So, i5 upgrade on 21,5" worths or not?

[spiffy05]

What would you do for photo and gaming?

Keep in mind that I am far from an expert here, but I'll try to bring together what others have mentioned in this forum for you:

i5 quad core is better for VIDEO encoding at this time. If you're strictly using Photoshop to edit family photos, get the i3 and upgrade the RAM.

For gaming, get an xbox or ps3

 

[diegobgr]

Keep in mind that I am far from an expert here, but I'll try to bring together what others have mentioned in this forum for you:

i5 quad core is better for VIDEO encoding at this time. If you're strictly using Photoshop to edit family photos, get the i3 and upgrade the RAM.

For gaming, get an xbox or ps3

I will get one, but, there are some PC games that I want to play, like Starcraft 2.

Well, I will go to the Store (a Premium Reseller), and get the i3, and Apple Care.

Thanks!

 

[lwien]

Deleted...........double post.

 

[lwien]

For gaming, get an xbox or ps3

Didn't know that you could play Starcraft or WoW on a console.

 

[spiffy05]

Didn't know that you could play Starcraft or WoW on a console.

Don't get me wrong - I'm picking up SC2 tonight about 15 minutes after I unbox my new iMac... and I'm REALLY hoping that it's going to be fast enough to survive Diablo 3 when it (eventually) comes out. I (un?) fortunately just don't have the time to invest in WoW anymore.

But for the majority of games, I think it's a lot more financially justifiable to pick up a console. Especially if you don't make the $200 upgrade to the i5, which (again no expert here, but) early benchmarks seem to show doesn't make that big a difference.

 

[lwien]

Especially if you don't make the $200 upgrade to the i5, which (again no expert here, but) early benchmarks seem to show doesn't make that big a difference.

Check out the following thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/985322/

It seems that one can get an i5 upgrade without spending an extra 200 bucks like you would have to do thru Apple.

 

[Tigerman82]

I found a very comparison page (some German page where there were listed these benchmark-scores for each processor) when I started to look 3DMARK Vantage CPU scores for i3 550 and i5 680. Check this out:

(The first score is the i3 and second the i5)

3DMark Vantage - CPU-Score 9363 10716
Tom Clancy's HAWX DX10.1 [800x600, Low] 250 fps 265 fps
Tom Clancy's HAWX DX10.1 [1680x1050, High] 109 fps 109 fps
Far Cry 2 [800x600, Low] 111 fps 121 fps
Far Cry 2 [1680x1050, High] 86 fps 93 fps
Resident Evil 5 [800x600, Low] 110 fps 117 fps
Resident Evil 5 [1680x1050, High] 80 fps 89 fps
Hardware.Info Photoshop CS4 benchmark 36 sec. 31 sec.
Panorama Factory v5 - 8x12MP panorama 177 sec. 152 sec.
720p MPEG2 naar x264 - Pass 1 53.80 fps 60.98 fps
720p MPEG2 naar x264 - Pass 2 14.95 fps 17.11 fps
Cyberlink MediaShow Espresso 5.5 276 sec. 240 sec.
Cyberlink PowerDirector 8 511 sec. 441 sec.
60 min. audio naar FLAC (fpFLAC) 45.24 sec. 38.00 sec.
60 min. audio naar MP3 (fpMP3) 43.54 sec. 37.56 sec.
Cinebench 11.5 2.71 3.11
PovRay 3.7b37 – Chess 2 1024x768 72 sec. 62 sec.
WinRAR 3.93 - 317 MB data 47 sec. 44 sec.
7Zip - 317 MB data 90 sec. 79 sec.
TrueCrypt AES encryptie 262 MB/s 305 MB/s
Microsoft Excel 2010 - MonteCarlo benchmark 14.5 sec. 12.6 sec.
Stroomverbruik - Idle 99 W 99 W
Stroomverbruik - Cinebench 11.5 136 W 145 W

And of course there's the Geekbench-score where i3 550 iMacs will get around 5800-6000 points and i5 680 iMacs will get 6800-7000 points.

I would say, taking into account these benchmarks, that the i5 is indeed a little under 10% more efficient than the i3. I would imagine that this would mean 6-10 FPS more gamingwise -- roughly speaking of course. That's not a big difference although I guess it would suck in a situation where you are getting something like 30-35 FPS and lag -- i5 could in theory push the FPS to closer to about 45 FPS. I guess that still isn't quite as good as one would hope. In fact, I guess one might reason that 6-10 FPS does not help: if your framerate is excellent with the i3 to begin with then you don't notice the difference, and if your framerate is 30FPS or worse than 6-10 FPS will not make the game shine -- you are forced to lower your settings anyway.

I hate to say it but it does seem like getting the i5 gives you very little and only in very limited situations makes the performance noticiably better (where i3's performance would be less than good). I've heard that in quad cores the difference between the i5 and the i7 is basically over twice as much as the difference between i3 550 and i5 680 seems to be (Geekbench score difference for the quad cores was about 3000 points compared to the 800-1000 points of i3 550 vs. i5 680).

It took a lot of digging around but I guess I have finally satisfied myself and will choose the i3 550 iMac. I know it's a good strategy in my situation (where I will use this iMac for at least 4 years) to buy the best you can get, but that $200 dollars is a bit too much for mostly peace of mind and nothing else. It's not a lot of money but if it doesn't give you anything, you should save it.

 

[SkyMasterson]

I found a very comparison page when I started to look 3DMARK Vantage CPU scores for i3 550 and i5 680. Check this out:

(The first score is the i3 and second the i5)

3DMark Vantage - CPU-Score 9363 10716
Tom Clancy's HAWX DX10.1 [800x600, Low] 250 fps 265 fps
Tom Clancy's HAWX DX10.1 [1680x1050, High] 109 fps 109 fps
Far Cry 2 [800x600, Low] 111 fps 121 fps
Far Cry 2 [1680x1050, High] 86 fps 93 fps
Resident Evil 5 [800x600, Low] 110 fps 117 fps
Resident Evil 5 [1680x1050, High] 80 fps 89 fps
Hardware.Info Photoshop CS4 benchmark 36 sec. 31 sec.
Panorama Factory v5 - 8x12MP panorama 177 sec. 152 sec.
720p MPEG2 naar x264 - Pass 1 53.80 fps 60.98 fps
720p MPEG2 naar x264 - Pass 2 14.95 fps 17.11 fps
Cyberlink MediaShow Espresso 5.5 276 sec. 240 sec.
Cyberlink PowerDirector 8 511 sec. 441 sec.
60 min. audio naar FLAC (fpFLAC) 45.24 sec. 38.00 sec.
60 min. audio naar MP3 (fpMP3) 43.54 sec. 37.56 sec.
Cinebench 11.5 2.71 3.11
PovRay 3.7b37 – Chess 2 1024x768 72 sec. 62 sec.
WinRAR 3.93 - 317 MB data 47 sec. 44 sec.
7Zip - 317 MB data 90 sec. 79 sec.
TrueCrypt AES encryptie 262 MB/s 305 MB/s
Microsoft Excel 2010 - MonteCarlo benchmark 14.5 sec. 12.6 sec.
Stroomverbruik - Idle 99 W 99 W
Stroomverbruik - Cinebench 11.5 136 W 145 W

I'd be interested to know wha tthe diff in fps with sc2 is. Actually I think I saw a site that did it but I don't recall what it was too lazy to look. Anyone see it?

 

[Tigerman82]

I'd be interested to know wha tthe diff in fps with sc2 is. Actually I think I saw a site that did it but I don't recall what it was too lazy to look. Anyone see it?

I've tried to find them but haven't. They would be interesting and would certainly fortify my decision. For example, if the high-end i3 iMac only got something like 25-35 FPS with nice settings, the i5 680 iMac would probably get something like 40-45 FPS. That isn't that good either, I guess. I mean even in that situation it would be best to lower settings, no?

 

[Tigerman82]

I found this performance guide for Starcraft 2 from the SC-site:

Mid 2010 Core i3/i5 iMac with ATI 5670 Graphics Card

Textures:

Texture Quality: Medium

Graphics:

Graphics Quality: Custom

Shaders: Medium

Lighting: Low

Shadows: Medium

Terrain: High

Reflections: On

Effects: High

Post-Processing: High

Physics: High

Models: High

Unit Portraits: 3D

Movies: High Definition

Notes: Expect an average of 60fps.

As you can see, they aren't giving any edge to i5 680. On the other hand, they aren't giving any edge to i7 as well so I guess that isn't the whole truth. They are also recommending that the RAM amount should be 6 gigs or more.

So let's say that i5 680 gives you 60 FPS and i3 550 only 50-55 FPS. Is 50-55 FPS noticiably worse than 60 FPS? I doubt it. On the other hand, if you would make those settings any higher with the i5 iMac, I doubt to game would be as playable. Moreover, you can also use extra $200 for more RAM and make it 8 gigs in total. That should have an affect on SC2 -- as it clearly seems to make use of the RAM.

That's it. I'm convinced. I'm getting the high-end 21.5" iMac i3 550. I don't need further proof.

 

[diegobgr]

That's it. I'm convinced. I'm getting the high-end 21.5" iMac i3 550. I don't need further proof.

So it's not worth? What about future?

I think that, about gaming, we'll have a bottleneck due to 5670.

 

[Tigerman82]

So it's not worth? What about future?

I think that, about gaming, we'll have a bottleneck due to 5670.

Yeah, the GPU is going to be a bottleneck sooner or later. As for the i5 680 and the future... The performance difference between it and i3 550 seems to be so small that it won't outlast the i3. I guess futureproofing would be something like choosing a quad core processor but since they are not available for the 21.5" model we have to get by with the dual cores. Anyway, I think the addition of hyperthreading to these new iMac dual core cpus is the most important thing futurewise -- hyperthreading, which i3 cpus have, is futureproofing.

i5 680 does have Turbo Boost (the other stuff it has that i3 hasn't don't really concern a home user) but I've seen no evidence, especially with the dual cores, that Turbo Boost will be a big help. I mean applications like Firefox and such... We don't even notice a performance difference in them. And with games... Well correct me if I'm wrong but don't today's games already take advantage of multiple processors. In other words, Turbo Boost isn't going to kick in in Starcraft 2 -- or have I been mistaken?

I know there is a temptation to get it. You are paying well over a thousand bucks for the iMac anyway so why not another $200 more -- if it gets you some more juice. However, I think the point here is that all evidence points to you not seeing the difference between i3 and i5 in real-life usage. $200 is over 10% of the iMac's price so it should do more.

I'm buying my iMac with a student discount (over 10%) so I might still have a temptation to opt for the i5. However, those years when I had to get the latest and greatest toys are over. Today I want to buy quality (still something that is a little better than I need) but I also don't want to pay the premium for something I'm not going to use.

I guess the situation is same as it was with choosing the screen size. Everyone is saying the bigger the screen the better, and the 27" has that cool factor. Even though I don't need all that space, see cons in owning that big a screen and don't have enough space on my desk to fit it, I almost gave in. Luckily I came to my senses. I guess I have to be sensible here as well. i5 would be a "cool" choice, but do I really want to pay for "coolness"?

 

[diegobgr]

I'm a step from make the order of i3 + Apple Care, and I still save some $ over i5.

But, I doubt

 

[lwien]

So now my question is, would an extra 4 Gigs of ram make more sense than going for an i5 when considering playing WoW and/or Starcraft?

 

[Tigerman82]

I'm a step from make the order of i3 + Apple Care, and I still some $ over i5.

But, I doubt

I know what you mean. I think the problem here is that we are under the illusion that i5 680 being the most expensive cpu you can have for 21.5" iMac has the performance that often the most expensive options have -- like the i7 for instance. But this doesn't seem to be the case. So while you might be thinking that you have the highest end 21.5" iMac right now you actually have a barely better iMac than the i3 550 iMac is.

Don't get me wrong, if someone provides a better assessment of the performance difference between i3 and i5, I will certainly change my view. However, I'm not seeing that much difference currently.

 

[selfdisplaced]

just spend the extra money and get the i5, you'll be happy you did in the near future.

it seems alot of people are just tooting their horn trying to justify them saving a little bit of money and going with the low end iMac.

 

[Tigerman82]

So now my question is, would an extra 4 Gigs of ram make more sense than going for an i5 when considering playing WoW and/or Starcraft?

Well I've heard that WoW is heavily CPU-dependend. On the other hand, the guy in our forum that just had the iMac 21.5" i5 680 (with 8 gigs of RAM) posted his WoW "ultra" framerate which was first about 31 FPS and then about 42 FPS. However, I found two comments where a base model (3.06GhZ i3) owner got 32-35 FPS and where a i3 550 owner got around 50 FPS. I think this tells us that either WoW doesn't show correct framerates or that the i5 is not really better in that game than both the i3s. Verdict: i5 isn't worth it when playing WoW.

As for SC2... They recommend a lot of RAM so I would imagine 8 gigs of RAM will make a difference when compared to 4 gigs. When looking at the recommended setting for the Quad Core iMacs and comparing them to the Dual Core iMacs, it would seem that GPU is more important than CPU. Otherwise the Quad Core settings would be clearly higher than the Dual Core settings -- as Quad Cores should be way more efficient.

 

[Tigerman82]

just spend the extra money and get the i5, you'll be happy you did in the near future.

it seems alot of people are just tooting their horn trying to justify them saving a little bit of money and going with the low end iMac.

I've never bought anything in order to save. In this case however it feels like you won't be getting that much more (even in the future) from the i5 and it costs a lot -- relatively speaking. All the reviews are saying what a lousy investment the i5 is. Of course if you can show that i5 makes the 21.5" iMac way better than sticking with the i3 then I will obviously change my mind.

As I said just now, I think it's the illusion of the greatness of the i5 that is making this difficult. We are thinking that because it's the most expensive and best cpu we can get for the 21.5" iMac, it must be extremely good. However, every benchmark and review seem to suggest that A) it is way overpriced and B) it gives you a maximum of 10% edge over the i3. Finally, Turbo Boost isn't going to help in the future (as the future is multiple cores and Turbo Boost is for situation where only one core is needed) and, as stated, Turbo Boost is really only important with Quad Core setups.

 

[selfdisplaced]

it's easy sense...

$300 price diff. for bigger hd, better gpu and < 200mhz

then next step, 200$ price diff.

but the thing i find interesting is how one supports one way or the other really, even when the only supporting argument for not doing the upgrade is that data doesn't show anything then in same breath saying there is no data (which there isn't)

 

[Nihilvor]

However, every benchmark and review seem to suggest that A) it is way overpriced and B) it gives you a maximum of 10% edge over the i3.

No, the benchmarks do not show that. It's actually higher than "some" people expected. People were simply guessing before they had their hands on the machine (see its impressive Geekbench scores or read posts by people who bought them, but who had to wait a few extra days for delivery because of customizations). It's a pretty good deal, doubly so if you can get it with a discount or refurbished. Of course it's also a matter of whether you want (or can afford to) invest in something that can only be done up front and purchase more ram later.

 

[Poob Bubes]

Two new Geekbench scores posted (4GB of ram): iMac i5 680

 

[Felias]

still no 64bit-benchmarks though... that's when the "real" quadcore i5 should boost compared to the dual-core i3.

For overall performance/price-comparisons see this thread.

 

[Tigerman82]

No, the benchmarks do not show that. It's actually higher than "some" people expected. People were simply guessing before they had their hands on the machine (see its impressive Geekbench scores or read posts by people who bought them, but who had to wait a few extra days for delivery because of customizations). It's a pretty good deal, doubly so if you can get it with a discount or refurbished. Of course it's also a matter of whether you want (or can afford to) invest in something that can only be done up front and purchase more ram later.

I'm not seeing this through the numbers, though. I came up with several benchmarks for this thread (see above) comparing i3 550 and i6 680, and none of them show a performance increase higher than 10% -- I'm not just relying on the Geekbench-score. I do have the money to buy the i5 option (especially since I'm getting the iMac with my student discount) but I don't want an upgrage if it doesn't help that much.

Two new Geekbench scores posted (4GB of ram): iMac i5 680

I think it's pretty safe to say that the i5 680 iMac will always give around 6800-7000 points in the 32-bit test.

 

[Tigerman82]

but the thing i find interesting is how one supports one way or the other really, even when the only supporting argument for not doing the upgrade is that data doesn't show anything then in same breath saying there is no data (which there isn't)

Well there is data. It's not the best data to be making these arguments but nevertheless it's there. Those benchmark scores do give us a sense of what the difference would be. I guess for a basic user who doesn't do heavy editing and encoding, the most important benchmark is the gaming benchmark -- as with using Spotify, Firefox etc. it makes little difference if you have the base i3 or the quad i7. I've seen around ten comparison benchmarks of i3 550 and i5 680 and they all show a maximum of 6-10 FPS more for the i5. On the other hand, games like WoW seem to show basically no difference between these cpus.

Is a maximum 6-10 FPS more worth $200? Can that increase in framerate be seen clearly in the game?

I know we don't have enough good data to thinking these numbers are actually correct, but I guess that's all that we have -- and we have to make a decision.

 

[SiMBa37]

I'm not seeing this through the numbers, though. I came up with several benchmarks for this thread (see above) comparing i3 550 and i6 680, and none of them show a performance increase higher than 10% -- I'm not just relying on the Geekbench-score. I do have the money to buy the i5 option (especially since I'm getting the iMac with my student discount) but I don't want an upgrage if it doesn't help that much.

Again, same boat here. Another reason the 21.5" i3 3.2 1TB makes me more comfortable is if something goes wrong (yellow screen, fan noise), I can bring it right back to the Genius bar, I won't have to navigate phone customer service and wait for shipping. Small difference in the long run, but just a bit more convenience.