This year's iMac vs. last year's?

Need new computer. Currently browsing.....

Was investigating a Mac dealer which sells slightly out-of-date
computers, still unopened. Advantage: They're cheaper.

I want a desktop rather than a laptop.

The salesman was telling me that he thinks the out-of-date iMac is
actually BETTER than the newer one, due to Apple cutting some corners
with the newer model. In particular, he stressed the graphics card. He
said (I may be getting the jargon slightly wrong) the previous model had
a dedicated graphics card with its own RAM. Whereas the newer graphics
card uses the main RAM -- which is a worse way of doing things. He
believed there was no reason to do this beyond it being cheaper for
Apple.

Is this true? How significant is this factor?

I can get a 10% discount on a new one, so the cost difference doesn't
end up being too significant. So, it's mainly about whether I believe
his pitch or not. And weighing this issue versus other factors such as
the newer one having a larger hard drive (probably not important for my
needs) and a faintly faster chip (a relatively trivial difference).

Advice?

 

Well, I think the Apple site supports what he said about the new
graphics card using system RAM rather its own....

Under Graphics at the above Apple site, the new 20-inch version says:

"NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics processor with 256MB of DDR3 SDRAM shared
with main memory"

And the 2008 version says:

"ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB of GDDR3 memory"

I believe I saw practically identical charts at the store.

 

Don't know if it is true.

But your other question is important (if it's true). The significance
of less on-graphics-card memory certainly depends on how graphics
intensive your uses will be. What are you going to do with the
computer?

 

<-september.org>
,

Make sure the graphics card in the older iMac is one that Snow Leopard
can make use of.

 

Test done by playing a movie. I wonder whether the results would have
been different if some heavy number-crunching had been happening at the
same time.

--
Wes Groleau

You're all individuals!
Yes, we're all individuals!
You're all different!
Yes, we are all different!
I'm not!
("Life of Brian")

 

Amen. I'll skip the many war stories.

Yes. The OP didn't mention which iMac. It makes a huge difference. My
initial reaction was incredulity because I distinctly recalled that the
graphics on the new iMacs were so majorly improved over the previous
ones that I was tempted to buy one just for that. But then I was
thinking about the 24" models. He was probably talking about the 20" one
which, as noted above, is only a little better than the prior ones.

Using system RAM rather than its own doesn't directly tell you much
about graphics performance. Some, but not much. The cards that don't
have their own RAM tend to be lowish end, but you can certainly get
cards with dedicated RAM that are just as low.

I'm guessing that the OP won't see the difference, mostly because he
didn't mention what kind of apps you are running, which makes a huge
difference. For most apps, you just won't notice. If you are running
something that really pushes 3D graphics hard, then you'd probably want
the 24" system.

Yes, the 20" system cuts some corners compared to the 24" ones. It is
the low-end system and it shows. But I'm not so convinced that it isn't
just as good or better than the prior model.

 

Yes, I'm looking at 20-inchers. That's why I quoted the 20" stats
earlier.

I don't think that I have out-of-the-ordinary graphics needs. I'm not
really a "gamer," and I don't watch DVD movies on my computer either.

I'm not rich, and a 24-inch monitor seems like an unnecessary luxury. I
can get by without that. I'm using a (dying) 17-inch eMac right now, so
a 20-inch screen is still an upgrade. But I'm just wondering about the
salesman's point about the new vs. old 20-inch desktops. From what you
and Jolly Roger say, it sounds like the graphics issue is legitimate and
not just some dishonest sales pitch....but it also sounds like it's not
really too important for me personally. Hm. And the salesman didn't ask
about much my personal computer needs, so maybe he projected his own
"maximum" graphics requirements onto me.

OK, thanks.

 

And BareFeats is a highly respected independent site. Note that they do
not at all just parrot praise of Apple. They have sometimes hit Apple
pretty hard for things like releasing new systems with worse performance
than old ones (as has on occasion happened). If you want real-world
graphics performance data for Macs, it is probably *THE* site to check.

 

Huh? That's what _they_ said they did.

--
Wes Groleau

After the christening of his baby brother in church, Jason sobbed
all the way home in the back seat of the car. His father asked him
three times what was wrong. Finally, the boy replied, "That preacher
said he wanted us brought up in a Christian home, and I wanted to
stay with you guys."

 

Of the four current "stock" iMacs offered by Apple, the two cheaper
models (20" and entry level 24") have "integrated graphics" chipsets
(NVIDIA GeForce 9400M), while the top two 24" models have dedicated
graphics controllers (and you can customize them with a few
alternatives).

As for the salesman's claim that there was no reason for this:

- Apple switched to using NVIDIA controller chipsets instead of Intel
ones across the entire product line (except for the high-end Mac Pro and
Xserve).

- The NVIDIA chipset allows Apple to use faster memory in the 2009 model
(DDR3 vs DDR2).

- The NVIDIA 9400M is significantly better than Intel integrated
graphics used on some older models (but not the 2008 iMac).

- The NVIDIA 9400M probably out-performs the ATI graphics controllers in
low-end 2008 iMacs. (Need to find some benchmarks to confirm this.)

- The NVIDIA 9400M adds some significant features for offloading work
from the main CPU, including hardware decompression of H.264 video, and
support for the OpenCL language Apple will be introducing in Snow
Leopard. (Most recent NVIDIA graphics controllers support these
features, but only high-end ATI graphics controllers, which weren't an
option in the 2008 iMacs.)

There are some disadvantages:

- Integrated graphics uses up some of the computer's main memory, so you
will have less memory available for other purposes, which generally
reduces the performance of the computer. (Counteracting this: the
standard memory supplied with the 2009 iMacs is double that of the
equivalent 2008 model; you could upgrade the RAM in the 2008 model to
cancel this out.)

- Heavy-duty 3D graphics and some advanced software requires a dedicated
graphics card (e.g. some games, and parts of Final Cut Studio).

Other aspects of the 2009 models to consider:

- The 2009 iMacs switched to a new type of external display connector
(Mini DisplayPort instead of Mini DVI). This is a mixed blessing: it
allows the use of an external 30" Cinema Display (with an expensive
adapter), may require replacing any adapters you currently have, and
loses support for composite/S-Video output (e.g. to an old television).

- The Firewire 400 port was replaced with another USB 2.0 port. It still
has a single Firewire 800 port, but if you need to connect Firewire 400
devices you might need an adpater or converter cable, and this may
complicate things if you need to connect more than one Firewire device.

 

Sorry. Guess I misinterpreted this:
"The X-Plane benchmark uses our record movie of the X-15 dropped from a
bomber and diving for the mountains below."

 

Assuming your Firewire devices have daisy-chain connectors.

If you want to connect two devices which only have one connector, and
your computer only has one Firewire port, then you will need a Firewire
hub.

As I said, the loss of a Firewire port may complicate things for some
people who have more than one Firewire peripheral.

 

The cheapest 24" machine is $300 more than the 20" but if you choose the
24" you are not paying $300 for a bigger display, you are paying for
double the RAM, double the hard drive capacity and a bigger display. Of
course you might think all of those are unnecessary luxuries, in which
case the 20" machine is for you, but if you configure a 20" with the
same RAM and hard drive as the cheapest 24" then the price difference
drops to $125.

My 20" iMac is nearly three years old so I will be replacing it soon.
Since I don't own any sort of television (let alone one of those
monstrous plasma screen things that are all the rage) I only have my
iMac on which to watch movies and a 24" display would be a nice luxury
to have. I am by no means rich but I can't see it being difficult to
justify to myself

Ian

 

OK, thanks....I appreciate your help. You folks have convinced me.

 

I couldn't sympathize more with you since I had a similar problem. It's
not that I'm not rich enough to buy those nice Macs... but I'd rather
keep things this way.

So, finally, I found a Mac that suits my needs and wallet. The problem,
if you have space concerns, is that it looks more like a Mac Pro than a
iMac. But check the specs compared to an iMac:

Triple Core 2.8 GHz CPU | 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
Gigabyte MA770T-UD3P mobo | some unknown lowest bidder mobo
4 GB of DDR3 1333 MHz RAM | 2GB of 1066MHz DDR3
9400GT video card 1 GB RAM | 9400M with 256MB *shared* memory
640 GB Western Digital HD | 320 MB Samsung HD
Asus VW246H 24" 2ms monitor | 20" Lucky Goldstar monitor

Price US: ~ $850 | $1,2000

If you really need Bluetooth, WiFi and Firewire 800 -- the Gigabyte
board "only" has Firewire 400 and 10 USB2 ports -- extra cards will set
you back another $100, but it would be cheaper to buy a mobo with those
integrated. But let's say a total of $950.

It's "only" $250 less than the 20" iMac, but you get your 24" monitor,
twice the RAM at higher speed, twice the HD space, a much more powerful
CPU, a way better video card and enough space and PSU power to add extra
HD. Even if it was the same price, it would already be a pretty good
deal. Now you get $250 off!!!

And, that's not all. Whereas the iMac runs proprietarized BSD-Unix
software, my Mac runs open-source Linux-Unix. So you get all your
software for free.

Of course, if, like all those who spend about 16 hours a day on this
group, you're a professional and you intend to shell out $1000 for Final
Cut Studio, I do suggest you stay with Mac.

Otherwise, Linux will provide you the likes of LiVES and KDEnLive, which
will offer you all the HD video editing options you'll ever need, and more.

So, if, unlike everybody on this group, you don't drink Laphroaig
whiskey all day long while the money comes in, my Mac might be a sound
alternative.

 

I've been considering installing Ubuntu on a system but I see that
Debian is getting a lot of "word" time on the Internet. I don't know a
lot about LInux except that when I installed a run from disc test on a
PC, I discovered that I was going to have to download a lot of
additional software to do the things I wanted to do except for word
processing and the odd game. And it also appeared that I was going to
have to get involved with command line to install or get programs and
hardware to work. I burnt out on command line with Windows - that's why
I switched to Macs. That is my problem with Linux - when it gets to the
point where I can freely obtain or, for a small shipping fee, get a
version that has all or at least most of what I need on DVD so I can
slip it in and install it without having to search, download and tweak
to get it all to work, I might give it a try.