PDA

View Full Version : iMac 17" or iMac 20" ?


StevesMom
2005-11-06, 10:03
I've decided to buy one of the new iMac's (G5 1.9GHz/2.1Ghz, PCI-Express architecture, "round-back" models) but am having some trouble working out which version is best to buy "all-round"

Clearly performance will be slightly better on the bigger 20", but I'm wondering if it's genuinely 300 (Pounds Sterling, I'm a UK resident) better. I'm prepared to spend the money, but the 20" is 30% more expensive than the 17" version and I'm wondering if it's worth it. It's this quandary I'm looking for purchasing advice on.

The Mac will be used for general use (I'm a reasonably frequent iMovie user but have no "Pro" apps), and World of Warcraft, so perhaps the XT video graphics in the 20" is markedly better than the Pro video graphics in the 17" and is therefore worth the extra ?

All advice gratefully received.

Regards,

SM.

Franz Josef
2005-11-06, 12:02
If your budget stretches that far, go for 20" - no doubt about it - better performance and bigger screen real estate. The 300 will mean less to you than sitting in front of that 20" screen.

turtle
2005-11-06, 13:16
Seems to me the 20" will fit you better for longer. Ot will serve your needs and needs to come much longer then the 17". Plus, the screen size alone really will be worth it if you can afford it.

Koodari
2005-11-06, 13:53
No difference in speed.

I like big screens - got a 24" attached to an iBook, myself - but not when they're attached permanently to the computer. In the case of the iMac I wouldn't pay 300 extra.

Besides, the difference of screen resolution here is greater than the small speed difference. The 20" will likely run WoW worse at native resolution than the 17".

StevesMom
2005-11-06, 14:07
No difference in speed.

I like big screens - got a 24" attached to an iBook, myself - but not when they're attached permanently to the computer. In the case of the iMac I wouldn't pay 300 extra.

Besides, the difference of screen resolution here is greater than the small speed difference. The 20" will likely run WoW worse at native resolution than the 17".

That was my worry as well - the extra cash is immaterial, it's bang-per-buck I'm looking for.

That said, I don't know if WoW is CPU-bound or GPU-bound. If GPU-bound then the extra native screen size might be outweighed by the beefier GPU (X600 XT vs X600 Pro). Anyone herer got a 20" iMac latest revision and played World of Warcraft on it yet ? I'd be interested to hear performance numbers...

SM.

Dave Hagan
2005-11-06, 14:13
The new 17-inch iMac G5 is great! Mine came on Tuesday. The first thing I thought after using it for 5 minutes, was "Who needs the 20-inch?" I think you could spend your 300 extra on something else to enhance your computing experience, like Harman/Kardon Soundsticks and/or a firewire drive to clone/backup your data.

StevesMom
2005-11-06, 14:28
The new 17-inch iMac G5 is great! Mine came on Tuesday. The first thing I thought after using it for 5 minutes, was "Who needs the 20-inch?" I think you could spend your 300 extra on something else to enhance your computing experience, like Harman/Kardon Soundsticks and/or a firewire drive to clone/backup your data.

How offputting is the "chin" on the 17" ? In pictures (http://www.apple.com/imac/gallery/fronts.html) the 20" looks better proportioned (the expanse of white plastic under the screen is the same, but the 20" handles it better imo).

The iMac will be in a separate area, but still part of the living area, of the house. So I'd like to look as good as possible :) Good to hear you like your new iMac so much though, you must be very pleased.

SM.

Franz Josef
2005-11-06, 15:17
No difference in speed.There'll be a slight improvement given CPU clock rate 2.1 v 1.9.

onlyafterdark
2005-11-06, 15:27
Here is Macworlds (http://www.macworld.com/2005/11/reviews/imacg5rev/index.php) review. It has speed tests at the bottom of the page.

IMO, go with the 20" if you have the money. The 20" screen is gorgeous and is well worth the extra money.

AWR
2005-11-07, 10:26
I have the iMac 20" rev.B and a day doesn't go by without me thinking that I love the size of the screen. It feels special. That said, I'm sure 17" inch users are good people too. A vote for shelling out the quid and enjoying the expanse.

Maciej
2005-11-07, 11:25
That said, I'm sure 17" inch users are good people too.

I disagree! They're horrible people.

:lol:

On the more serious side, I vote 17". I don't necessarily see a need to spend extra 300$ for an upgraded screen that you won't be able to use past the life of the AIO. However, come to think of it - how often are monitors replaced anyway?

If you feel you'd end up replacing a monitor in the same amount of time that it will take the iMac to become obsolete, I would def. spring for the 20"

byzantium
2005-11-08, 07:12
The 20" is a great deal; but another thing you may want to consider is weight and size. I bought the 17" iMac, for the fact that it's just that more easier to move; and would fit my desk better.

irnchriz
2005-11-08, 09:09
The 20" beats the 17" hands down on viewing angle alone. I have a 20" and my friend has the 17" and you notice the viewing angle straight away. The screen on the 20" is far superior than the 17" and as far as WoW goes RAM makes a bigger impact to performance than screen resolution. I would reccomend the 20" with 1gb ram as this will give you good performance in WoW and for day to day usage.

Robo
2005-11-08, 16:39
How offputting is the "chin" on the 17" ? In pictures (http://www.apple.com/imac/gallery/fronts.html) the 20" looks better proportioned (the expanse of white plastic under the screen is the same, but the 20" handles it better imo).


I felt the same way until I saw them in person. I thought that the chin would look better on the 20", but in my opinion, the 17" actually seems better "proportioned." I don't know why, but it looks more..."right."

Remember how the iPod mini looked oddly "tall"? And then how the iPod nano was even "taller" looking, but it looked better? The iPod mini seemed to be in that odd space between the traditional iPod form factor and the iPod nano's "taller" form.

The 20" iMac is kinda like that, in my opinion. On the 17", it feels like the chin is supposed to be there. The 20" looks somewhere in between a the 17" iMac's form factor and a traditional chin-less monitor form factor...for some reason, it doesn't look as "right."

To me, anyway. I'm sure many 20" owners love the look of their iMac, and more power to them. (If a 20" iMac is within your budget, and you think you'll dig the extra power, bigger screen, and fatter hard drive, go for it.)

You know what the most important lesson I learned from my experience, though? The one that applies to everybody?

Try and see the products in person. Sometimes, Apple's online renderings don't capture the "feel" of the product's appearance.

Robo
2005-11-08, 16:42
The 20" beats the 17" hands down on viewing angle alone. I have a 20" and my friend has the 17" and you notice the viewing angle straight away. The screen on the 20" is far superior than the 17" and as far as WoW goes RAM makes a bigger impact to performance than screen resolution. I would reccomend the 20" with 1gb ram as this will give you good performance in WoW and for day to day usage.

I have a new 17" iMac and I found the viewing angle very satisfactory. I can't compare to the 20" iMac, because I didn't spend a ton of time in front of one at the Apple Store, but I certainly wouldn't say that the viewing angle on the 17" iMac is problematic in any way.

Just my two cents.

StevesMom
2005-11-09, 15:37
All,

Thanks for your input. After much deliberation and fiddling in the Apple Store on Regent Street I decided to go with the 17".

SM.

Robo
2005-11-09, 15:46
A nice choice. ;)

You really can't go wrong with either iMac. I mean, really - it's basically trying to decide between $1,299 worth of Pure Awesome or $1,699 worth of Pure Awesome.

They're both equally amazing deals...I'd say the iMac is definitely the best deal in Apple's line right now. To think we doubted Jobs when he said that Apple had great PowerPC products in the pipeline. :)

macleod
2006-03-14, 19:07
I am looking into a intel iMac right now and was wondering if you all think the 20 inch is worth the extra money? I am not concerned about the price, I just don't want to waste money on the upgrade to 20 inch if it isn't worth it. (Basically 400 difference for the upgraded video card and the 20 inch screen) Thanks!

Franz Josef
2006-03-14, 19:21
I am not concerned about the priceSignificantly better screen real estate. Well worth it.

Dorian Gray
2006-03-14, 19:55
The larger display is obviously nicer for viewing photos or watching video, but it is also a productivity enhancer according to a study available on this page (http://www.apple.com/uk/displays/) (look for the PDF file in the right-hand column). In the study, 17-, 20- and 30-inch screens are compared in the context of various common tasks, and the 20-inch screen was shown to significantly increase productivity over the 17-inch screen (the 30-inch display further enhanced productivity).

In addition to this, the 20-inch iMac has a slightly brighter screen than the 17-inch model, with much higher contrast (800:1 ratio - slightly higher even than the professional 30-inch Cinema Display). The screen on the 20-inch iMac is an absolute jewel when you see it in person.

For a desktop it seems to me that a large screen is one of the best places to sink money. After all, you look at it every moment you use the computer.

torifile
2006-03-14, 23:10
The 17" is a great computer, no doubt, but the 20" is IMPRESSIVE. It feels qualitatively different.

What Dorian said can't be understated, either. For the first time yesterday, I found myself working on 2 different sites simultaneously because I could (the changes were similar enough that it made sense to do them at the same time). You've got so much space it's unreal.

StevesMom
2006-03-15, 02:40
I am looking into a intel iMac right now and was wondering if you all think the 20 inch is worth the extra money? I am not concerned about the price, I just don't want to waste money on the upgrade to 20 inch if it isn't worth it. (Basically 400 difference for the upgraded video card and the 20 inch screen) Thanks!

I had a 17" PowerBook and replaced it with a 20" iMac. The resolutions of the 17" PowerBook and the 17" iMac are identical. The difference between the 1440 and 1680 resolution is palpable, and I notice it every time I use the machine. Money well spent.

Plus, the machine is an all-in-one. You *can't* upgrade it if you want to later, and you spend 100% of your time looking at the screen. Ask yourself if the difference between £1000 and £1300 over 3 years of use isn't worth it. Personally, I went with the 20".

SM.

dw90
2006-03-15, 11:49
This is my first post so hello everyone

While not related entirely to this post i though it was similar enough.

I am going to buy an iMac and was wondering should i get a 20" G5 iMac with 1.5gb RAM or a 20" Core Duo iMac with only 512mb or RAM. I would love to get a core duo with 1gb of RAM but £1250 is the maximum i can spend.

Cheers everyone in advance

StevesMom
2006-03-15, 11:57
The Core Duo iMac, of course. You can always add more memory later.

dw90
2006-03-15, 12:00
Thanks i will get that one then.

Sorry if it sounded a bit dumb. It will be my first mac

:)

StevesMom
2006-03-15, 12:13
It wasn't a dumb question at all - I'm sorry if I came across harshly, that wasn't my intention.

Enjoy the new iMac !

dw90
2006-03-15, 12:15
No worries

Thank You for your help

Franz Josef
2006-03-15, 12:39
It will be my first mac :)Happy chap. Welcome dw90 and enjoy :)

pscates2.0
2006-03-15, 12:50
I have a 20" iMac G5 at work, and it's wonderful...the screen size and resolution makes a day in the Adobe CS stuff really nice.

But that's for day-to-day, "serious" work.

When it comes time for me to get a new home computer, it's going to be the 17" model.

If it's MY money and for the kind of things I do at home, I don't feel the extra money is worth it for the larger display and slightly faster processor. I'd much rather get the 17" for $1299 and put part of that extra $400 toward RAM (and pocket the rest for a rainy day).

But that's just me, and my needs and work habits.

It's definitely a personal decision, based on a ton of factors. But I'll have no problem "stepping down" to 17" at home, vs. the 20" at work. At home (and for freelance work), most of my time is spent in Illustrator, so the need to see large Photoshop images or full spreads in InDesign isn't as important.

Makes that whole process (17" vs. 20") fairly cut-and-dry for me.

YMMV, of course.

:)

dw90
2006-03-15, 15:18
Thanks for all your opinions

I'm going to go with the 20" iMac Core Duo because i don't have a TV and so the mac will be my primary film viewing machine

Oh and Thank you all for your kindness, you've made me feel very welcome.

:)

Satchmo
2006-03-15, 15:37
I'd much rather get the 17" for $1299 and put part of that extra $400 toward RAM (and pocket the rest for a rainy day).


With the new Intel iMacs, that $400 could also go towards a DVI equipped 19" LCD display. :)

pscates2.0
2006-03-15, 23:30
I'm going to go with the 20" iMac Core Duo because i don't have a TV and so the mac will be my primary film viewing machine:)

That makes sense. Make it pull double-duty to get the most bang for your buck! :)

If I didn't have a TV, or if I was in a dorm, small studio apartment or roommate situation (where most of my belongings and much of my time was spent in a single room), I'd have a 20" iMac and EyeTV.

Good luck. Enjoy it. You'll like that 20" display!