iMac 21.5" Graphic Cards

sandhuharv

sandhuharv

sandhuharv

Associate
Joined
5 Sep 2009
Posts
34
Hi,

I'm thinking of buying an iMac, but i'm a bit confused as to whether i should buy the low end iMac 21.5 the one with the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics card or the one with the ATI Radeon HD 4670 graphics with 256MB?

Is there a big difference between the two graphic cards?

Thanks
 
Not to confuse the issue, but that could change with time as GPU acceleration becomes more widely used in apps (Aperture etc are candidates). You're probably better off with the cheaper model still but just to say the 4670 is likely better future proofing...
 
Bit of a bump but i had another question!

I was talking to the guys at Apple through the 'chat' function and they guy said that Photoshop wouldn't work very well with the NVIDIA 9400M nor would Final Cut. Is this right?

I use Photoshop at the moment and i'm using a 8/ year old graphics card - NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 420. Photoshop runs fine and works well, bit slow due to my crap specs though.
 
Photoshop will run fine. He's talking rubbish. The GPU functions run through OpenGL and are not very demanding.

As for Final Cut, I've never used it but judging from a bit of research the GPU-accelerated features are few and far between.

Basically, they're trying to sell you a more expensive Mac for no real reason. If they mentioned futureproofing, I'd have more sympathy.
 
Well it relates to my previous point. Some apps like that are beginning to support GPU acceleration. I'm not an expert in this area so I don't know the current state of support but it'll become a bigger thing in the future. Depends (unfortunately) on your uses - how intensive is your photoshop work? How long do you intend keeping the machine before upgrading?
 
bigredshark said:
Well it relates to my previous point. Some apps like that are beginning to support GPU acceleration. I'm not an expert in this area so I don't know the current state of support but it'll become a bigger thing in the future. Depends (unfortunately) on your uses - how intensive is your photoshop work? How long do you intend keeping the machine before upgrading?
Click to expand...

Also not an expert but it defiantly will not have any impact on whats going on today.

Buying with the intention of future proofing is a completely false economy.

Photoshop will run just fine on the regular 9400.

Get the cheaper model and save some money.
 
BluZiff said:
Also not an expert but it defiantly will not have any impact on whats going on today.

Buying with the intention of future proofing is a completely false economy.

Photoshop will run just fine on the regular 9400.

Get the cheaper model and save some money.
Click to expand...

You can't say it's a false economy across the board. My Macbook Pro is now three years old and I'm very grateful I spent the extra couple of hundred quid on the top spec model. Not spending it would have meant shelling out another £1500+ a year ago for a new one likely, as it is this one is still ticking over and likely will until i7 based MBPs arrive now.

If the OP is planning on having it for three years or so (like most typical home users) then spending a little on a higher spec unit is definitely worth it in my opinion. Not just Photoshop etc but OSX will use GPU acceleration more in the next few years. Then again is you want it for that long then stretching to a quad core would arguably be a far better economy.

If on the other hand you intend to shell out for a shiny new one in 18-24 months then by all means get the lower spec model.
 
What did getting the top spec model actually get you over the midrange version though, a bit more ram and a slightly faster processor?

IRRC all MBP had discreet cards back then the top one just had more VRAM.

So I'd say that thats probably not true as you would have sent £40 on some more ram and wouldn't even notice the extra 0.4 or so GHz that the top spec model got you. The extra video ram does nothing when compared to the performance difference of future models. Hence why I think future proofing is a load of ******** invented as another tool for the salesmen to sell the more expensive product.

If the price hikes for the "top spec" model weren't vastly disproportionate to the performance gain experienced I would be buying top spec every time.
 
Last edited:
I got a 2.13 and I recall the lower end was 1.83 or similar. I have a slightly newer MAc mini with a 1.8Ghz or so CPU and it's noticeably slower. Extra RAM saved upgrading later, as did a bigger hard drive but most decisive was getting 256MB VRAM instead of 128, it's marginal whether it cuts it now but I'm fairly certain with 128 it wouldn't at all. The extra may be nothing compared to new models, but new models cost £1500.

If I spend £1800 every 3 years it's cheaper than £1500 every two years at the end of the day. I freely admit if you want to upgrade every two years anyway, buying cheaper models makes sense but if you're expecting a machine to last a while the extra makes sense.
 
Seems to have sparked a bit of debate!

I will probably keep the Mac as my main PC for 4 years. I'm still unsure what to do but i'll probably end up getting the ATI one.
 
sandhuharv said:
Seems to have sparked a bit of debate!

I will probably keep the Mac as my main PC for 4 years. I'm still unsure what to do but i'll probably end up getting the ATI one.
Click to expand...

Really it's worth spending the extra in that case (IMO obviously). My Macbook pro was top spec when I bought it but three and a bit years later it's struggling with Aperture and the like. 4 years would be it's absolute limit I think, I don't think a lower end model would have lasted so long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom