2.6 GHz i7 vs. 2.8 GHz i7...Is there a noticable difference?

Hello,
I just purchased a refurbished MBP through the Apple store with a 2.6GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor (Turbo Boost up to 3.8GHz). I chose a refurbished model because I wanted to save money and I was able to get a 1TB hard drive for a great price. However, it is a late 2013 model and a new (not refurbished) mid 2014 model MBP with a 2.8GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7 processor (Turbo Boost up to 4.0GHz) would have cost me only about $70 more. This would have only a 512GB hard drive; otherwise all internals are the same.
I need a fast computer that can support many processes at once for work but I also need hard drive space.
Did I make the right decision? Would there have been a noticable difference between these two processors? Is there any significant difference / benefit to the mid 2014 model compared to the late 2013 model?
Thanks for your input.
Holly

The good news about refurbished models, is they may support more Mac OS X versions than brand new Macs.
And no, very rarely is there a noticeable difference. Pretty much all Macs from 2010 and later have similar processors.
More RAM, and SSDs may offer better speed, but SSDs offer a security pitfall which I'm uncertain if they have been resolved.
The normal erase software does not completely wipe clean the SSD. Thus before selling it to someone else, you don't want them to have access to the drive you put in, if you get an SSD. All the more reason you should have a good LapCop, Findmymac, or Lojack program installed on your Mac in case it is lost or stolen.
https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-6413 will help you ascertain the age of the mac, and if it is a prior release with more operating systems available to it. The Mac operating system on Macs released on or after:
October 22, 2013 only run 10.9 or later.
June 25, 2012 10.8 or later.
July 20, 2011 10.7 or later.
August 28, 2009 10.6 or later.
Older Macs may not run 10.8 or later based on http://www.apple.com/osx/specs/

Similar Messages

Is there a noticable difference between2.3 ghz, 2,6ghz and 2.7ghz. and is it worth paying to upgrade from 2.3ghz to a higher amount of ghz

is there a noticable difference between 2.3ghz, 2.6ghz and 2.7ghz and is it worth the upgrade to a higher amout of ghz

going from 2.3GHz to 2.7GHz you might notice the difference.....
but going from 2.6GHz to 2.7GHz, don't even waste your money....
if you'll be using it for everyday use, then 2.3GHz will do just fine....
however, if there's photoshop and some video editing happening, then 2.6GHz would be better suited for you....
or, go with the 2.3GHz base model then upgrade it to 16GB of RAM and add a SSD to get the best price - performance ratio...
good luck...

Hello there ;-) Is there a big difference between a macBook Pro retina 2,7 GHz,earl 2013 and a 2,6GHz of end 2013, espqcially with the capacity processor? thanks

hello there ;-) Is there a big difference between a macBook Pro retina 2,7 GHz,earl 2013 and a 2,6GHz of end 2013, espacially with the capacity processor? thanks

read here http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/macbook-pro-retina-display-faq /differences-between-macbook-pro-retina-display-early-2013-late-2013.html

Is there a noticeable difference between a 1.83 and 2.00 GHz processor?

I am new to apple, and this will be my first Apple laptop computer. I am looking for a laptop that is powerful enough to run programs such as Adobe Photoshop (no more than one photo at a time) and other basic programs such as Microsoft Office. I will be doing no video or gaming. Can you tell me if there is a reason to upgrade from the 1.83GHZ to the 2.00 GHz processor? Thank you.

You are only looking at a difference of 170Mhz. As far as I know the processors are the same except for clock speed. I do not think that you will notice any difference in the two processors for smaller jobs like applying a filter in Photoshop or running a spell check in Office. The 2Ghz will edge ahead for longer term tasks such as editing and compressing video. If something takes 1 hour to compress into "quicktime" (IE. h.264) you may see the 2Ghz MB finish 10 minutes sooner.
Bottom line, from what you are describing, I do not think you will do anything that will be too terribly intensive to notice the difference in speed now. But I always advise to people to buy as FAST as they can afford. Your computer will stay faster for longer. In a few years that extra little bit of speed can come in handy as programs continue to becomes more complex. Somthing intaresting about your situation right now is that Both Office and Photoshop are not Intel native for the Mac, so they will need to be emulated by Rosetta. While it is supposed to be seemless, rosetta is emulated so it is slower. You will get a noticable boost in speed if you upgrade to the native (or Universal) version of these programs when they are made available.
OK, I have blabbed on enough. Hope this helps shed some light on things. (Personally I would go with the 2Ghz.)
- Kiteless

Is there a significant difference between the 2.5 GHz i5 and 2.9 GHz i7 processor?

I'm going to be using my computer for grad school, so I'll be using multiple internet windows plus the Apple versions of Microsoft office all at once. I'll also be using the computer to watch Netflix. No gaming or movie-making or anything like that. So, what kind of difference would the upgraded processor make for me? I feel like upgrading it would be a waste for me because I'm using pretty basic stuff, but I could be wrong.

2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i7
vs
2.5GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
Higher clock speed
2.9 GHz
vs
2.5 GHz
More than 15% higher clock speed
More l3 cache
4 MB
vs
3 MB
Around 35% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Supports trusted computing
Yes
vs
No
Allows for safer, more reliable computing
Better 3DMark11 physics score
5,140
vs
3,130
Around 65% better 3DMark11 physics score
Better turbo clock speed
1,250 MHz
vs
1,100 MHz
Around 15% better turbo clock speed
More l3 cache per core
2 MB/core
vs
1.5 MB/core
Around 35% more l3 cache per core
Better PassMark (Single core) score
1,790
vs
1,524
More than 15% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better 3DMark06 CPU score
4,134
vs
3,553
More than 15% better 3DMark06 CPU score
Better PassMark score
4,543
vs
3,823
Around 20% better PassMark score
Slightly better geekbench (32-bit) score
5,849
vs
4,947
Around 20% better geekbench (32-bit) score
Better clock speed
3.25 GHz
vs
2.88 GHz
Around 15% better clock speed
Slightly better PassMark score
1,823.4
vs
1,623.4
More than 10% better PassMark score

MBP Ram and Processor

I am about to buy a MBP and i was wondering on some feedback on if its worth paying the extra for the 2.53 GHz MBP. Is there a noticable difference between the 2gb of ram and the 4 gb of ram. And the difference between the 2.4ghz processor and the 2.53 ghz.
I am not a big gamer but i am just curious how much of a difference all the features have in speed

Interesting. Apple isn't totally overcharging for the RAM this time. It's only $150 to max out the base model.
The hard drive is easy to replace, so if you want to go with the stock drive now and upgrade it later when larger drives are cheaper, you could choose to do that. You can get to 320GB 7200 RPM for $110 after rebate at macsales.com; Apple wants $150 to upgrade the base model to that.
If you will be using Photoshop CS4 it uses the GPU and video RAM now so the 512MB would be good in that case.
All in all I think you will notice more of a speed boost from more RAM, more disk space, and more VRAM (if applicable) than you would from the CPU upgrade.
I still have no regrets about buying the base model Penryn Aluminum MBP with just 256MB VRAM, with main RAM I upgraded myself. But if I was shopping today, with Apple's more reasonable RAM prices and the growing importance of VRAM, I might go for the top end 15", for the RAM, VRAM, HD, and cache upgrade combo, and would consider the CPU boost to be simply a bonus thrown in. I would not spend the extra $300 on the 2.8GHz CPU.

1.5GHz vs. 1.67

I'm not new to the wolrd of mac, been a user since I was ten. I am, however, new to their proline. I've had Imac's, Ibooks, their consomuer line, but business dictates I move up in the world. So I have a pretty simple question. I've been looking on Ebay (Worst experience of my life...) because i'm on a pretty tight budget, and i'm just curious. Is there a noticable difference between the 1.5GHz processor and the 1.67?
Thanks in advance

Hi C. Thomas --
I've only used a friend's 1.5 GHz PowerBook a few times, so my frame of reference might be a little thin. But from what I've read, both on here and elsewhere, and based on my own (albeit limited) personal experience, I don't think there's a real noticeable difference between the 1.5 GHz and the 1.67 GHz, except perhaps for the most demanding, processor-intensive tasks (and even then, it might not really noticeableo without running some sort or performance measuring utility and crunching the numbers.
In my opinion, things like the free space on your hard drive and speed at which it runs, the amount of RAM and, of course perhaps most importantly, the particular uses you're going to put your PowerBook to, are all much more significant considerations insofar as the expected performance of your new 'Book is concerned.
If you want more info, post back the specific specs of the PowerBook you're thinking of purchasing -- not just processor, but the hard drive maker, capacity and speed, how old it is, how much RAM it has (and was the RAM factory or third party), the graphics chip used, and anything else you think important -- as well as a brief description of the kind of applications you expect to be running and the type of work (generally speaking) that you expect to be doing, and we'll be able to give you a better sense of whether you and this PB will make a good match.
-- JDee

Dual-core 2.3GHz G5 processor Vs. Dual-processor 2.3GHz G5

I have just purchaced a DUAL PROCESSOR 2.3GHz G5 is there a difference with this to a DUAL-CORE ?
Apple sent me this and told me it was the same thing .
sent me RAM that doesn't fit .
so I call and they say they differ . that i need different Ram
or the newer G5 for an added cost of $500.00
is there a difference or are they milking me?
I feel as they should just send me the new one .

Hi TGX;
There are some significant differences between the Dual Core and the Dual Processor 2.3 GHz Powermacs. There is the difference in memory and there is also the difference of PCI Express in the Dual Core as opposed to to PCIx for the expansion slots in the Dual Processor. In addition the Dual Core has the 1 MB of cache for each processor which improves performance.
Personally, if it was my machine, I would send it back and request that they send what I had ordered.
Allan

WORKAROUND! - Sluggish Motion V 4.0.1 on Mac Pro Nehalem 2.97 GHz 16 Vcore

Hi guys, like several people on this forum and others I been very frustrated with the performance of both Motion.app version 3 and now Motion.app V4 .0 .1 (latest update) on my 2009 Mac pro Nehalem 2.97 GHz 16 Vcore 12GB with the ATI Radeon 4870 graphics card.
I have two workarounds that may be of assistance in relieving this issue. They work for me however before I discuss what they I'd like to set the scene.
Like many of us, I have trawled this forum and many others including COW and so on mostly relying on those 10-12 (the dozen or so) excellent tips from people like Mark Spencer and others. This includes the usual things like turning off rendering options that make heavy use of CPU/GPU etc.
Caveat: I'd also like to note here that this performance sluggishness has absolutely nothing to do (and is completely unrelated to) I/O performance nor is it related to memory usage. The reason I say this is because during some testing and the normal practice I keep all a Motion.app cache files (autosave, cached files etc) out on a very fast PROAVIO EB8NS disk array with ATTO R380 HBA onto SAS paths where this box is capable of over 450 MB per second measured with Kona system test tool. Additionally I have 12 GB of memory on this Mac pro which I assigned 70% of it to be available to Motion.app V4. The sluggishness Motion.app V4 is not manifest itself through the usual items such as excessive virtual memory page in/out or swap in/out activity. In fact in this scenario I describe below in my system when nothing else is running the former is non-existent! Additionally I also want to know that Motion.app V4 in my scenario/situation/environment is definitely and certainly NOT impacted by insufficient I/O bandwidth..
However, like many people, who have the same or similar setup to myself, we experience severe delays the most basic Motion.app UI such as: selecting an item, scrubbing through the timeline, performing any kind of transform etc etc. Many of us trying to diagnose this problem (looking for any kind of diagnostics or messages etc) have noticed that with the exception of one single core, the remaining cores to do very little (idle or just barely moving) whilst the remaining single core is taking out at 100% constantly.
Many months ago whilst really bogged down with this problem trying to complete a project, I contacted Mark Spencer who politely explained that notion exploits the on-board graphics card (in my case the ATI Radeon HD 4870). After frustratingly trying to improve the performance of this and completely reinstalling Final Cut Suite in a different brand-new (at the time MacOS X 10.5.6), I found that there was little difference.
I am mentioning all this because, I know that a few colleagues have had a similar problem and have not found any satisfaction in looking at this despite many well-informed forum users who offer excellent advice.
At my wits end (currently), I took a few days to try and isolate what the problems may be caused by (what exacerbates this severely degraded performance). This user interface sludgy degradation is manifested through the UI also has the (spinning beach ball).
I isolated pieces in some of the Motion.app projects and started to ISOLATE (Control-I) what I thought were quite complex layers and individual objects but to no avail. I then resorted to completely deleting them with some improvement in performance (noticeably less sluggyness) however it still was not lightning fast as I expected considering it I was in draft mode, 720 p resolution, with lighting, shadows and reflections completely turned off in the view.
*Motion.app BEHAVIOURS*: after some hours and a great deal of trial and error (non-productive work time I might add) it occurred to me that some of the Motion.app behaviours in particular place in the layer with as few as five objects in the layer (behaviours such as "Motion.app path", "wriggle", "oscillate" and even good old trusted "throw" seem to be the culprits in this particular layer.
I will note well here at this point, but of course "camera layers" does seem to be affected at all with the basic movements such as Dolly, frame, sweep etc. I have some sets up to 4 or five cameras which seems not to bother Motion.app at all!
*OBJECT SELECTION (S):* yes this also seems to have some degrading impact on playout, scrubbing and so on. Interesting I thought.
Workarounds: here are a few things that I know that work to get around some problems of working where Motion.app is extremely SLUGGY in the user interface (UI). Perhaps someone has already noted these on a forum or posted on however I couldn't find them.
So my workflow/practice here is to do the following when I'm manipulating objects (placement, set up, applying filters, adjusting timeline, and so on):
+WORKAROUND #1+: *DISABLE the behaviours* in the layers where you are performing any object manipulation. In fact we have many objects in many layers where the topmost layer (a group of nested layers) contains any behaviours, I would suggest you disable those whilst you work on that particular layer.
It's a very simple stylus click to enable the BEHAVIOURS layers that you have been working on to see what the effect of those behaviours when you want to play them out in the player/canvas.
I have no idea why such trivial behaviours cause my very expensive Mac pro to nearly lock up whilst in Motion.app version 4 and also version 3. Anyway is definitely works on me.
+WORKAROUND #2+: *DESELECT ANY ITEM IN THE CANVAS* (in any view) when attempting to play out whilst in the canvas. Again I don't know why having one or more items (including the camera) insert would have such a drastic impact on the performance of Motion.app to play out what I think is a frivolous range, however this really works for me.
*How to measure the performance or how to monitor the performance/usage of the ATI Radeon HD 4870 graphics card from MacOS X?* I would like to know exactly what this is doing on my system when one of the CPU cores is pegged out in 100% servicing requests from Motion.app. I can't find utility (which am willing to pay for) that sees the ATI Radeon HD 4870 graphics card. One I thought would have is an application called atMonitor.app (http://www.atpurpose.com/atMonitor/) which seems to do a pretty good job on my uni body MacBook Pro and wife's Macbook Air.
It would seem that any of the utilities don't seem to see the ATI Radeon HD 4870 or if they do and they initiate commands to it that the ATI Radeon HD 4870 and doesn't respond or send any replies status information. (Beats me I'm not a technical person these days)
Summary: I would be very interested if other people who have a similar if not pretty near exact setup as myself have found these two suggestions useful. I have tried some of these Motion.app projects on my MacBook Pro uni-body and with some difference the MacBook Pro exhibits similar sluggyness to this Mac pro.
W
Hong Kong

Mark, I took your advice and reinstall Final Cut Suite Version 3 (including Motion.app version 4.0.1) onto a completely different and I'm used file system including a brand-new install of MacOS X snow leopard 10.6.1, which I believe is the most recent update.
To be clear, I have all the latest Pro Applications updates as well apply to this brand-new system.
So here is the *bad new*s.
*Using exactly the same hardware configuration as I described in this theme of woe, I launched Motion.app V4 .0 .1 and opened up several of the projects that I'm having trouble with that is issued.*
Simply, the symptoms and observation I described in this thread exists with a brand-new installation.
Anyway looks like I have a backup/another instance available Final Cut Pro in case my main production image has trouble.
Once again, as I described initially in this thread, I used the two workarounds to overcome the consistent and overwhelmingly an exaggerated 20 seconds lag on average interactions with Motion.app with the success that I'd described previously.
In another thread back in September 2009, a forum poster mentioned that he felt that the camera framing behaviours were the root of this problem. And to this end he advised converting these behaviours to keyframes using the command-K ("convert to keyframes") to overcome his misery.
This indeed does work very well. So this is the third workaround and I'm starting to use.
Further I have done some more hard comparisons with my 2009 MacBook pro uni-body 2.93 GHz with a standard arrangement of 4 MB of memory and the usual disk internally. *To my great surprise*, I found that the projects that I'm having a lot of trouble with were much more responsive not only with the camera framing behaviours (which I'm not particularly having any trouble with), but the layers that contains a simple transform behaviours such as "motion path", "wiggle", and so on did not seem to bother the Mac book pro.
I watched the CPU cores on the Mac book pro maybe go to 80% while the project was loading, and also whilst I gingerly navigated through the project although feeling a little sluggy was far less in orders of 10 to 20 seconds faster than this Mac pro Nehalem with all the bells and whistles on my earnings embedded within it.
Now I'm starting to wonder, as Andy pointed out, +maybe there is some trouble with the hardware in this system+. I really could not know how to determine if this is the case. However before I draw this conclusion finally, I noticed that there are a lot more people out there with the same consideration as I have that have this same problem. It's not narrowed down to those owners with the ATI Radeon HD 4870 graphics card, however these seem to be the bulk of the people who are trying to do things that are getting a fair amount of forum time (like me).
There certainly seems to be something of an issue as there are some symptom dumps for Motion.app but only one or 2 to over this period that seemed to be triggered by something on this machine. And like many on this forum I gave up reading dumps for a living back in the 1990s.
I would really like to know how I can diagnose this problem before I had to pack this Mac pro up and carted back to the local Apple care centre here in Hong Kong (which means I won't have it forever while, which means no income). Yes I can use my Mac book pro uni-body which is I might end up doing.
_Oh, and this little gem._ I find that if I invoke the "timeline pane/window" (command-7), that it can take up to 2 seconds to refresh the screen. It is amazingly slow and feel like there is definitely something wrong.
If I have a simple motion project by that I mean some simple plates some moving text and no real 3-D except for one little camera Motion.app V 4 seems to work quite okay.
The sets that I'm working in at about eight or nine cameras over the timeline and maybe three or four sets in the project. This is not the work I think especially when most of the moving here is a few objects wobbling around in 3-D space and quick camera moves using the camera framing behaviour.
In summary, having spent what seems to be 40 or 50 hours messing with this issue are not doing anything productive, I've come to the conclusion that there is definitely something wrong with this setup that I have. However having had no problem with that up until now (I know actually I had some problems back in May 2009 with it but it seemed that install a Final Cut Suite version 2 completely fixed it.
And I am totally surprised that my Mac book pro uni-body if pressed can do the job that I want.
Therefore Motion Forum users, I really don't know what else there is to do other than to poke around over time and eventually something will fix this because it is really very frustrating and like many of us on this forum I did endeavour to pay for/put capital funds into a system highly recommended by many that uses Apple production applications than I expected it would work.
By the way, I noticed when I use Nuke version 5 and Shake V 4.1 and even Maya PE, I don't have these issues but will concede that I doubt whether the use applications take advantage directly of the GPU arrangement in the graphics card like Motion.app does.
That's all I have.
Any other thoughts are most welcome.
W

What makes the biggest speed dif - HD or ghz?

Time to get a discontinued MacBook Pro. I've been waiting to see what the new ones would be like......... I do not want a glossy screen!
My current MBP is 2.16 ghz, original 2 core (not duo) with a 7200 rpm hard drive, and 2 GB ram.
I can't seem to find a discontinued one with a 7200 rpm drive.
SO, instead of the faster HD, do I go for the 2.5 or 2.6 ghz? (They have 512 mb graphics instead of 256. Will This make a difference if I use mainly LR2. I am not a gamer, but am getting into video editing.)
Or do I just get the HD replaced with a 7200? If so, will an Apple store do this under warranty?
I do plan to upgrade to 4 GB ram no matter what.
Advice on these options would be most appreciated. I want to buy quickly while they are still available.
Thanks!

Processor speed (GHz) will always make the most difference for everything, but hard drive speed is nice for smooth video editing.

Aperture on a Dual 2 Ghz G5?

What is the performance of Aperture on a Dual 2 Ghz G5? It is outfitted with the GeForce 7800GT video card and currently has 2.5GB RAM. I plan on updating to 4.5 shortly. Will the RAM upgrade speed things up? I have downloaded the trial and w/@1000 D2X RAW files things are not too quick.
When making slider adjustments there is a very noticable delay before the changes register. In full screen mode the loupe, (which I love) is jerky when viewing modified files, seems smooth on untouched files though.
Am just wondering if there would be a noticable difference with additional RAM installed?
Dual 2 Ghz G5 Mac OS X (10.4.8)
Dual 2 Ghz G5 Mac OS X (10.4.8)
Mac OS X (10.4.8)

I use iView Media Pro as my DAM of choice and you can get a 30 day trial. All of my images are referenced on a I TB Maxtor external drive. Both Aperture and iView reference the same drive. Many of my images are 65 MB Tiffs that were scanned from slides and sytem performance is pretty good. You can see I have a G5 dual 2.5 with 5.5 GB RAM. I don't believe processor speed makes that much difference with Aperture. It does appreciate more RAM. If you plan to edit in an external editor at times, or if you normally have several programs open at once the extra RAM will make a noticible difference.
Jeff

2.2 Ghz MacBook Pro or 2.4 Ghz?

I'm thinking about buying a MacBook Pro that has a 2.2 Ghz intel core duo but is there a substantial difference in the performance of 2.2 Ghz and the present 2.4 Ghz model? Also do only the new MacBook Pros have the iPhone touch gestures or can the older ones be updated?

Depends on what you're doing with the computer. If you're using it for programmes that requires a lot of processing power then the 2.4 Ghz is better. Something like using Final Cut or Motion... Photoshop like programmes doesn't require that high of a hertz in processing instead more RAM will do much better. Also only the newest MacBook Pro have the multi-touch feature as it requires additional hardware.

MacBook Pro 15¨ 2.0 vs 2.2 GHz

I stumbled onto the Anandtech MacBook Pro review and was wondering if anyone could confirm/clarify the main trade-offs between the 15 inch 2.0 and 2.2 GHz models.
1. I understand that there is a significant jump in the graphics from 256MB to 1GB. How would this be reflected in my photo edition / facetime & skype utilization? Would there be a difference in operating temperature?
2. AES-NI: only included in 2.2GHz. Apparently, main benefit would be speed of encryption when and if utilized by future OS updates.
3. VT-d: only included in 2.2 GHz. Not sure what this represents.
Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Hi,
Below is a link that I found on the Apple models that have (and don't have) AES-NI:
http://www.hutsby.net/2011/08/macs-with-aes-ni.html
--Lenard

Turning off the 5 GHz???

I really need to turn off the 5 GHz in the Time Capsule and cannot figure out a way to do it. Anybody know how? I believe it is interfering with my 5.8 GHz cordless phone. I never had a problem with the cordless phone until I got the TC (was using an old Airport Extreme).

Nathan Goldshlag wrote:
I really need to turn off the 5 GHz in the Time Capsule and cannot figure out a way to do it. Anybody know how? I believe it is interfering with my 5.8 GHz cordless phone. I never had a problem with the cordless phone until I got the TC (was using an old Airport Extreme).
You may be able to do that with the "Radio Mode" setting in the AirPort panel, Wireless option. However before you try that, I'd experiment with different 5 GHz channels. There may be a channel setting that avoids interference with your phone.

Hard Disk Upgrade - iMac 17" Flat Panel G4 1.0 GHz with USB 1.2

I’m considering upgrading the internal hard disk with the following:
[Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD5000AAKB 500GB 7200 RPM IDE Ultra ATA100 Hard Drive - OEM|http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136111]
I read that others have successfully installed 500GB IDE disks. I have a two related questions:
1. Do these larger disks cause any heat or power supply issues?
2. I've seen several take-apart instructions. It seems like there are subtle differences with the various Flat Panel models. Does anyone know which instructions apply specifically to my model (iMac 17" Flat Panel G4 1.0 GHz with USB 1.2)?
Any insight and/or experience on this topic would be greatly appreciated.

I have exactly the same question.
Thing is, having did a bit of research I read that USB 1.1 machines can't support anything more than 120GB?
http://www.macupgrades.co.uk/store/machine.php?name=imac-g4#int-hdd
"Compatible with the 1.25GHz model, and 1GHz iMacs with USB 2.0. It is not compatible with 1GHz iMacs without USB 2.0, or any slower models. Professional installation recommended."
http://www.macupgrades.co.uk/store/productinfo.php?productsid=71
"Be aware that many G4 PowerMacs have a 120GB capacity limit on the drives they can use, if you want to use a larger drive on these Macs we recommend adding a SATA controller card such as the Sonnet Tempo SATA PCI Card, and then using a SATA hard drive rather than an IDE one."
It wouldn't have to be this IBM model, in fact I like the sound of the Western Digital machines mentioned here, but I just wondered if anyone knew if the mac CAN support more than 120BG. I notice this company also state that it can't take more than 1GB RAM, but that's been proved wrong in other threads.
Thanks!

2.6 GHz i7 vs. 2.8 GHz i7...Is there a noticable difference?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for