2008 vs. 2009 iMac 24"

Question

Level 6

17,794 points

2008 vs. 2009 iMac 24"

OK, be forewarned that this is yet another "which is better for me?" query & I know that ultimately only I can answer that, but I need to bounce some things off the Discussions user community to see if my thinking is straight.

With my tax refund check in hand & a desire to do my part to stimulate the U.S. economy ... & mostly because I have a good excuse to upgrade my G5 iMac ... I have been looking at what about $1600 will get me in the 24" iMac line. The obvious choice is the baseline 24" 2009 iMac but I can get more performance for my money by choosing a refurb. It boils down to two choices:

1. A refurbished 2009 iMac 24-inch 2.93GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 4 GB RAM & a NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 256MB memory (a current model)

2. A refurbished 2008 Mac 24-inch 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 2 GB of RAM & a NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS with 512MB memory

From what I read, the GeForce 8800 GS is actually a faster GPU than the GeForce GT 120, which is apparently a rebranded version of a GPU more comparable to the baseline one in the 2008 series (see for example http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=9100359&#9100359), & of course, it has more memory. If this is true, it is a major point in favor of the 2008 model.

I'm aware the older GPU doesn't support quite as large an external display, but this is a non-issue for me -- I can't imagine being able to justify/afford one of the big 30" monitors, anyway. Plus, the mini-DVI output port on the older model is a minor point in its favor for me since I already have a MacBook with that same port & some of the adaptors -- the Mini DisplayPort on the newer 2009 models would mean yet another set of adaptors & some minor additional expense I prefer to avoid.

In terms of raw CPU & memory performance, the 2008 model also seems like the clear choice due to the speed bump of its CPU. I know the newer ones have faster (in theory) DDR3 memory but that doesn't seem to contribute much, maybe because both use a 1066 MHz frontside bus. What may make a difference in the long run is that the newer ones support up to 8 GB of RAM; but for the time being those 4 GB DDR3 chips are too rich for my blood, even from non-Apple sources.

I can or will soon be able to afford to upgrade the DDR2 memory in the 2008 model to its maximum of 4 GB, so for a while at least, the two systems would be outfitted with the same system memory. Plus, from what I read in the fine print about the use of system memory with the 2009's 256 MB GPU, the older iMac with its 512 MB might actually hold a slight edge when both are so configured.

I also like that the older iMac has both Firewire 400 & 800 ports & comes with the full-sized keyboard & an Apple Remote. It doesn't include iLife '09, but I can live with that.

Thus, I'm strongly favoring the older iMac at this point, but before I place the order I would like to hear anything you kind folks have to say that might persuade me otherwise.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

iMac G5/2.0 GHz 17" ALS; White MacBook/2.4 GHz, Mac OS X (10.5.6), Kensington Trackball; Airport Extreme 802.11n; assorted iPods and older Macs

Posted on May 7, 2009 12:31 PM

Reply

Answer 1

a brody

Level 10

85,314 points

May 7, 2009 12:36 PM in response to R C-R

First off, make sure you read this tip:

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=435350&tstart=0

We've run into issues with the Migration Assistant from PowerPC chips.

Getting an older Mac, you aren't going to get as long a period on your warranty, though if you get it from some authorized resellers you can get a decent chunk of AppleCare coverage. Check with the store you buy from.

Neither Mac is it is easy to upgrade the internal hard drive. If you buy new, you get the option usually to get a larger build-to-order hard drive. Depends how much room you think you need to grow. Using an external drive is obviously an option, but internal drives are faster than any external drive because of the slowness of Firewire and USB over SATA.

Reply

Answer 2

R C-R Author

Level 6

17,794 points

May 7, 2009 3:17 PM in response to a brody

Thanks for the input. As it happens, I'm not worried about the PPC to Intel migration -- I've already done this with my G5 iMac & MacBook & had no problems whatsoever with that. I'm not sure why others have, but even migrating my wife's stuff from her G3 iMac to a new account on the MacBook went without a hitch, so maybe I'm just lucky or something.

I'm actually looking at rerurbs from the Apple Store so I don't expect any warranty hassles. I did consider the pros & cons of getting a brand new BTO iMac with a bigger hard drive & even the top-of-the-line ATI graphics card, but the refurb deals are much more friendly to my budget. The 2008 model has a 500 GB drive vs. the 2009's 640 GB, so between the two the newer one has the edge, but not by that much.

I'm much more concerned about CPU/memory/GPU performance than drive capacity or performance -- I have looked at the 'take-apart' guides online & figure that if I eventually needed a larger internal drive I could handle installing it, but in reality I'm more likely to continue to opt for more external storage, most of it networked through my Airport Extreme for access from the household's several Macs. (When I bought it, I thought the old iMac G5's easy-to-take-apart case would be a big plus, but as it turns out, I only use about 1/2 of its drive's capacity because so much gets offloaded to the other drives. Go figure.)

Anyway, since I can't upgrade the CPU or GPU once I buy whatever iMac I choose, I am concentrating on getting the best of those my budget will allow. All the research I've done suggests that the 3.06 GHz CPU & supposedly better GPU of the 2008 model will be the better all-around performer, even though the 2009 model has a theoretical edge in memory bandwidth & twice the memory capacity. If upgrading the 2009's to their max of 8 GB wasn't so horribly expensive ($1000 from Apple, around $650 from the better after-market suppliers!) I might give the new one more consideration, but as things are, the 2008 seems like the one for me.

Reply

Answer 3

baypharm

Level 1

35 points

May 8, 2009 8:28 AM in response to R C-R

Well I would go for the iMac 2.8 for $1299 listed on the Apple Store website under clearance. This price reflects the $100 educational discount.

In reality I would advise you to NOT spend your tax refund - instead save it. The economy will be much worse in a couple of years and that money will be ready to buy food, shelter, etc. Not to sound doom/gloom but look around and see the signs are all there. Now commercial buildings are falling (malls, restaurants, etc). Just my two cents.

Reply

Answer 4

a brody

Level 10

85,314 points

May 8, 2009 8:38 AM in response to baypharm

Now commercial buildings are falling (malls, restaurants, etc). Just my two cents.

Was there a big earthquake?

Yes some businesses themselves are failing. Most though are ones that have been mismanaged. Regardless, that's kind of off topic. I would say, that purchasing something that allows you to get work done allows you to better manage your investments if you know how to do things like that with a computer, or are able to do so within a reasonable amount of time. If you can learn how to do that, I think a good computer is an investment. It may depreciate as an object over time, but your ability to make some good of the tool for your own needs I think can outweigh any depreciation.

Message was edited by: a brody

Reply

Answer 5

May 8, 2009 8:47 AM in response to R C-R

I would go right ahead and spend your tax refund the way you see it. The economy will in time get better, especially when people are willing to invest money into it, pay no attention to all of that "gloom and doom" talk. Personally, I would get the 2008 Imac. I purchased one last year brand new and it has not failed me yet. If you can get it at the refurbished price, that is even better.

Good Luck!!

Reply

Answer 6

R C-R Author

Level 6

17,794 points

May 8, 2009 12:30 PM in response to a brody

I don't replace Macs just because the technology is newer or faster; I replace them when they can't reasonably support some empowering technology that makes life tangibly better in some way, financially or otherwise. (Like money, technology is a means, not an end!)

With that point of view in mind, can anybody think of some technology that is likely to emerge in the next few years that the 2009 iMacs will support that the 2008 ones won't?

This is meant as a purely technical question, not a blue-sky speculative one. IOW, does anybody see anything in the architecture of the 2008 models that would prevent them from supporting something that the architecture of the 2009 ones would support?

Reply

Answer 7

a brody

Level 10

85,314 points

May 8, 2009 12:47 PM in response to R C-R

This user tip should show the falacy in that logic:

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1502615&tstart=0

Never buy on the basis of vaporware. You'll almost always get burned.

Reply

Answer 8

May 8, 2009 2:58 PM in response to R C-R

Just by looking at what happen with the first rev Intel iMacs which only support up to 2Gb of RAM. We used to think we would never need 2GB of RAM and now its simply not enough. Currently 4GB of RAM is plenty however 2 years from now when new software comes out I can only image wanting to upgrade the RAM. With that said I would go for the 2009 iMac so that if the need arises you can upgrade the RAM.

George

Reply

Answer 9

R C-R Author

Level 6

17,794 points

May 8, 2009 3:15 PM in response to a brody

I'm not talking about anything vaporous but about concrete hardware architectural differences between two existing Mac models that would make one more suitable than another for emerging technologies. An example would be support for offloading non-display related CPU processes to the GPU, something that is already being done on a small scale but is expected to become systemic, much the same way OpenGL standards developed in tandem with the hardware that implemented it.

Reply

Answer 10

R C-R Author

Level 6

17,794 points

May 8, 2009 7:39 PM in response to George Peters

First, I'm not convinced that 2GB of RAM is always "simply not enough" -- my MacBook does all it needs to do quite well with "only" the 2 GB installed that it came with & I have (as yet anyway) had no real incentive to upgrade it to the 4 GB it supports, particularly after looking at published benchmarks that suggest maxing it out will at best give me a 10 to 12% overall increase in performance, & an insignificant increase in the tasks I currently most use it for.

Nevertheless, I almost certainly will be using the iMac for more demanding tasks, so if all other things were equal, I would be foolish to ignore the memory capacity differences for this purchase. But all other things are not equal: one iMac has a 2.93 GHz CPU & what may be a somewhat less powerful GPU & the other has a 3.06 GHz CPU & a GPU with twice the video memory.

Even setting aside the GPU's impact on performance as an unknown, I still have to consider how the faster CPU with a very affordable 4 GB upgrade compares to the lower speed CPU model, both before & after it would be upgraded from 4 to 8 GB ... whenever that becomes affordable.

There is obviously some guesswork involved in this, but again turning to what benchmarks I can find published on the web, the 3.06 GHz version of the 2008 model seems to have a clear but small edge over the 2.93 GHz version of 2009 model for most tasks when both are fitted with 4 GB. Assuming the newer one's performance scales with more memory like other recent models, it would have a slight edge when maxed out to 8 GB. Factoring back in the GPU, it could well be a tossup, & of course either way, I have to factor in the time I would be using the newer one before I could afford that upgrade.

Looking at pricing trends for memory, it seems very likely that the 4 GB DDR3 modules won't come down in price very quickly or very much. Few computers need them: most that support large amounts of RAM are larger, tower type devices with more than two memory slots. As a result, memory chip makers are mostly churning out chips for 2 GB modules & the chips for the 4 GB modules remain relatively rare & costly. I can't see this trend changing enough even in the next two years to drop the price of these modules below $200 a piece & they might even bottom out at more than that & start increasing in price like some of the other less popular sizes are doing now.

With this in mind, it seems that the most speculative gamble I could make is that I would ever see a reasonable return on the upgradability of the 2009 model.

Reply

Answer 11

TildeBee

Level 7

31,923 points

May 8, 2009 8:14 PM in response to R C-R

R C-R --

You've been a long helper here, and obviously know what you're doing as
far as Macs are concerned. You've researched everything very carefully,
and I think if you went with your "gut" feeling, you would be very happy.

I would be sorely tempted to go with the newer model,
but then, I am not as technically oriented as you are.

I got a 2008 MBP at the very end of the year last year, and I love it.
I got what I could afford, and would meet MY needs.
Go for it, R C-R!

Reply

Answer 12

May 10, 2009 10:22 AM in response to R C-R

The performance is almost identical.
See http://marketingtactics.com/Speedmark/

Reply

Answer 13

R C-R Author

Level 6

17,794 points

May 10, 2009 9:14 PM in response to R C-R

My thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread. All your comments were appreciated greatly. I awarded the two 'helpful" stars to the two posts that seemed to most directly address the spirit of what I was pondering; had it been possible to give more than two of them, I would have. No post got the green star because it just didn't seem like the kind of thing that should be marked as "solved."

In the end, I decided to go with the 2008 model, mostly because the performance of the two seemed close enough that it was the little things that finally became the tie breaker. The 2008 model includes an Apple Remote & full sized keyboard, has two Firewire ports, & can use some of the same video adaptors I already have. For someone else, it might have gone the other way. Both seem like great iMacs most users would be happy to own.

The old (relatively speaking) iMac G5 will become my wife's desktop Mac, replacing her (really) old iMac G3 that will be donated to a friend who teaches mentally challenged kids. It seems like a pretty good deal all around. 🙂

Reply

Answer 14

a brody

Level 10

85,314 points

May 11, 2009 7:15 AM in response to R C-R

The only three reasons I can think of that Mac OS X itself may need more RAM than 2 GB is because widgets eat up a lot of memory. They are essentially little tasks within themselves that people like running ad infinitum. Another would be having a large iPhoto library selected either for an endlessly changing desktop image or screen saver. A large RSS news site which can be selected via the screen saver would also have that impact. So architecturally Mac OS X while it exercises multithreading, eventually can get bogged down with threads if not enough RAM is available either from hard disk space, or from physical RAM. Short of that, if you are running Mac OS X, it can generally run as well on any Intel Mac, and usually any PowerPC Mac that meets specs. We have no idea though where the breakdown will be for Snow Leopard, if it implements more cores, or more GPU sensitive routines, that could presumably make its cutoff point higher than what people want. And then you have the fact that Apple is beginning to get into the SSD field. Fiberchannel has also proven useful in Mac supercomputers at Virginia Tech. If either becomes more prevalent there are opportunities for much faster more sophisticated operations. Of course it is up to Apple's marketing to listen to consumers and to decide how many people it wishes to leave behind when upgrading, or not. Only time will tell which technologies will merge, and lead to faster computers. Emerging technologies we only see the tip of the iceburg unless we are truly in the heart of the change going on. The iMac for all its wonder is a great current computer. It isn't though very upgradeable. The problem is knowing which technology is going to get optimized in the future, and the consumer tolerance for change. That's what holds us back.

Reply

Answer 15

R C-R Author

Level 6

17,794 points

May 11, 2009 8:47 AM in response to a brody

For iMacs, here's what I see that can hold us back:

• *Hardware capability*: if the iMac's architecture can't support the technology, it can't be used, period.

• *Driver support*: even if the architecture can support the technology, no driver may ever be developed for the iMac's architecture to take advantage of it, or none that are optimized for it.

• *Raw power*: even if both of the above are available, the processing demands of the technology may tax the iMac so much that it is just too slow to consider for practical purposes.

From what I can tell, the basic architectures of the 2008 & 2009 iMacs are the same, except that the 2009's support more RAM. Possibly offsetting that is this particular 2008 model has a faster CPU & (I think) a more powerful GPU. The tricky part is trying to predict if there will ever be a driver that takes full advantage of the GPU in either model as a coprocessor, & if so which one. That's partially because NVIDIA keeps changing up the GPU model names & partially because Apple uses ones in iMacs that are not exactly the same as any of the retail ones.

Reply