Get Prev Gen imac 3.06Ghz or New 2.93Ghz for About Same $

[papucla10]

I am looking to buy a new imac very soon like tomorrow but just can't decide what to get, I do a lot of editing with DPP and Adobe Lightroom 2 I am just getting to learn more PP as my current computer hasn't let me explore this horizons, I have an old imac G5 2.1Ghz and is super slow with DPP unless I use SRAW on my 50D and even though is not fast, basically I need the best machine that can handle the best PP software like photoshop, aperture etc, I need the machine that can make my workflow more efficiently.

I have been thinking in either getting the Previous Generation top of the line:

- imac 24" 3.06Ghz, 2GB, 500GB HD, with NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS for about 1,849.00
- Potential final price 1,899.00 if I upgrade the 2GB to 4GB which will be more likely.

Or get New Generation:

- imac 24" 2.93Ghz, 4GB, 640GB HD, GT 120, for 1,799.00
- Potential final price 1,999.00 if I upgrade to ATI Radeon HD 4850 only if it helps with photo editing.

Which one is a better deal and which one will work better for my needs, PP photo editing.

HD is not important for me I keep all my pics in Externals HDs, what I need to know is if the difference between the 3.06 and 2.93 is big enough to make makes a difference in photo editing and if the video card is also a factor that can help improve the software to run faster for photo editing as well.

Your advices will be much appreciated.

[wlescall]

Get the new one. I also suggest a firewire CF reader (preferably FW 800) - You will love the transfer speeds.

See 2009 iMac Value Equation (http://lowendmac.com/musings/09mm/2009-imac-value-equation.html)

Faster RAM - potential to upgrade to 8 GB Ram. and to Quote: "Geekbench shows the new 2.93 GHz iMac has almost as much power as the old 3.06 GHz one."
For the same price - I think it is a no brainer.

[papucla10]

Get the new one. I also suggest a firewire CF reader (preferably FW 800) - You will love the transfer speeds.

See 2009 iMac Value Equation (http://lowendmac.com/musings/09mm/2009-imac-value-equation.html)

Faster RAM - potential to upgrade to 8 GB Ram. and to Quote: "Geekbench shows the new 2.93 GHz iMac has almost as much power as the old 3.06 GHz one."
For the same price - I think it is a no brainer.

Yea I already have the Lexar 800 Reader thanks, but do you know if the video card will have an impact on how fast or slow the editing software will run, this is very important for me. Thanks

[papucla10]

I saw the Geekbench numbers and they are like this:

iMac "Early 2008"
Intel Core 2 Duo E8435 3.06 GHz (2 cores) 3995 I suppose with the 2GB

iMac "Early 2009"
Intel Core 2 Duo E8335 2.93 GHz (2 cores) 3921 I suppose with the 4GB

So if the Previous Model 3.06 with 2GB is faster than the new Model 2.93 with 4GB, it will suggest that the Prev Model 3.06 with 4GB will still be faster than New the 2.93 with 8GB I would think, also note that we are not taking in consideration that the Prev Model has the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 card vs the VIDIA GeForce GT 120.

[Tony-S]

Personally, I'd go with the new one for its 9400m chipset. While the 8800m has CUDA and should support OpenCL in Snow Leopard, the 9400m is better optimized for it. Remember, with Snow Leopard, the cpu will become less important because it will utilize unused cycles on the gpu for doing processing (i.e., not just graphics work, but general computing work). The 8800m has 32 processing cores while the 9400m has 16 processing cores, but its architecture is more efficient. Which will be faster can't be known until SL comes out, so ymmv.

[wlescall]

Which will be faster can't be known until SL comes out, so ymmv.

+1

Regarding the geekbench scores, they test processor and memory. The newer iMacs use 1066 MHz RAM vs 800 MHz. Faster system bus. More RAM availability. Snow Leopard with better 64 bit performance. I would still vote for the newer iMac for $100 more - better value.

I don't think the 3.06 vs 2.93 GHz will show that much of real world performance difference (on the new iMacs) especially for the extra cost.

[tim]

Get a PC with a Core i7 chip ;)

[papucla10]

I got the imac 24" 2.8Ghz with 2GB and 320 HD for 1299.00 with my student discount, it was a much better deal and could not resists, so far it has worked great with DPP, it more than 3 times faster than my old imac G5. I still think that the old 3.06 was the best deal taking in consideration that if you added the extra 50.00 for the 4GB upgrade, it would have been much faster that the new 9.93 with the same GB, also the 3.06 has a much better video card as far as can read over the mac forums.

[stevo8]

I'm also pulling the trigger on a 2.8GHz/2g/320gb previous gen tonight... They have refurbs at $1199 right now and ram through crucial is dirt cheap(unlike the new iMac ram.. So I'll have 4gb ram in a model that was selling for hundreds more just last week.. Shoot, my current MBP core duo(yes pre 2duo) 2.0Ghz with 2gig ram still runs CS4 and lightroom fine... Just forget about batch processing anything LOL. I think I would rather have the extra $600-$1000 over the new models.

[papucla10]

I have not had any problems with mine but it gets to hot on top left part of the casing.

I would say this comp does great with SRAW1 files, it takes about 4 to 5 seconds to batch a pic using DPP when using Light Room there are no waits though I don't know exactly why but I think it's because pictures get transfered from the hard drive to LR and stored internally in LR sort of like in iphoto that is why batch process in LR is faster than in DPP, on the other hand batch process with full RAW files is a tad slower, with this big files DPP takes about 10 to 12 seconds to BP, LR takes about 6 Seconds, it used to be half a minute with my old G5 imac so it is a big improvement.
Work flow with RAW and SRAW1 files is fast there are no waits in both LR and DPP the only time it is slow, is during Batch.

The number again for Batch Process:

SRAW1 files: in DPP takes about 4 Seconds and in LR takes about 1 second
RAW files: in DPP takes 10 to 12 seconds and in LR takes about 6 seconds.

I have decided to only to use SRAW1 files unless I really need the Extra MP.

I have a problem with my comp it has a small dent on the casing and the caps lock light on the wireless keyboard does not light up anymore so I am debating if I should replace it with the 3.06 for 1599 refurbished or new for 1699, I hear there is a 9% increase in clock speed so I wonder how much improvement would it really mean in real life situation with the extra speed, I would suspect that for example if with the 2.8 machine it taking 4 seconds for a pic to BP with DPP, instead it would take I guess about 3 to 3 1/2 seconds with the high end machine but that is only my guess, it would be helpful if someone that has this 3.06 configuration gave use some numbers.

[papucla10]

I haven't upgraded the 2GB memory on my comp, I would think that everything would speed up with the upgrade to 4GB.

[papucla10]

I returned the computer because it was overheating at least I thought so, it was getting so hot it almost burned to the touch, maybe I was paranoiac, it also had a small dent on the left size of the casing so that also made decide to return it. I just purchased the Refurb 3.06 so I wont have to ask any body to provide benchmarks with this computer using LR and DPP, I will be able to do it myself and will post the results as soon as get my computer, I payed 300 that the previously bought 2.8 at Clearance price so by buying the Refurb unit I saved 100 over the new 3.06. I am also going to buy the apple care but not yet, maybe in a few months.

I bought the 3.06 because I just though I should get the best I could afford now, I will have a much better video card the 8800 GS vs 2600 Pro and will have 500GB HD vs 320, this HD is not that important but the thing that makes all the difference is the processor speed bump, although the difference will not be huge there will still be a difference, I will report as soon as I get it hopefully by the end of next week, the invoice says it will arrive between March 17th one day before my birthday and March 20th, I will have to deal with my old G5 for a few more day :mad: but I think I will be able to handle it ;).

[Tony-S]

I returned the computer because it was overheating at least I thought so, it was getting so hot it almost burned to the touch, maybe I was paranoiac,

Don't worry about the heat on the iMacs or Minis. They use notebook chips, which are designed to run very hot, approaching 100 C. My desktop cpu (Q6600) shuts down when it hits 77 C.