went from looking at the Mac Mini, and then started looking at the 20" refurbs. I decided to pay a visit to the Apple Store to take a look at the difference between 20" and 24"- and I decided to bump up again to the 24" 2.8ghz refurb. I just got it and I'm really happy with it.

If you do go to compare in person, keep in mind that the 2009 20" iMacs have a different panel that seems to be a little better than the pre-2009 20" iMacs. There is a thread on here somewhere where someone goes into the details.

General consensus on here seems to be if you can afford the 24", go for it. With the refurbs available now, at the same price as the 20" 2009 models - it seems like a great deal. The 2.8 ghz for $1199 seems to outperform the $1499 2009 2.66 ghz easily in all aspects.

It's a tough choice, but I guess the most important thing is that you don't spend more than what you can afford, or have allocated for this purchase.

 

[Mike in Kansas]

General consensus on here seems to be if you can afford the 24", go for it. With the refurbs available now, at the same price as the 20" 2009 models - it seems like a great deal. The 2.8 ghz for $1199 seems to outperform the $1499 2009 2.66 ghz easily in all aspects.

The 2008 24"/2.8GHz refurb has to be the deal of the century, especially when Apple announced the 2009's, as many folks claim that their refurb was "new". I know my 20"/2.66 that I got for my kids was "like new" and had not a single sign of being out of the box.

I paid $1800 for a computer that I could have gotten for $1200 just 6 months later. But I DID get 6 months' use out of it!

 

[OldMike]

The 2008 24"/2.8GHz refurb has to be the deal of the century, especially when Apple announced the 2009's, as many folks claim that their refurb was "new". I know my 20"/2.66 that I got for my kids was "like new" and had not a single sign of being out of the box.

I paid $1800 for a computer that I could have gotten for $1200 just 6 months later. But I DID get 6 months' use out of it!

With the refurb that I just got, I can't tell if it is new or actually a refurb. I know that in the past (I mean years ago), the refurbs I bought from Apple came in brown boxes and said refurbished. Mine came in a white box with no graphics on it, and did not say refurb anywhere on it, except for on the packing list. If it is a refurb, I wouldn't know the difference from new.

 

[jaglad]

I bought a refurb before christmas, 24" 2.8Ghz, came with 4Gb of Ram, a 500Gb HD and the Nvidia 512Mb graphics card, all for £950, My luck was in the day I ordered that , first refurb I have ordered that has ever been better than it should have been. Looked totally brand new as well.

My mate recently bought the same spec refurb and was totally standard!