i5 or i7 - which one?

[andyOSX]

i5! Spend the $220 getting 8 GBs of RAM instead!

Remeber, Hyperthreading is like going from 4 buckets (CORES) to 8 buckets (2 VIRTUAL THREADS/CORE). There is around half of the water (POWER) in each of the 8 buckets vs. the original four. Yes, Grand Central Dispatch does know how to work 8 cores, but hyperthreading is an assinine system.

That is not really accurate. Here is where hyperthreading is very useful: if you do a search on google you will come across a few threads on various forums where users are complaining about how they have a 4 core machine, or even a dual core machine, and when rendering etc. both cores are being used but the CPU utilization is only like 40% on each core.

"Why am I paying all this money and OS X is only using 40% of my processing power?" they will ask.

There are many instances (especially considering how powerful Nehalem processors are) where 4 threads running on 4 cores will not tax each core more than 50%. So with hyperthreading each core can run two threads at once and be maxed out far closer to 100% usage.

So basically i7 is not that much faster in terms of raw speed. Instead it allows you to tap into far more of the power you are paying all this money for.

 

[mendocino]

i7 without question. $200 would be worth the GHz difference alone.

Comments like these suggest you're not the sharpest tool in the shed. That, or you are trolling.

Like another poster has suggested, it would be better to save the difference and spend it on extra RAM/HDD space etc.

 

[300D]

mendocino, it looks like you joined just to make that completely useless post.

The troll here is 100% you.

 

[mendocino]

mendocino, it looks like you joined just to make that completely useless post.

The troll here is 100% you.

Long time lurker actually, but due to your completely incoherent posts I was compelled to join.

Cheers!

 

[300D]

completely incoherent posts

Lysdexia? Thats about the only excuse you've got there.

 

[mendocino]

Lysdexia? Thats about the only excuse you've got there.

It's probably time we move on mate- or else someone is going to get an infraction.

Thanks!

 

[Hj12345]

hi again,

I started this thread a week ago. What a huge interest in the vote (crushing victory for the i7).

I decided for the i7 - when I buy a computer for a lot of money, it may as well choose the best, it's not often I buy a computer, just so you know.

You helped me very much in the election.

 

[300D]

It's probably time we move on mate- or else someone is going to get an infraction.

Oh, noes, not dat!

 

[mendocino]

I decided for the i7 - when I buy a computer for a lot of money, it may as well choose the best, it's not often I buy a computer, just so you know.

Grat'z, TBH you cant go wrong either way. It just depends whether or not you think it's justified spending a lot of money on an extra 4 virtual cores

 

[300D]

justified spending a lot of money on an extra 4 virtual cores

Plus an extra 200mhz/real-core, an overall better $/performance and far better resale value.

 

[mendocino]

Plus an extra 200mhz/real-core, an overall better $/performance and far better resale value.

Please provide me with the data that supports your claim of the i7 being a better $/performer?

200MHz faster? lmao, in real-world applications that will have negligible performance gains. If you're obsessed with clockspeed, you should be overclocking

i5 in the $/Performance aspect is definitely superior, because it's A LOT cheaper while remaining within the realms of core i7 performance. Sure, i5 may be slightly crippled because of dual-channel RAM, but seriously, these 'shortcomings' are nothing.

By the time we are able to exploit 8 threads, Sandy Bridge will be out and we'll have other things to worry about (namely AVX extensions).

But in terms of resale value I agree

 

[300D]

Please provide me with the data that supports your claim of the i7 being a better $/performer?

Its subjective. If you've ever used a PC with the two, you wouldn't be asking such a silly question.

If you're obsessed with clockspeed, you should be overclocking

Been there, done that. 8-16mhz Mac Classic, 20-25mhz Centris 610, 25-33mhz LCIII, 233-300MHz PM 9600, 350-400MHz PM G3, 400-500mhz PM G4, 1.42-1.5ghz G4 mini and if there was any way possible to overclock my G5 or iPhone I would have done it by now.

You done yet?

 

[andyOSX]

Please provide me with the data that supports your claim of the i7 being a better $/performer?

By the time we are able to exploit 8 threads, Sandy Bridge will be out and we'll have other things to worry about (namely AVX extensions).

Safari alone is running 42 threads on my computer right now. But that's beside the point actually.

Please see my earlier post; you really don't understand hyper-threading. It's not the same as having 8 cores. It utilizes the 4 you have much better.

 

[panzer06]

Well, of course they have a "different" die, one has HT, the other one does not. Still, they are both based on the same architecture.........

In order to properly convey the correctness of your opinion, I believe a long, complicated and confusing discussion on the appropriate definition of architecture as it relates to CPU technology is in order. Please proceed...

Cheers,

 

[lasuther]

Plus an extra 200mhz/real-core, an overall better $/performance and far better resale value.

The i5 is generally considered that $/performance winner because the i7 just isn't that much faster. Also, resale will be about the same between the i5 and i7 in 4 to 5 years. I just sold a core duo iMac at te same price people were selling core2duos. All people cared about was dual core. The same will be true with the quads, people won't care which one they get as long as it is a quad core.

That being said, if you have the money there is no reason not to get i7. It is going to be faster. Just don't exagerate it's performance.

 

[53x12]

There are many instances (especially considering how powerful Nehalem processors are) where 4 threads running on 4 cores will not tax each core more than 50%. So with hyperthreading each core can run two threads at once and be maxed out far closer to 100% usage.

This is an honest question, but isn't this what the TurboBoost also helps with? It shuts down cores that aren't being fully utilized and ups the power to the cores that are?

 

[Passels]

This is a good read for anyone interested in this i5 or i7 debate: http://en.hardspell.com/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=6804

Its also important to note that the i7 only retails for $70 over the cost of an i5, yet apple is selling it for $180 - $200 depending on discount.

 

[filmgirl]

Please provide me with the data that supports your claim of the i7 being a better $/performer?
...
i5 in the $/Performance aspect is definitely superior, because it's A LOT cheaper while remaining within the realms of core i7 performance. Sure, i5 may be slightly crippled because of dual-channel RAM, but seriously, these 'shortcomings' are nothing.

*sigh* BOTH are dual-channel. This isn't a deficit per se because it's 1333mhtz RAM whereas the triple-channel bloomfield was 1066mhtz.

Anyway: I did extensive research earlier: http://twitter.com/film_girl/status/5151519682

The i5 is NOT a bad chip or a bad system, but saying it doesn't have any performance benefits is absolutely insane.

And I agree with the OP, when I spend over $2000, I like to go all out and get the best system I can afford.

 

[53x12]

I guess another question for me is whether it might be possible in the future to upgrade the CPU to something else in the LGA 1156 family that will fit the P55 board? I am assuming the i7-870 will run too hot to be in the iMac, so really the only option would be the i7-860, right? I am still going to go with the i5, just curious if there might be the possibility of putting something else in? I guess we will have to wait and see how Apple put these together.

 

[53x12]

This is a good read for anyone interested in this i5 or i7 debate: http://en.hardspell.com/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=6804

Its also important to note that the i7 only retails for $70 over the cost of an i5 750, yet apple is selling it for $180 - $200 depending on discount.

It is interesting that for games at least, the i5 is able to keep up with the i7 920. So at least for games the i5 750 is just as good and will use less power at idle and full usage compared to the i7 920. Hmmm interesting. Wish they had a bit more of a comparison between the i5 750 and the i7 860.

 

[three]

I personally would go with the i7, it's the bigger brother to the i5.

 

[mendocino]

*sigh* BOTH are dual-channel. This isn't a deficit per se because it's 1333mhtz RAM whereas the triple-channel bloomfield was

i7 is triple channel, last time I checked

The i5 is NOT a bad chip or a bad system, but saying it doesn't have any performance benefits is absolutely insane.

To the contrary, when did I ever say the i5 was a 'bad' chip?

 

[robotkiller]

i7 is triple channel, last time I checked



To the contrary, when did I ever say the i5 was a 'bad' chip?

i7 9xx is triple channel. The i7 8xx is dual channel.

 

[53x12]

i7 9xx is triple channel. The i7 8xx is dual channel.

That is correct. i7 9xx series is triple, i7 8xx series is dual channel.

http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyId=28037

 

[mendocino]

i7 9xx is triple channel. The i7 8xx is dual channel.

/facepalm, I had the 860=triple channel in mind.

Intel has a good way of confusing the market