I know I will buy the new 27 "iMac. I'm not convinced if I be supposed to acquire the quad core or dual core. What is importance the money?
Printable View
I know I will buy the new 27 "iMac. I'm not convinced if I be supposed to acquire the quad core or dual core. What is importance the money?
Depending on your needs. Do you use programs that would benefit from having a quad core? If you have simpler needs, like browsing the web, watch videos and play the game from time to time, then the dual core is more than enough.
All are worth exactly what it cost!
- The 27 "3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo iMac worth $ 1659
- The 27 "iMac 2.66 GHz quad-core Core i5 worth $ 1929
- And the 27 "2.8GHz Quad Core i7 worth $ 2159
Sincerely Core 2 Duo is probably a lot of equipment for most people .plus you get the fastest CPU at 3.06 GHz for $ 320 more but, you get quad-core i5 a better graphics card with 512meg of video RAM.
The i5 has Turbo Boost up to 3.2GHz, when you have a basic operation or 2.8 GHz with 2 active cores. So really, the i5 is the way forward. I put the i5, and when I have sufficient money to pay money for another computer once more, I completely acquire a quad-core iMac, which are then remodeled or an i5 model. I am extremely energized about these teams, particularly for my home studio. eliminate the necessitate for a mac pro.
Usually, when Apple refreshes a product line (this time the iMac) . the choice of medium is usually the "sweet spot" between performance and price seems to be true this time as well .although the i7 is not too expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by BansiJ
If you have the money, then there is no point in buying the smaller model, even if you currently are not going to use much of their power. I calculated that in my 24 "running things while numerous high as 80% of my CPU, if I had the money to go buy the Quad Core then I'll stop asking questions and go buy it. But no, I have to think about keeping the future in mind about whether I will ever need all that power.
If you do video encoding or graphics work I became quite large the four cores. The four cores is also a safe bet for a team that will last 3-5 years in the future. Also I myself get the 860 by 750 any day for the reason that of hyper threading and a higher clock speed - in spite of Apple charges $ 120 further for what is in point of fact updating.
If you like the game from time to time, and then have the top of Lynnfield and the ATI card would be a beautiful thing, but do not expect that even these desktop-quality components to give your highest and hottest games frames per second when the game becomes a enormous 2560x1440 resolution iMac - it's likely that games with a lower resolution, likely 1920x1080.
Wolf dale versions of the iMac slouches though and I can easily see a 3-person or years for daily tasks, including some of the large tasks.
I am about to buy an iMac after having a pc since 2007. imac had before. I need it mainly for processing raw images, w / Nikon D200. Using Capture NX / Nikon, and Photoshop. (I know people and original music I've recorded in 24 track TASCAM neo) so far I have not used any computer-based system.
I am somewhat familiar w / w of the SPC / imac. I'm assuming quad core is better than mourning. Fastest megahertz and is obviously better. I wonder if the basic iMac
For 1199. Intel core MHz 15/500 GB w/2.5, w / 4 GB of RAM is enough. I am only able to use a concert w / pc and Capture NX is a memory leak.
I get better, but I also save for the new Photoshop, which is half the price of the computer. Also, it is a big difference between 2.5 and 2.7 megahertz?
I cannot tell you how many times I've heard questions like this. My answer is always the same.
Always buy as a team all you can afford, no matter how long you think you will use it or not. There is no such thing as "too" team when necessary, but it sure is something like having "very little" team when needed.