thats a nice chart and E7600 desktop CPU not bad at all for average user (though i would like apple put a quad in there
).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
C2D 3.06 vs i5 ?
- Thread starter macchiato2009
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
thats a nice chart and E7600 desktop CPU not bad at all for average user (though i would like apple put a quad in there
).http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=16
another benchmark chart with E8600 3.33Ghz at times it beats Core i5 CPU! interesting
(here i am not saying E8600 is better than Core i5, it is not a bad CPU and of course it is a $200 upgrade from E7600 3.06Ghz)
another benchmark chart with E8600 3.33Ghz at times it beats Core i5 CPU! interesting
(here i am not saying E8600 is better than Core i5, it is not a bad CPU and of course it is a $200 upgrade from E7600 3.06Ghz)
...um, you're not getting 16GB RAM in the 21.5 inch iMac as it still only has two RAM slots which is the same as the 24 inch iMac prev gen...
there is no BTO from apple itself for 16GB but it has 4 slots, it is a 4x2GB and it can go upto 16GB
Attachments
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=16
another benchmark chart with E8600 3.33Ghz at times it beats Core i5 CPU! interesting
(here i am not saying E8600 is better than Core i5, it is not a bad CPU and of course it is a $200 upgrade from E7600 3.06Ghz)
very interesting...does that mean that the difference between the 3.06 and the i5 is not that much at all???
those are gaming benchmarks though. The i5 beats the C2D routinely. Is that worth $500 to you? Not to me.
Actually, it is costing me $300 for the upgrade between a 3.06 w/ 256mb ram and core i5 w/ 512 mb. Is THAT upgrade worth $300 to you???
if $$$ is not a problem go with Core i5 that will last for 3 to 5 years. What the benchmarks says both are pretty good CPUs on their own, one performs well on some applications and another performs better on other area.
Everyone here agrees Core i5 great compared to Core 2 Duo, but you have to decide with $$$.
I am in the market for new iMac also to replace my three year old macbook (see the signature), but my budget is only $1700 for imac + $300 (apple care, iWork, Office 08) and i am thinking $2000 computer should last for at least for 3 to 5 years.
so am i confused as others and planning on waiting game.
Let me make this easier.
Do you want Late 2007 CPU performance or Late 2009 CPU performance?
this test makes me doubt about waiting until mid November just to get the i5
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/09/08/intel-core-i5-and-i7-lynnfield-cpu-review/1
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/09/08/intel-core-i5-and-i7-lynnfield-cpu-review/1
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=16
another benchmark chart with E8600 3.33Ghz at times it beats Core i5 CPU! interesting
(here i am not saying E8600 is better than Core i5, it is not a bad CPU and of course it is a $200 upgrade from E7600 3.06Ghz)
The upgrade to 3.33Ghz looks very interesting. It appears to be the Intel E8600 chip with 6MB L2 cache and 1333Mhz FSB. (The 3.06Ghz is 3MB L2 and 1066MHz FSB).
It could be that for someone who won't be using software that is optimized for a multicore system (such as 3D graphics work), you might well find a better price/performance trade off with a high end Core2Duo.
Also, this could be a good way to maximize performance in the 21.5" iMac which doesn't have a quad-core option (for those who don't want the larger display, for example, but would still like a fast system).
i want to through another option (considering graphic card is not that great in the mini)
2.53Ghz/4GB Mac mini +24" LED Cinema Display ($799 + $899) = $1698.
How is that mobile 2.53Ghz compares to 3.06Ghz Desktop?
Also mac mini can go upto 8GB once 4GB single sticks becomes cheaper in the future...
2.53Ghz/4GB Mac mini +24" LED Cinema Display ($799 + $899) = $1698.
How is that mobile 2.53Ghz compares to 3.06Ghz Desktop?
Also mac mini can go upto 8GB once 4GB single sticks becomes cheaper in the future...
iMac 27" wins easily vs mac mini +24" led. Better desktop processor and better video card. Plus its much cheaper to get 8GB ram in the iMac vs the Mini.
In my opinion, you are better off going with a 24" iMac then the mini+24" led combo. (and it will cost much less)
I find the reasoning a bit illogical. You safe about $300 now when you get the C2D model, with the intention to update in 2 years anyways? Well, buying a machine like this to update after only two years is pretty short imho. Spending $300 more for a QC and faster GPU and being able to use it a lot longer, or save $300 now to use it for only 2 years after which you buy another $1500+ model? Going for the faster one now seems like the better deal to me.
Also consider that USB 3.0 will be compatible with 2.0 devices. You don't need to buy new USB stuff, and it's not like all your current stuff transforms to 3.0. I also think people aren't going to replace all their gadgets and external hard drives for the 2.0>3.0 speed bump all at once. This takes time. BluRay is a valid point, although you can probably hook up a standalone player to the 27".
I don't know, I think the reasoning is sound. I mean, you see half the people on these forums spending the extra money for the quad because it will have better resale value (which is true, but you are spending more for it, so duh!).
If you are in the market for a computer now and can't wait, then it's a great computer to last a few years. No computer is going to be awesome for 5 years. Think about what was out 5 years ago...
USB 3 is a tremendous upgrade, as would be light peak and bluray. My argument is when those three things come out, you'll want them, so what's the point of spending a lot more cash on the quad you might not need when you want to 'future-proof' a system?
The people with quad iMacs will be moaning when Apple releases an iMac with usb3, lightpeak and bluray, and will quickly want to sell, so the extra $500 they spend on the system will be quickly lost in resale. The argument is that the computer with quad, bluray, usb3, lightpeak will last MUCH longer for you than the one with just quad.
That's really shaky thinking...when we have quad, bluray, usb3, lightpeak etc. they'll be another group of technologies just around the corner threatening to make these old hat in the following years. That's the technology cycle!
Trying to anticipate future technology cycles and timing purchases can be fun but, like the stock market, it's filled with uncertainty and there's as many losers as winners.
I'd wait until the 4 core iMac's come out, check out the reviews and benchmarks, make your choice and don't look back
That's really shaky thinking...when we have quad, bluray, usb3, lightpeak etc. they'll be another group of technologies just around the corner threatening to make these old hat in the following years. That's the technology cycle!
Trying to anticipate future technology cycles and timing purchases can be fun but, like the stock market, it's filled with uncertainty and there's as many losers as winners.
I'd wait until the 4 core iMac's come out, check out the reviews and benchmarks, make your choice and don't look back
right, never buy a computer because new technology is always around the corner reasons. But if you want to figure out how long you will have the computer, don't think because you have quad it will outshine those other three options. It's not like they are far in the future though, they are RIGHT around the corner.
a few years ago USB2 was supposed to kill the firewire
well, fw 800 is still here and even back on our macs
unless SSD would definitely replace traditional HDD, there is no point of having USB3 or faster
the bandwidth is not saturated yet
the high-end imacs are like mac pros to me
why having monsters inside to surf the web or do little photoshopping...
in fact, what we really need, even on low-end imacs, is good video card
a computer with a good video card would last longer than a computer with speed bump every 6 months
moreover, knowing apple's bad habits, the next bump will be 0.x Ghz and so on...
it's just ridiculous to have a monster proco and a crappy 9400M
it's like having a V8 engine in an old with bad brakes and small tyres...
well, fw 800 is still here and even back on our macs
unless SSD would definitely replace traditional HDD, there is no point of having USB3 or faster
the bandwidth is not saturated yet
the high-end imacs are like mac pros to me
why having monsters inside to surf the web or do little photoshopping...
in fact, what we really need, even on low-end imacs, is good video card
a computer with a good video card would last longer than a computer with speed bump every 6 months
moreover, knowing apple's bad habits, the next bump will be 0.x Ghz and so on...
it's just ridiculous to have a monster proco and a crappy 9400M
it's like having a V8 engine in an old with bad brakes and small tyres...
My goal was to spend as little as possible on a new 27" iMac. Mission accomplished! I spent $1697.99 at Amazon ( $1694.00 plus $3.99 next day shipping). And no tax!! So why spend more for something I am going to replace in two to three years?
Sure I could have spent an extra $300 for a i5, but for my needs this was not necessary. I do not do photo or video editing and I am not a PC gamer ( I am a console gamer). When light peak, usb3, and bluray are standard on iMac, I will want them and buy that model.
Sure I could have spent an extra $300 for a i5, but for my needs this was not necessary. I do not do photo or video editing and I am not a PC gamer ( I am a console gamer). When light peak, usb3, and bluray are standard on iMac, I will want them and buy that model.