i5 slower than 3.06

[yourashero]

Is the i5 slower than the 3.06 duo core? I'm really sorry because I know this has been asked but I really couldn't find it by searching these forums and since my computer broke I'm using my phone on AT&T edge. So even a link would help. I'm really not sure how much slower it would be on duo core based programs or even single core.

Sorry again and thanks

 

[dukebound85]

well it is a quad vs a duo

te future is more cores

however, this is a great search link

http://mroogle.*************/

 

[Eidorian]

The Core i5 750 will also Turbo Boost two cores to 3.2 GHz.

In most cases 4 core operations can get a bin to 2.8 GHz. So in two core operations it's faster, besides the architectural improvements, and you get 4 cores.

 

[joudbren]

I owned the C2D 27" for a week and then returned it and upgraded to the i5. The C2D is certainly no slouch and perfect for a lot of users but rest assured (from personal experience) the i5 is most certainly faster. Cheers!

James

 

[khollister]

The Nehalem i5/i7 cores are not comparable clock for clock with the Core2Duo's. The Quads are certainly faster.

 

[corvus32]

I here a lot of people saying they're buying these because muti-core is supposed to be the future. By the time multi-core computing actually gets here, Apple will be selling base model mini's with better specs.

Unless you edit video for food, save your money. Or at least wait and pick up a refurbished one at a discount.

 

[senseless]

To me, the $1699 model seems unnecessary when it's just another $300 to go to a quad core. Not much for another year of useful life.

 

[SaSaSushi]

Unless you edit video for food, save your money. Or at least wait and pick up a refurbished one at a discount.

I hear this advice most often from those that are unable, for whatever reason, to purchase a quad core system.

If you have the means to buy a quad core there is no reason not to do so. Not only is it faster (by two times and more), it will only extend the useful life of the machine down the road. It's a better architecture period.

Here is a good description of just how Nehalem changes the playing field.

 

[SaSaSushi]

To me, the $1699 model seems unnecessary when it's just another $300 to go to a quad core. Not much for another year of useful life.

Maybe even more than one year.

This was exactly my point. The quad cores are a SERIOUS bargain right now. I upgraded from a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo iMac to this i7 and it's blowing my mind how fast it is in comparison.

 

[adder7712]

Unlike a couple of years ago, Higher clock speeds = fast. Today is all about cores. A 2.8GHz quad-core i5 is faster than the 3.06GHz C2D. Heck my 2.0GHz C2D MacBook Aluminium is (a lot) faster than my old 3.0GHz single-core P4 PC with the latter having hyper-threading which gives it a virtual extra core.

I've heard about 1.5GHz i7 quad-cores for laptops. I see a possibility of using those low-powered (as in power consumption) i7 mobile processors and could be faster than a 2.5GHz C2D...

 

[corvus32]

Not only is it faster (by two times and more), it will only extend the useful life of the machine down the road.

2x faster with some video editing software.

A couple of seconds faster with iTunes, Finder, Photoshop, etc., etc., etc.

The GPU is still weak.

A year from now, better performance will be available on base model macs.

 

[300D]

Is the i5 slower than the 3.06 duo core?

No. The i5 is a new design that is more powerful per clock cycle. The C2D is a 3 year old design that is soon to be phased out of production.

 

[SaSaSushi]

A year from now, better performance will be available on base model macs.

Thank you for making my argument for me.

Better performance will always be available in a year. The same will be true next year and the year after that ad infinitum. This is precisely why it is best to get the best processing power per dollar deal you can at any given time to extend the machine's usefulness as long as possible. Those who have the will and means to upgrade machines annually need not apply. As for myself, I want to be using this machine for as long as I can.

 

[yourashero]

Yeah I had a brain fart eralier and forgot about turbo boost. I think it was the 3 hours i spent on the phone ordering the computer. Between citi cards blocking my purchase and apple never letting it go through( I still don't have a confirmation emai but I'll wait thus time) I'm beat and so is my cell phone plan. And how do you get denied a large purchase on the biggest shopping day of the year. Seems pretty common to buy stuff today. But at least I saved $101 and they then upgraded my shipping to overnight when they come in.

 

[macchiato2009]

but still, applications must be optimized in order to benefit from multi core processors

i don't think it is the case at this time, not yet...

unless you are using the latest photo or video editing apps, nobody would notice the difference on a daily basis

 

[Shanpdx]

To me, the $1699 model seems unnecessary when it's just another $300 to go to a quad core. Not much for another year of useful life.

in the next revision (in 6 months) i5 750 in the the $1699, 27" has the space for i5 heat and beautiful screen to go with.

the base model will go Dual Core i5s Clarkdale.

I ordered 21.5" iMac ATI for myself about $1300 (though was targeting for i5 model) will be here in next week

Hope it a nice upgrade from my three year old Macbook!!!

 

[SaSaSushi]

but still, applications must be optimized in order to benefit from multi core processors

This just is not the case. The entire Nehalem architecture is improved from the integrated memory controller (good riddance, front side bus) to hyperthreading on the i7, turbo mode and the ability accomplish the same tasks as a Core 2 Duo with the same amount of energy or less at higher speeds.

This translates into performance increases in everyday apps. The performance boosts in apps coded to use quad cores goes without saying.

unless you are using the latest photo or video editing apps, nobody would notice the difference on a daily basis

"Notice" is an entirely subjective debate. Just from personal experience, as I mentioned, I upgraded from a Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz iMac to the i7 and it is the most noticeable boost in speed between computers I can ever recall in 20 years of using them. I'm not referring to video editing/encoding apps which I don't even use or benchmarks. I mean from the startup of the machine to individual apps like iTunes and iPhoto.

It smokes! Not literally, thankfully.

If your budget is a Core 2 Duo machine and that does what you need it do then that is absolutely the machine you should get.

On the other hand, if you can afford a quad core and plan on using the machine for the longest period of time possible I would absolutely recommend it.

But to say that the extra $300 is a waste of money which you won't notice any performance increases in unless you're a video editor is just not true.

 

[corvus32]

Just from personal experience, as I mentioned, I upgraded from a Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz iMac to the i7 and it is the most noticeable boost in speed between computers I can ever recall in 20 years of using them.

Then the speed increase I'll get from Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge should be crazy good.

 

[SaSaSushi]

Then the speed increase I'll get from Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge should be crazy good.

Touché, Corvus. Like I said, there's always something coming "next year". If you always waited for the next best thing you'd never get anything. The best we can do is get the most power for the money at any given time and hope it serves us long enough that we felt it was worth the ride when it comes time to upgrade again.

 

[macchiato2009]

This just is not the case. The entire Nehalem architecture is improved from the integrated memory controller (good riddance, front side bus) to hyperthreading on the i7, turbo mode and the ability accomplish the same tasks as a Core 2 Duo with the same amount of energy or less at higher speeds.

This translates into performance increases in everyday apps. The performance boosts in apps coded to use quad cores goes without saying.



"Notice" is an entirely subjective debate. Just from personal experience, as I mentioned, I upgraded from a Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz iMac to the i7 and it is the most noticeable boost in speed between computers I can ever recall in 20 years of using them. I'm not referring to video editing/encoding apps which I don't even use or benchmarks. I mean from the startup of the machine to individual apps like iTunes and iPhoto.

It smokes! Not literally, thankfully.

If your budget is a Core 2 Duo machine and that does what you need it do then that is absolutely the machine you should get.

On the other hand, if you can afford a quad core and plan on using the machine for the longest period of time possible I would absolutely recommend it.

But to say that the extra $300 is a waste of money which you won't notice any performance increases in unless you're a video editor is just not true.

i'm convinced that you'll see a more noticeable if you upgrade the HD to a SSD than having a ix core...

there is no need to recall computers 20 years from now...

most of the time, people do some internet, listen to music and watch movies

i bet you that you've never reached the limits of your current configuration

having the high end imac is just falling into marketing's trap

 

[SaSaSushi]

i'm convinced that you'll see a more noticeable if you upgrade the HD to a SSD than having a ix core...

How about both?

there is no need to recall computers 20 years from now...

20 years I don't need. However, I am hoping to go a good 5 years with this i7. I think I made the correct choice. I'm comfortable with it.

having the high end imac is just falling into marketing's trap

Well, some say buying a Mac period is just falling into marketing's trap.

I'll respectfully disagree with you on this one. I think the extra $500 I paid over the top end C2D model is money well spent. Time shall tell.

 

[300D]

Considering the Core2 series is about to be EOL, it doesn't make any sense to buy a computer with one.

 

[musukosan]

2x faster with some video editing software.

A couple of seconds faster with iTunes, Finder, Photoshop, etc., etc., etc.

The GPU is still weak.

A year from now, better performance will be available on base model macs.

When is that not the case? Two years from, technology will always be better then now.

 

[tdream]

This just is not the case. The entire Nehalem architecture is improved from the integrated memory controller (good riddance, front side bus) to hyperthreading on the i7, turbo mode and the ability accomplish the same tasks as a Core 2 Duo with the same amount of energy or less at higher speeds.

This translates into performance increases in everyday apps. The performance boosts in apps coded to use quad cores goes without saying.



"Notice" is an entirely subjective debate. Just from personal experience, as I mentioned, I upgraded from a Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz iMac to the i7 and it is the most noticeable boost in speed between computers I can ever recall in 20 years of using them. I'm not referring to video editing/encoding apps which I don't even use or benchmarks. I mean from the startup of the machine to individual apps like iTunes and iPhoto.

It smokes! Not literally, thankfully.

If your budget is a Core 2 Duo machine and that does what you need it do then that is absolutely the machine you should get.

On the other hand, if you can afford a quad core and plan on using the machine for the longest period of time possible I would absolutely recommend it.

But to say that the extra $300 is a waste of money which you won't notice any performance increases in unless you're a video editor is just not true.

Obviously you need to defend your purchase in your own mind. And that's fair enough. But is it a waste of money, depends on the person clearly. For you it was worth it. For real tangible reasons, I would say it is not worth it. I upgraded from an e6600 c2d to 4ghz i7 920 and while there was an improvement, it wasn't totally worth it. If you have spare change burning a hole in your pocket, then go for it. Otherwise use that $300 and buy an SSD, for sure you will notice the difference more. Also I think most people DON'T use any video compression software in their day to day computing, once off or once a year would be the most common usage pattern. So waiting a few more minutes to get the job done is hardly worth the upfront $$$.

 

[SaSaSushi]

Obviously you need to defend your purchase in your own mind. And that's fair enough.

Actually, I have neither a need nor a desire to defend to my purchase. I made the purchase because I thought it was worth it and I still do. I was simply responding to someone else's misinformation.

But is it a waste of money, depends on the person clearly.

So what do we disagree about, really? I'll go along with that. The comment I took objection with and responded to was "the extra $300 is a waste of money". There were no qualifications made by the person I took issue with.

For you it was worth it. For real tangible reasons, I would say it is not worth it.

Not worth if for you, right? Because if not, please make up your mind about it depending on the person.

Otherwise use that $300 and buy an SSD, for sure you will notice the difference more.

How are you going to install an SSD in your iMac? Are you going to do it yourself? Are you going to risk voiding the warranty by disassembling (not an easy job)? Are you going to replace the internal HD with it? Since the internal HD has a thermal sensor are you going to short it since it will no longer serve a purpose and plays a part in controlling fan speeds? Or will you remove the Superdrive and install it there?

Also I think most people DON'T use any video compression software in their day to day computing, once off or once a year would be the most common usage pattern. So waiting a few more minutes to get the job done is hardly worth the upfront $$$.

Again, to you. Video encoding is not the only advantage of the i7. For me, Hyperthreading alone made it worth the extra $200 to upgrade. HT lets your system run extra threads per processor. The Core i7 system has 4 actual cores and 4 'virtual' cores. At the moment, very few programs can take advantage of these 4 'virtual' cores, but in the near future HT use will easily become common, especially for heavy duty apps.

It's just futureproofing and like I said, if you plan on using your machine for the longest time possible there's no reason not to get the i7.

However, like you said, in the end it's all about what YOU need. To say it is a "waste" in all cases is BS and that's all I was saying.