Developer Forum

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Was investigating a Mac dealer which sells slightly out-of-date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The salesman was telling me that he thinks the out-of-date iMac is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?

Never rely on retailers for technical information. Sometimes it's
accurate and sometimes it isn't, but it's always potentially biased in
favor of what gives the highest commission or margin to the salesman or
the store. For specs on all iMac models, use Apple's web site or the
freeware app Mactracker.

< http://www.yqcomputer.com/ #imac>

< http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ;

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.

Ronnie Bateman < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:


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?

In article
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
,



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

--
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

In article
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
,




As you can see on this web page, the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M gets anywhere
from 6-12 more frames per second than the ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT:

< http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ;

i2.0 R24 = mid 2007 iMac 2.0GHz with Radeon HD 2400 XT
p2.8 94M = late 2008 MacBook Pro 2.8GHz using GeForce 9400M
m2.4 94M = late 2008 MacBook 2.4GHz with GeForce 9400M

So despite it using some main RAM, it definitely performs better.

Have you considered whether or not you will actually use the 3D features
of the card to begin with? If you don't ever plan on playing 3D action
games or doing 3D modeling work with your computer, then either one will
serve your needs just the same.

Have you considered how much RAM comes installed in the older model iMac
versus the newer model, and what the maximum amount of RAM is for each
model? If the newer model with the GeForce 9400M comes with more RAM,
and can hold more RAM, then it's a better deal all around, IMO.

Of course, if you can afford it, you might consider getting the 24-inch
model iMac, which offers a choice of these graphics cards (all of which
blow the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M and the ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT away in
terms of performance!):

* NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 graphics processor with 256MB of GDDR3 memory
* NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 graphics processor with 512MB of GDDR3 memory
* ATI Radeon HD 4850 graphics processor with 512MB of GDDR3 memory

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

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.

--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain

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.

In article <B1pem.809$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,




Huh? No, the tests on that page were done by more than just "playing a
movie". LOL... To get the frame rates in each graph, they ran several
graphics-intensive applications at high resolutions with high settings
like 2x multisampling, 4x anisotropy, and so on. These applications and
settings put the graphics cards through their paces - many numbers were
crunched. ; ) This is a typical BareFeats test suite. The resulting
graphs show very well what you can truly expect from each of the
graphics cards tested, in real world use.

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

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.

--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain

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."

onnie Bateman < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:


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.


--
David Empson
XXXX@XXXXX.COM

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."

--
Wes Groleau

Are Americans unique in their condemnatory attitudes?
http://www.yqcomputer.com/

In article
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
,


[...]


Indeed.

Also consider the amount of RAM of both models. Apple relatively
recently started shipping Macs with twice the amount of RAM as before --
finally enough to run Mac OS X comfortably for most users. It's not
really clear to me exactly which models you are talking about, but it
sounds like it might well be that the old one comes with a mere 1GB, and
the current model with 2GB RAM. Yes, 256MB might used for the graphics
card, but you'd still have 1756MB RAM instead of just 1000MB. (You can
always add more RAM, if it comes with just 1GB, but then factor that
into your price comparison.)

And a more general thing to consider: today's new model is yesterday's
old one. Apple generally isn't that bad about having new OS versions
support old hardware. But when you buy something that is already the old
model, the day that you can't run the latest OS on it is much closer.

Not that it's always a bad idea to buy yesterday's model. I've done this
myself several times. But only at discounts that made it worth doing so.
(I bought the previous MBP shortly after the current one was released,
at a EUR 500,- discount. A no-brainer. But at a discount of less than
300,- I probably wouldn't have done it.)

--
Sander Tekelenburg, < http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ~tekelenb/>

Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!"
PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!"