Alternatively, if I buy the low end dual core iMac today for $1000 less than the high-end quad core and invest that money wisely (e.g. Apple stock), I could have around $1500 to invest in a top of the range iMac in three years while you will still be using a three-year old computer. The moral of the story is to buy what you need (which for most users is often less than they think) not what you think you might need at some date in the future.And I'm sorry but there IS such a thing as future proofing. Lets compare the base 27" with a 27" i7 quad in three years and see which one runs better with current software of the time. Any guesses?
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.
core 2 duo faster than i5/i7?
- Thread starter TDHXXX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Couldn't agree more. I think many users are buying the quad core just because its the best out and its the fastest.
You honestly don't need i5 or i7 unless your heavy in graphic design and editing. Then its all worth it.
Don't buy on "future proof" that's not applicable, BUY what you will utilize.
You honestly don't need i5 or i7 unless your heavy in graphic design and editing. Then its all worth it.
Don't buy on "future proof" that's not applicable, BUY what you will utilize.
No matter how you look at it the C2D will NOT be FASTER than the i5/i7's. This is just false.
This is the case for probably 80% of computer users. They simply will not be using all the power that is provided by the quads or even the C2D's for that matter. Many computer users are buying netbooks which are running on processors at clock-speeds that existed 8 years ago and have plenty of power to visit Facebook and use a word processor.
If you're a PC enthusiast you'll want the latest and greatest no matter what. You will never be future-proof, only future-resistant. A Quad will keep you happy maybe a year longer. At which point you'll be buying a new computer anyway.
So put it this way, if you need the extra power and flexibility of a quad core or just want to flex nuts and show off your brand new shiny then get the quad.
If you don't even know what applications use up to four cores or have any clue what Hyperthreading is or any kind of possible application of four cores, then save yourself a buck and get a C2D.
This is quite true (OK, I wouldn't count any stock going up 50%). However, I don't like having to get a whole new computer, migrate files over, get new software, etc. Not to mention the extra waste for the environment. I want to buy a computer and keep it for a long time, so it makes sense to me to get that i5.
With my current PC, I added some more RAM, then later I added still more RAM. Then I had to add a second hard drive. Then I replaced my monitor. Each time it didn't seem quite worth ditching the whole thing when the upgrade wasn't too expensive. It's hard to pull the trigger on a whole new rig. Now I can't wait to ditch my Pentium III Dell and get a 27" i5 iMac!
EDIT: Checked & realized my Dell actually has a Pentium IV 2.0 Ghz. Maybe I could get another year out of it? NO WAY!
P3??!?!? Wow... That's way too long.
I had a AMD Athon back when the P3's where out then upgraded the HDD and graphics card. Then a couple about 3-4 years later built a whole computer from scratch with Mobo, RAM and a P4 CPU. Later got a new GPU and HDD. 4 years later got a Athlon 64. Later upgraded HDD and GPU again.
That was 5 years ago and now I'm looking to upgrade to an i7, 4 gigs of ram, new GPU and all. Of course in the last 4 years I've bought a Macbook Pro, EeePC netbook and just now bought a 21.5" iMac.
Some people just can't stick with components that are more than 4 years old. That's about my computer lifecycle. I do small upgrades and then every 4 years a major upgrade.
I've come to realise that after hearing a staff member say that it is currently possible to hook a ps3/xbox .etc up to the new 27" iMac.
Haha. Yea. I got a fairly knowledgeable guy when I bought my 21.5". He told me that there was only 1 place he knew to buy a MiniDisplay to MiniDisplay cable to use with the monitors and that it was from some other countries Apple store website and that it was a Belkin cable. We both agreed that it was crazy that Apple wouldn't have released a cable for people to actually USE a feature they touted in their new product.
Oh well!!! Hopefully we get something soon.
^ theres a Belkin Mini DisplayPort cable on the US Apple Store? monoprice.com has one as well.
to connect a PS3/XBox you could use a Mini DisplayPort to DVI or HDMI adapter or cable which you can also get on monoprice.com
to connect a PS3/XBox you could use a Mini DisplayPort to DVI or HDMI adapter or cable which you can also get on monoprice.com
Oh they have it now then. They didn't the first week the iMacs where released. I was in the store and we checked the webpages.
Also, I'm pretty sure that doesn't work. I think people here have tried it with the XBox and PS3 with no luck. Can anyone confirm?
EDIT: Maybe not in this thread as we're already offtopic
The only way I can foresee that the C2D will be rendered useless is if Apple change architecture like what it did with the PowerPC to Intel jump. Other wise I'm pretty sure the C2D will still be viable for most productivity software at least 3 years and beyond. Unless you make a living and really need the horsepower like video editing, producing graphics or doing high end scientific calculations, it is all 'want' not 'need.' Not that wanting the latest models is necessarily a bad thing, especially if you can afford it. I'm pretty sure more then half of those buying the latest and greatest are fueled more by gadget lust then actual need.
So I agree with the guys who say that saving and investing your money instead of blowing it away everytime a new latest Mac comes out is the wiser course in most cases.
So I agree with the guys who say that saving and investing your money instead of blowing it away everytime a new latest Mac comes out is the wiser course in most cases.
Maybe the c2d has more RAM. The OP didn't say if it was a C2D that they already owned or not, but I'm sure any C2D iMac with 6gb of RAM will outperform a i5/i7 with 2 or 4gb of RAM, while using word or adium.
Core 2 duo or quad for me?
I am finally buying a new iMac after using my G4 Dual Mirror Door for about 8 years. I previously had a 7500 PowerMac for about as long so I am planning on keeping my iMac for a number of years. I use the computer for the usual internet stuff but also I use it for photography. I have a Canon 50D which produces large files and I use DPP to convert and then export to Photoshop. It's slow on this computer. Would I get any benefit from i5 or i7 or should I put the extra money into ram?
I am finally buying a new iMac after using my G4 Dual Mirror Door for about 8 years. I previously had a 7500 PowerMac for about as long so I am planning on keeping my iMac for a number of years. I use the computer for the usual internet stuff but also I use it for photography. I have a Canon 50D which produces large files and I use DPP to convert and then export to Photoshop. It's slow on this computer. Would I get any benefit from i5 or i7 or should I put the extra money into ram?
I thought the i7 is available for online purchase only, and the i5 would be available in the stores. So I doubt it was a pushy sales person.
Yeah, Good Point. I got the 27" 3.06ghz 8gb Ram, and its fast running multiple programs.
The only way I can foresee that the C2D will be rendered useless is if Apple change architecture like what it did with the PowerPC to Intel jump. Other wise I'm pretty sure the C2D will still be viable for most productivity software at least 3 years and beyond. Unless you make a living and really need the horsepower like video editing, producing graphics or doing high end scientific calculations, it is all 'want' not 'need.' Not that wanting the latest models is necessarily a bad thing, especially if you can afford it. I'm pretty sure more then half of those buying the latest and greatest are fueled more by gadget lust then actual need.
So I agree with the guys who say that saving and investing your money instead of blowing it away everytime a new latest Mac comes out is the wiser course in most cases.
I don't think anyone is saying that the C2D won't be able to run applications.
I have a feeling in the next 3 years the chip and socket will be all but dead. How long does one chip generally stay active for? It's getting to the end of it's product cycle and the Quad Core chips are replacing it on Intel's line. I just bought my C2D iMac and I'm sure it'll be great and run well for a number of years. I'm building a new desktop and with that I'm going to make damn sure to get an i7 and with the new socket for future upgrades
I asked a similar question on a photo forum and I was advised to invest in RAM. I'm planning to buy a Canon 5D markII and 8Gb should do for these files.
So I ordered an i5 with 8Gb RAM two days ago
I asked a similar question on a photo forum and I was advised to invest in RAM. I'm planning to buy a Canon 5D markII and 8Gb should do for these files.
So I ordered an i5 with 8Gb RAM two days ago
I would advise buying gram from a third party vendor. It's way overpriced having Apple install it.
Saying that the i5 or i7 is faster than a dual core is a very subjective claim.
YES - the i5 and i7 can perform more calculations per clock cycle, and as a result of this are CAPABLE of running programs quicker than a C2D processor of comparable speed. But lets just say you're in the following situation....
You have 2 screens set up, with EyeTV tv program running on one of them, it has 2Gb of RAM in use for the live TV buffer. You have Photoshop running too which is using over 1.5Gb in a large work flow.... So all in all about 4Gb RAM in use, when you consider the RAM for OSX and other background services...
A C2D mac with 8Gb RAM would cope fine with this, whereas an i7 with 4Gb RAM would probably come to a stand still. Not because of the processor though, the i7 would be sitting around wasting clock cycles waiting for VRAM from the hard drive to feed it at horridly slow speeds - because RAM is all used up. Whereas the C2D with plenty of RAM is purring along nicely, as it's being fed straight from the RAM, which is only half full....
For most people, a C2D may be enough power. The whole system setup affects speed. A fast processor is useless with hardly any RAM for what you want to do, similarly a SSD would give you quicker start up times and vastly increase general usage - without having to change your processor.
This is only an example to prove a point that having the fastest processor is not always the best way to a fast computer - it depends on your needs.
YES - the i5 and i7 can perform more calculations per clock cycle, and as a result of this are CAPABLE of running programs quicker than a C2D processor of comparable speed. But lets just say you're in the following situation....
You have 2 screens set up, with EyeTV tv program running on one of them, it has 2Gb of RAM in use for the live TV buffer. You have Photoshop running too which is using over 1.5Gb in a large work flow.... So all in all about 4Gb RAM in use, when you consider the RAM for OSX and other background services...
A C2D mac with 8Gb RAM would cope fine with this, whereas an i7 with 4Gb RAM would probably come to a stand still. Not because of the processor though, the i7 would be sitting around wasting clock cycles waiting for VRAM from the hard drive to feed it at horridly slow speeds - because RAM is all used up. Whereas the C2D with plenty of RAM is purring along nicely, as it's being fed straight from the RAM, which is only half full....
For most people, a C2D may be enough power. The whole system setup affects speed. A fast processor is useless with hardly any RAM for what you want to do, similarly a SSD would give you quicker start up times and vastly increase general usage - without having to change your processor.
This is only an example to prove a point that having the fastest processor is not always the best way to a fast computer - it depends on your needs.
Actually I will probably be buying a new computer next year
Really??? Is there a practical point to doing this?? Or do you just want the newest because it's the newest, even if there's no cosmetic difference??? (no offense, I'm just curious)
That's a poor argument.
Of course if you choke out the i7's power with less ram it's going to run slower.
All things equal the i5/i7's are faster than the C2D. Simple as that.
Sure if you put an i7 on a computer with 500mb of ram and a slow HDD it'll run slower, but same with a C2D.
If everyone shared your logic I could try to pawn off my 4 cylnder Sentra off as "faster" than a Mazerati!!!!!! (if you put a 10 HP motor in it and replace the transmission with one from a lawnmower).
Your first sentence about the i5/i7 performing more clockcycles is EXACTLY what we are talking about here. It's more powerful. No, most people don't need it and there are other ways to gain power from your machine.
Also, it's also true that everyone buys into the whole "RAM is like COMPUTER COCAINE!" mentality. RAM does NOT speed up your computer. If you are really choking your computer out on RAM (unless you're running a vast number of high performace apps at once, like with multiple users or other professional applications) excessive RAM is going to have no effect on speed.
Many people will have little need for more than 4GB of ram. And for the record, EyeTV runs just fine with a 2GB swap on the filesystem and not in the RAM. Even on a 5400rpm HDD or over Firewire.
Er, no. The E8600 (3.3 GHz) will occasionally eek out a win in some situations. Look at any of the existing benchmarks floating around out there. For instance the GIMP test here.
Ok. On applications that don't multi-thread well I suppose it'd be down to straight up clock speed
That's true. But 99.9% of the time it won't be faster!!!I'm really impressed by the overclocked power on that C2D. Makes me curious what my C2D will do... Hmmm...