[exnihilo]

Typo, obviously 20%.

[exnihilo]

Just recently bought a refurb 1gen 24" Aluminum iMac with the 2600 for a great price. I was afraid that this release would make me regret that purchase, but it turns out that my iMac still fares very well, still faster than any MacBook Pro.

[polaris20]

I agree, some audio benchmarks would be welcome. I'm using GarageBand right now on a 2.4Ghz MBP, and it'd be nice to see how it compares to the new iMacs.

[im2fast]

I've waited to upgrade to a new MacPro and have been confusingly dismayed by its arrival. The new top of the line Imac verses single 2.66 nehalem unit- what do you actually gain with the MacPro? Expandability, processor architecture, limit of 8 gigs ram?? How might a single quad core Macpro stand up against the new Imac?

[hillstones]

im2fast said:

I've waited to upgrade to a new MacPro and have been confusingly dismayed by its arrival. The new top of the line Imac verses single 2.66 nehalem unit- what do you actually gain with the MacPro? Expandability, processor architecture, limit of 8 gigs ram?? How might a single quad core Macpro stand up against the new Imac?

It all depends on the software that you choose to run. If you run processor intensive software that can use multiple cores, then the quad-cores will perform better than the dual-cores. However, you have the extra cost of a monitor with the Mac Pro, and the extra cost of the Mac Pro itself. The cost of the Mac Pro these days don't justify it for the average consumer anymore.

[s4mb4]

maybe, maybe not.

i view the mac pro as a workstation. a current workstation from HP or IBM with similar config will set you back well over $2000.

[aestival]

Hard to put a lot of stock in a benchmark that puts the iMac and Mac Pro effectively at par. What's the point of benchmarking, if such wildly different computers (in terms of processing power) rate almost exactly the same?

[ROWard]

Te past few years, I've found it hard to justify purchasing a mac pro series computer over an iMac or mini due to the typical benchmarks. I'm very happy with the performance of the mini's I've purchased in terms of processing speed. The only bottleneck the mini had was the graphics performance which has been dealt with in the new models. Unless one has serious graphics, video, audio and/or server requirements, an iMac or mini should be all that most people need in my opinion.

[polaris20]

s4mb4 said:

maybe, maybe not.


i view the mac pro as a workstation. a current workstation from HP or IBM with similar config will set you back well over $2000.

They are workstations. Despite what others want to admit to themselves, the Mac Pro is not designed for consumers, it's for people that would otherwise be looking at an HP XW8600 or Lenovo S10, both of which cost well within the ballpark of a Mac Pro.

ROWard said:

Te past few years, I've found it hard to justify purchasing a mac pro series computer over an iMac or mini due to the typical benchmarks. I'm very happy with the performance of the mini's I've purchased in terms of processing speed. The only bottleneck the mini had was the graphics performance which has been dealt with in the new models. Unless one has serious graphics, video, audio and/or server requirements, an iMac or mini should be all that most people need in my opinion.

I agree. Having been doing audio work on a Mac since the 400Mhz G4 days, and video since the DP 550Mhz G4 days, I call BS on the current Mac Mini or iMac not being good enough for these functions.

[imwesley]

I'm buying an iMac but I can't decide which way to go. The previous model is a good deal at $1399 and the performance isn't much worse than the new model. So the question is: is it worth $400 to get twice the RAM and storage? I think I'll go for the new model for those reasons and also because it has the capability to accept more RAM, an extra USB, and Firewire 800.

[Kingteddybear]

The results of a comparison between the previous 20"/2.66/ATI 2600 and the current 20" is what I was hoping for. I just never could get my wife to pull the trigger on the 20"/2.66/ATI 2600 to go with our 24"/2.8/ATI 2600.

[Biallystock]

Basically this doesn't knock my socks off.
Best to wait for Snow Leopard and some improvements where it really counts in productivity and functionality.
This is all reminiscent of the '90s where nothing much happened and it took a long time to not do it.

[hillstones]

[quote name='trip1ex']
>

hillstones said:

> The previous model 2.8 GHz 24" iMac is a steal at $1,399 in the clearance section, or $1,299 using the education discount, if still available at Apple. If not, Amazon still has them at $1,394.

well maybe. I was thinking I wanted the new one for double the storage and memory and the extra USB port instead of the better gpu.

Adding memory and additional storage is not that difficult, nor is it expensive. The aluminum iMacs are easier to open than the prior white iSight model. A hub solves the one extra USB port. With a $400-$500 savings on the prior model, the new one isn't worth it.

[hillstones]

imwesley said:

I'm buying an iMac but I can't decide which way to go. The previous model is a good deal at $1399 and the performance isn't much worse than the new model. So the question is: is it worth $400 to get twice the RAM and storage? I think I'll go for the new model for those reasons and also because it has the capability to accept more RAM, an extra USB, and Firewire 800.

The prior iMac 2.8 model has FireWire 400 and 800, and according to their benchmarks, better graphics than the new models. Add more memory and a bigger hard drive, and you have a better iMac for less, especially since a memory upgrade and larger hard drive would still have you less than the new iMac.