Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

i5 slower than 3.06

Most definitely for the average user SSD will give a much much better performance obviously. But it also depends on the kind of SSD... I just don't think the market is truly ready for SSD yet, but that is changing fast.

I am not sure if swapping the HD for an SSD would void the warranty...


edit: I just realized Apple is using internal fans for HD... so it's probably not going to be easy.


Core i5 along with the HD 4850 is a good upgrade though. It is the best bang for the buck.
 
corvus32 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I see a fair number of comments like this. They are from people who don't understand OS X internals, multiple physical cores, threading, and how applications interact with all three.

OS X itself is heavily multi-threaded. Keep an Activity Monitor CPU History running and you will see routine tasks use 4 cores, especially disk and network i/o.

Many more apps are multi proc or thread aware than people realize. Not just video apps. This is because Macs have had dual core procs for many years before single procs with multiple cores were available.

Use a quad or more core Mac and you will very quickly realize how many seemingly mundane activities cause slowdowns even with a dual core Mac but qaud or more core Macs plow right through them and keep on going. with no slowdown in any other activities. I already don't want to use my 2.8ghz MBP because my i7 iMac is so much better. There is a general feel of smoothness and speed that you don't get with lesser cores.

You will see an onslaught of multi-core/threads apps this year because of Snow Leopard and Grand Central.

Right now the OS, video apps, photography apps and a number of Apple's built in apps support multi-threading as well as a variety of apps that fit none of these categories. Compiling code is dramatically faster. Plenty of casual users also use photography and video apps.
 
DarwinOSX said:
I see a fair number of comments like this.
Click to expand...
Quad core has been mainstream since the Q6600 hit $266. You could have picked one up from Fry's Electronics for $179 back in late 2007.

I believe the focus on solely Apple's hardware has led to the belief that quad core denotes professional or excess. Today the entry level for a quad core hovers around $99 for the processor.
 
tdream said:
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.
Click to expand...

Obviously you were using Windows. Windows is crap at taking advantage of multi-core, procs, and large amounts of memory. Windows 7 is half the speed of Snow Leopard when multi-tasking. Few desktop Windows apps are multi-thread aware because very few desktop PC's have more than one proc and dual core has not been around long enough to change that. It is difficult to develop threaded multi-core Windows apps and the OS itself holds you back no matter what you do in development.

OS X is Unix.

Eidorian said:
Quad core has been mainstream since the Q6600 hit $266. You could have picked one up from Fry's Electronics for $179 back in late 2007.

I believe the focus on solely Apple's hardware has led to the belief that quad core denotes professional or excess. Today the entry level for a quad core hovers around $99 for the processor.
Click to expand...

I'm quite aware of this. It has nothing to do with anything I said so I don't know what your point is.

"I believe the focus on solely Apple's hardware has led to the belief that quad core denotes professional or excess."

I have no idea what you mean by this. Knowledgeable users want multi-core/procs and highly scalable multi-thread OS' and apps for all the reasons I have already stated.
 
DarwinOSX said:
I'm quite aware of this. It has nothing to do with anything I said so I don't know what your point is.
Click to expand...
I didn't see a need to talk beyond the hardware itself because I was expecting a reply like the following.

DarwinOSX said:
Obviously you were using Windows. Windows is crap at taking advantage of multi-core, procs, and large amounts of memory. Windows 7 is half the speed of Snow Leopard when multi-tasking. Few desktop Windows apps are multi-thread aware because very few desktop PC's have more than one proc and dual core has not been around long enough to change that. It is difficult to develop threaded multi-core Windows apps and the OS itself holds you back no matter what you do in development.

OS X is Unix.
Click to expand...
 
A few days ago I noticed that Lightroom 3 (beta) uses all 4 cores of my i5. Since I use LR a lot, I'm glad I went for a quad core :)
 
Eidorian said:
I didn't see a need to talk beyond the hardware itself because I was expecting a reply like the following.
Click to expand...

You didn't talk about the hardware. You didn't talk about anything. You posted a reply to my comment that had nothing to do with my comment. Now, if you have the knowledge to refute what i have said then do it. Because I know what i am talking about. I know Windows and Unix internals quite well and have for 20+ years. It's my business to know. So fire away. Lets hear some facts to debunk what i said.
 
I think the major component here is what people see as the best value for them. I purchased a C2D 27" last month and to me its lightning fast, now my old mac was a G4 Mini 1.2 (which still runs strong to this day) so it was a major jump for me. I was planning on getting the top 21.5 model, but the 27" screen was just to hard to pass up. The C2D seems fast enough for me - I use the iLife suite, Bento, Pages, handbrake some movies from time to time, very few games (Xbox 360 for that) although AOE III at native res and max details runs silky smooth. Do I want the quad - sure! do I need the quad - nope. If i were a power gamer or did a lot of video/3D work then the answer would have been quad hands down. I already moved up to the next price bracket on the screen so I didn't feel that I needed spend over $2000.00 for a quality machine. I'm sure the C2D will work just fine over the next 3 years and I feel my investment was well spent.

The quad is FAST, but the C2D gets the job done as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back