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

Muttster

macrumors member
Original poster
Jan 28, 2007
36
0
I will soon be in the market to upgrade my computer (2006 Mac Pro) and I'm looking at the refurbished imacs. The prices seem reasonable but I'm confused about the processors. The cheapest is the 3.33 Core 2 Duo followed by an 3.2 Intel i3 and a 3 Intel i5. There is a significant difference in price between the i3 and the i5 and not a big difference between the core 2 Duo and the i3. My question here is there a significant difference in performance between these 3 processors and and especially between the i3 and i5 to justify a $150 difference?

If there is anything else that I should be looking at, please let me know.
 
Mostly for word processing, internet and very light gaming along with using handbrake and iphoto.
 
I'd get the i3 just to be sure it'll last you for a while. The 3.2gz i3 also has the mobility 5730, which should meet your gaming needs a good bit better than what the dual core option provides.

Overall it's a bit safer buy that is potentially more futureproof for a small amount of money.
 
A response I gave in another thread that somewhat fits here as well.

In my admittedly limited experience, phrases such as "compared to what is out there" desperately needs to be understood as being relative.

I am definitely not challenging what you said because you are 100% right: Compared to what is out there, the GPU is not the bleeding edge of current technology.

However, doing a bit more than a recreational amount and a lot less than professional amount of photoshop and video editing, I've seen middle pack hardware specs be not only adequate but measurably and observably close to the bleeding edge.

As you step to the upper echelons of pro-sumer hardware specs the differences start becoming minuscule relative to their differences from end of the pack specs. Therefor, things such as "performance" need to be strongly challenged against real word benefits if you are interested in the monetary value of it.

Long winded way of saying: when you climb over the $1200-1500 range... Unless you are a professional power user, performance differences should be negligible.

If a slightly faster processor saves me say 30 seconds over the course of one photoshop session and I do this say, 15 times a month this equals: 7.5 minutes a month or 90 minutes a year. If this faster processor cost me an extra $300 I paid: $3.33 a minute.... or, $200 an hour.... A lot of money.

BUT, if I saved 30 seconds a project and did 100s of projects a month, then it becomes extremely cheap and perhaps could get in the black by EARNING you money (or delivering enjoyment) by getting you finished with projects and on to others.

Just another way of looking at all this tech stuff. If the GPU does not serve you or make you happy then by all means buy whatever it takes to make you happy. This is what its all about anyway. Just wanted to point the relative cost of things. Bulk buying has the same principle. No matter what I tell my wife, we do not need a 12 pack of baby grand pianos just because they are cheaper per unit...

In closing. I would pay upwards of $500+ for an iphone because of what it does for me and all the gadgets I've been able to get rid of and avoid buying because of it. Relative, to me, it's an insanely cheap piece of equipment at $199. On the other side, spending $60 on my TV bill aggravates me because of the minimal time I watch it and the even more minimal amount of enjoyment I get out of it. But until cup cake wars gets on netflix streaming, my wife says we're keeping it. $60 for 1 TV show... geesh.
 
Also, on the refub site, there is difference between the graphics cards on the i3 and i5.

Also, the i5 is a quad core while the i3 is dual.

The i3 has hyperthreading but not turbo boost.

The i5 has turbo boost but not hyperthreading.

The i5 graphics card is the better 5750 but the real world $ difference in that card from the 5670 is like $30 I think so.. for $260 you get a better graphics card, 2 more cores, and turbo boost but lack hyperthreading which you could argue is not necessary because you have 2 more physical cores.

Read my above post and then decide if you need it.
 
Wrong.

The i5 has turbo boost AND hyperthreading, which gives it 4 actual cores, and 8 virtual.

...lol. :rolleyes:

The 27" i5 on the refurb site is the quadcore 2.8Ghz. Which according to this:
http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html supports turboboost only.

If he was speaking of 3.6 DUAL core i5, which there are none on the refurb site at this moment so I'm guessing he's not, then yes, you would be correct.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd get the i3 just to be sure it'll last you for a while. The 3.2gz i3 also has the mobility 5730, which should meet your gaming needs a good bit better than what the dual core option provides.

Overall it's a bit safer buy that is potentially more futureproof for a small amount of money.

I agree with TMRaven
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.