Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

jbleisure · Sep 12, 2006, 03:13 AM

I aim shortly to buy a 24' iMac:

2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
3GB
NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB SDRAM
undecided on HD: maybe 250GB, maybe 500GB

What I'd like to know is what that will struggle to do compared to a Mac Pro, say default configuration. That's my other option, with a 23" screen. Which obviously is more expensive. But aesthetically I prefer the iMac.

I'm particulary concerned with looking forward to leapard and taking a longer term view (maybe even Vista!!....on a partition!) but also curious as to the present limitations.

Thanks for your input.

chefpastry · Sep 12, 2006, 03:55 AM

I have found that OS X and its applications have become increasingly memory hungry. I view the 24" iMac's 3GB limit as it's greatest limitation.

iMacfan · Sep 12, 2006, 03:59 AM

I'd personally not get the 3Gb RAM - without the dual channel, it actualy takes a small speed hit. It isn't much, but might nearly cancel out that expensive 2.33Ghz upgrade. If you really need 3Gb, then you could do with 4Gb, and that's Mac Pro territory...

David

jbleisure · Sep 12, 2006, 04:37 AM

If you really need 3Gb, then you could do with 4Gb,

well, in part that's what I'm trying to establish. Do I really need 3GB?

It is really functionality that I am trying to discover what will be limited by the graphics card and other specs.

There is another part to this which is I have to spend over £2000 but only just over would be best( to do with reclaiming VAT in the UK) - However that's just an aside.

I'd personally not get the 3Gb RAM - without the dual channel, it actualy takes a small speed hit.

There are enough recent posts with comments to make that a shaky truth....besides a SMALL speed hit is acceptable if it saves me £500 and gives me all the funcionality I want...which is to be able to do everything except the really high end pro graphics that Mac Pros would be necessary for.

Eug · Sep 12, 2006, 09:19 AM

If you have a discrete GPU, and the 24" iMac does, then the speed hit for not using dual-channel RAM is very small in most (but not necessarily all) applications.

However, the cost of 3 GB on the iMac is fairly high. It's still gonna be cheaper than a Mac Pro, but if you're thinking 3 GB then the price premium does make the Mac Pro more attractive than it would have been otherwise. Also, as was mentioned, if you're truly in need of that much RAM now, it's quite possible it might not be enough in the future.

That concerns me a bit with my 24" iMac purchase. I agree with chefpastry in that the iMac's memory limitation is its biggest one. However, 2 GB is probably enough for me now, and so I could upgrade to 3 GB later if necessary. By the time I need more than 3 GB I'll probably be upgrading the entire machine anyway for other reasons I'm guessing.

It really depends on what you need to be doing with the machine. You haven't told us that yet.

iREZ · Sep 12, 2006, 10:35 AM

i highly doubt you'll need more than 3gb of ram in 'high end graphics' for the next year or two unless you mean motion graphics. illy and ps will work just fine under rosetta albeit a bit slow here n there untill the universal versions are released in which case your new imac will blow your powerbook outta the water. lets not forget that youre coming off of a 1.5g4 with only 1.5gb of ram, the imac with 2gb should be faster in using the cs apps even with rosetta compared to your current computer.

jbleisure · Sep 12, 2006, 10:41 AM

It really depends on what you need to be doing with the machine. You haven't told us that yet.

It will be used as a destop from which I run a small business However...I will also be using it to put together roughcuts of some digitized footage, most likely on avid which I will need to do around the turn of the year. (footage supplied on an external HD) I won't be doing any of the fancy transitions or more detailed editing just the very basic non linear rough cut. That's what I thought the extra 1GB of ram above the 2GB might be useful for.

jbleisure · Sep 12, 2006, 11:23 AM

Avid have said they are releasing intel compatible software for OSX in December. This will tie in with when I need the software more or less, infact it gives me a couple of months leeway.

I will be preparing a roughcut, which will then be handed over to the edit suite pro to be finished. Hence Avid (as that's what they use and have suggested I use too) and also a reason to have a machine that can handle this work. We are aiming for more of this kind of work which might mean a MP is the machine of choice.

Even if it were a one off it still justifies the cost of a higher spec machine over say a 20" imac. It would only justify the cost of a MP if the 24" couldn't handle it and only then it would squeeze the budget to an uncomfortable level. We will never take on the more pro aspects of editing otherwise I would certainly purchase the MP. I want to know that the 24'Mac with specs I detailed can do this without any trouble.

Eug · Sep 12, 2006, 12:09 PM

FWIW, Apple has demo'd Shake on the older 20" iMac Core Duo, and mention editing HD video in Final Cut Pro on the 24" iMac Core 2 Duo.

::maroma:: · Sep 12, 2006, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

If you have a discrete GPU, and the 24" iMac does, then the speed hit for not using dual-channel RAM is very small in most (but not necessarily all) applications.

However, the cost of 3 GB on the iMac is fairly high. It's still gonna be cheaper than a Mac Pro, but if you're thinking 3 GB then the price premium does make the Mac Pro more attractive than it would have been otherwise. Also, as was mentioned, if you're truly in need of that much RAM now, it's quite possible it might not be enough in the future.

That concerns me a bit with my 24" iMac purchase. I agree with chefpastry in that the iMac's memory limitation is its biggest one. However, 2 GB is probably enough for me now, and so I could upgrade to 3 GB later if necessary. By the time I need more than 3 GB I'll probably be upgrading the entire machine anyway for other reasons I'm guessing.

It really depends on what you need to be doing with the machine. You haven't told us that yet.

I agree. I think the 24" iMac is a more than adequate machine for the vast majority of people out there. Myself included. I am a graphic designer, but I do most of my work at my office, where my employer supplies me with a computer (which is a G5 tower at the moment). At home, I currently have a Sawtooth G4 upgraded to a 1.2GHz G4 with 1GB of RAM. I do a decent amount of work on it and I find it pretty suitable. So the 24" iMac should do me good for quite a while, even with the 3GB RAM limitation.

As you said, by the time I need to go for more than 3GB of RAM I'll be in the market for a new computer anyways. The 24" iMac is a great buy.

Oh, and if you haven't seen one in person, GO SEE ONE! They are sooooooo sexy with that big monitor. I just saw one about an hour ago in my local Apple Store. Seeing it in person clinched the deal for me.

jbleisure · Sep 12, 2006, 03:36 PM

Seeing it in person clinched the deal for me.

I'm virtually sold on the 24" anyway, especially given my concerns about the ability of the machine to manage the mid range kinda editing that I'll be doing. Am waiting for the local supplier to stock them so I can check it out then will order via the Apple store.

Thanks

stefanicotine · Sep 12, 2006, 10:01 PM

I have a maxed out 20" (first Intels, from January) and it does a grand job with Final Cut. Unless you need a render farm for full length movies or 3D work, I can't see the necessity in having a Mac Pro. 3 GB is a limitation, yes, but consider that most computers today only have 512 MB. If you're using it for consumer type tasks (with only occasional prosumer, or professional tasks) then I, personally, think the 24" will suit you fine. By the time 3 GB isn't enough, it will probably be time to get a new system anyway.

jbleisure · Sep 14, 2006, 09:29 AM

I have a maxed out 20" (first Intels, from January) and it does a grand job with Final Cut.

Thanks that has helped put my mind at ease.

If you're using it for consumer type tasks (with only occasional prosumer, or professional tasks) then I, personally, think the 24" will suit you fine.

I agree. We will however be shooting and editing in HD, I guess that will of course make some difference, but do you know if the 24" will be able to handle that withought a problem?

stefanicotine · Sep 14, 2006, 10:01 AM

I think it'd be fine. My camera isn't quite HD, but it doesn't fall too short of it.