The link you have posted shows the Geekbench 2 results. Geekbench 2 measures *only* processor and RAM speed -- nothing else. Not overall performance.
(While we're on this subject: How often does a regular user encounter a 45-second task anyway, or a 2-minute one -- in other words, the kind you see in those processor benchmarks? The difference between the two processors, in the real world, is more like .040 vs .047 secs -- in human terms, completely unnoticeable, and certainly not worth hundreds of bucks. And this is before differences in processor speed get thoroughly watered down by reads/writes and all the other factors we mentioned that are much, much slower.)
I see you're having a hard time with this.
I posted two links, one showing geekbench results, which is the closest your going to get to a pure processor comparison. The second overall performance.
Since the amount of RAM is equal in each machine the processor was the main factor in the comparison speeds. The second provided overall performance numbers. And you notice that HD, Graphic cards, hardly play a part at all as much as you suggest. So what exactly is your point? Your saying that a machine and the imacs in question get watered down by reads/writes and all the other factors mentioned. What thread are you reading?
First of all, we are comparing imacs, with very little differences in HD read-write speeds if any at all. Secondly with very little difference in overall computer performance where the Graphic card is concerned. The second link comparing the various imacs prove as much. There is very little difference between the base imac and the top of the line C2D machines when the processor is running at the same speed. Regardless of HD, or the graphic card. Did you miss that fact?
I have owned both machines with both processors. And the numbers don't lie. I don't where you're picking numbers out of a hat. You can't just say the difference is .040 and .047 seconds. Sorry it doesn't work like that. The bigger the task and the longer the task the more you will see a bigger difference. The amount of benefit depends on what application you are using or how big a file you are moving etc.
I did the numbers myself, on my imac 3.33 C2D. Timed them myself. They are accurate, as much as a digital stopwatch will allow. Sorry buddy, your wrong. If you get a processor that is 11% faster in speed you will see a difference in certain tasks and certain applications and every day usage. That is a fact. Defiantly more so than a better graphic card or bigger HD will give. As I have proven to you. Go click the link again for reference.
Small tasks, no you will not see much difference. Transfer 40GB of photos from a different laptop to a imac and you will see a big difference.
My whole point is that if you're trying to decide on a 21.5 imac and the choices are a 1200 dollar one and a 1500 dollar one and your looking for the best performance for your dollar. The 1200 one with the $200 processor upgrade is a better buy than the 1500 dollar one with a better graphic card and bigger HD if every day computing speed is your main concern.
And my earlier post explained this. Your just guessing, I am not. Big difference.
"While we're on this subject: How often does a regular user encounter a 45-second task anyway, or a 2-minute one -- in other words, the kind you see in those processor benchmarks? The difference between the two processors, in the real world, is more like .040 vs .047 secs -- in human terms
Are you serious? Millions of imac owners sees this about every day. That is common when you actually need your computer for work or engineering and just every day use. It's 45 seconds not 45 min.
And yes that would be "human terms". Not robot terms.
