iMac core2duo or iMac i5 quad core

[notso bad]

<p>If you were in the market for a new iMac computer which would be preferable? I guess what I am really asking, is it worth $300 to move from the imac 27 core2 3.06 to the imac 27 i5 processor and get the quad core?<br>

I am using a powermac g5 dual 1.8 (early 2005) with 3gb RAM and find the 20MB RAW files slow to load etc on aperture. I use aperture, ilife, some photoshop and might move up to final cut express next year. (from the old imovieHD). This slowing down and my desire for an upgrade in monitor is pushing me to buy a new iMac.<br>

I know that people on this forum have recommended the i7 version, but I am skeptical that the extra $500 over the base iMac 27 will really make a difference over the next 4-5 years. Buying the i7 chip is 30% more expensive than the base iMac 27. I mean it may be smarter to save that $500 now and upgrade a year earlier next time. (either way I expect to spend $100 on aftermarket RAM and go to 8GB)<br>

Since I have zero experience outside my own machine, your advice is appreciated. Thanks</p>

[steven_p]

<p>I think the i5 would more than suit your needs. It is typical of Apple to offer a marginal upgrade on their highest end computer at an overly inflated price.</p>

<p>Though the information doesn't include the i5 or i7's, it is good read on performance using multiple cores:</p>

<p>"http://macperformanceguide.com/"</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Yeah, so the $200 price difference between the i5 and the i7 is in line with Intel's price structure plus typical OEM markup. Nothing to do with Apple</p>

<p>But anyway. the iLife stuff and almost everything in Photoshop does not benefit from going to four cores. Aperture gets some advantage, and Final Cut gets a worthwhile bump in render speed. As you know, the most important factor is going to be the ram upgrade. Is the i7 worth it?... Maybe, maybe not, your call.</p>

[notso bad]

<p>It sounds like the core 2 duo is a better value then , then either the i5 or i7.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I should also say, the trend is towards making software better able to use multiple cores. Having the 4 core could extend the useful life of the computer by a year or two.</p>

[steven_p]

<p>I've been playing with the Lightroom beta. Watching my mac's cpu use in the activity monitor, it uses both cores harder than the current 2.5, and actually seems slower.</p>

<p>It makes me wonder how it performs with a quad machine. Andrew is correct about most current software not taking advantage of all cores.</p>

<p>I have a feeling that by the time quad processors are more common in laptops, the software will be coded to take advantage of this.</p>

[kyleweems]

<p>As mentioned above, most software doesn't take advantage of multiple cores, especially not more than two.</p>

<p>However, there are two additional points to consider..</p>

<p>1) With the introduction of Grand Central in Snow Leopard designing software for multi-core got a LOT easier.. so more software will start to leverage that in the future.</p>

<p>2) Photoshop is not likely one of those software packages. The way it is designed, the way it functions and processes things.. just doesn't lend itself to multi-core usage. They would have to fundamentally alter how the software works in order to do this, and even then some things just don't work that way. So yea, I wouldn't count on having a billion cores helping PS much.. just stick to going nuts with RAM (64bit architecture can theoretically handle what, 192gb? first one to do it gets a high five!)</p>

<p>Kyle</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Yes you should do the upgrade for 200$ from the 27 inch Quad i5 to the quad i7 2.83..why? because the i7 have also a better video card, can go into turbo mode so it overclock itself to 3.23 or so in need, have a better way of using the multicore and for demanding application like Photoshop is the way to go..if you work with image that are heavy enough..not just your typical 50meg images. Lr3 and CS5 should take care of that in a near future...</p>

<p>Since you are changing or upgrading from a MacPro i strongly suggest you take the biggest Imac and put 8gig ram in it..at least, this is what im going to do when the shipping change from Novemeber to 24hre on there Canadian web site ; )</p>

[notso bad]

<p>Actually i was planning to stick with the core 2 duo, but now I might spend more to get the i5, after reading these comments.<br>

Interestingly, the writer of macperformanceguide.com, suggested by Stephen above, concludes that upgrading processor is a waste of money.<br>

In the long run, if I do the math, I am better off buying the cheaper processor and upgrading more often than spending up now and trying to squeeze another 1-2 yrs out of the high end computer. </p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Notso, i dont think whe read the same article...</p>

<p>http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2009-10-blog.html#_20091020Apple_iMac</p>

<p><strong>CPU speed</strong> — <em><strong>go for quad-core; this is mandatory if you want good Photoshop and/or Lightroom performance now and moving forward</strong> </em> . Also, hyperthreading works extremely well with most programs, so <em><strong>it is well worth the +10% cost bump</strong> </em> to go with the 2.8GHz Intel Core i7 instead of the 2.66GHz Intel Core i7; you get a 5% faster clock speed, <em>and</em> you get eight virtual cores instead of four, which will serve you well over time. <em><strong>With the 2.8GHz Core i7, speeds should be very comparable to a Mac Pro,</strong> </em> assuming disk I/O is not a factor.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>The comment on hyperthreading is way off. HT in a quad core only improves the speed of a select few applications - the ones that scale well enough that adding 10% by going from 4 threads to 8 outweighs the performance hit from inefficient multithreading. This is limited to very few apps - for example, if you render in mental ray or Vray you want HT, but if you Photoshop you don't care. Note that as I said, this situation will improve during the expected lifetime of a computer bought now, but don't expect any miracles from HT (and for most purposes, don't expect a noticeable effect at all).</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p><em>Yeah, so the $200 price difference between the i5 and the i7 is in line with Intel's price structure plus typical OEM markup. Nothing to do with Apple</em><br>

<em> But anyway.</em></p>

<p>Nothing to do with Apple? Gosh some sure drink the koolaid don't they. The price difference Apple pays between the two cpu's is minimal but, like most, will gouge the punter when possible.</p>

<p>But anyway.</p>

<p>Patrick speaks sage advice. The price difference is small but the improvements huge.</p>

<p><em>Interestingly, the writer of macperformanceguide.com, suggested by Stephen above, concludes that upgrading processor is a waste of money.</em></p>

<p>Only with today's software but not tomorrows. How long will this computer last you? Four years? Try running CS6 and LR4 on these two different computers in four years. Note the article:</p>

<p><em>you get a 5% faster clock speed, <em>and</em> you get eight virtual cores instead of four, which will serve you well over time.</em></p>

<p>More cores are always better. Especially when you are multi tasking with more than one application open.</p>

<p>But why an iMac? Very expensive for an average monitor and no upgrade options. Worse yet, only one hard drive. I call them over grown laptops that you can't use as a laptop :)</p>

<p>I'd consider building your own box up from newegg with a 24" NEC monitor and skipping the Apple Tax.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>The price difference Apple pays between the two cpu's is minimal</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's about $100, so the markup is consistent with most cost-to-retail markups.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>Can you qualify that somehow?</p>

<p>I know that what they pay for xeons is peanuts compared to what the rest of the wholesale world pays.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>The quantity price is about $100 difference for the two processors that Apple uses. Although that may shrink a bit at their volumes, having worked for Intel, I know that price deltas are important to them, often more than the absolute price.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>Jeff, even with their smaller purchase numbers, they still get a better deal than Dell/HP or the wholesale places like newegg. This is why we saw dual xeons in Mac Pro's for affordable prices and not in Dell/HP. Unless you went into server territory of course.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, it's not the same amount that they are simply passing onto their customers. I'd bet a pay cheque that it's alot less than $100 difference. But I'm more curious why they are a year behind and release i7</p>

<p> </p>