i5 v i7 purchases.

warriorz · Jul 11, 2013

Hi all,

Anyone bought an i5 or i7 based in the trickle of reports now in, coming in, such as the obvious Anandtech comparison report? If so which processor did you end up deciding to go for and why? I'm edging toward the i5 just to eek out a bit more battery and keep low heat/ fans hopefully!

mattferg · Jul 11, 2013

warriorz said:
Hi all,

Anyone bought an i5 or i7 based in the trickle of reports now in, coming in, such as the obvious Anandtech comparison report? If so which processor did you end up deciding to go for and why? I'm edging toward the i5 just to eek out a bit more battery and keep low heat/ fans hopefully!

i5. i7 is a waste of money - minimum performance gains or none for most users, plus a lower battery life and louder fans.

Also, on another note we've had a bazillion of these i5 vs i7 threads, please stop creating them, just search in future.

Jazwire · Jul 11, 2013

I have both, wife has i5 , I have i7.

I do occasionally game on mine, and its a decent FPS boost for the games I play. (Minecraft, LoL, Diablo3, example LoL has roughly 8-10 fps more than my wifes i5.)

Under normal circumstances my i7 doesn't get hotter than the i5, nor are the fans louder, since they don't come on really on either unit. Unless the CPU is being heavily stressed, unless I am gaming the fan never comes on.

Both units when just doing light work, browsing email etc, literally stay almost cold to the touch.

The whole i7 getting "hot" is imo a bunch of people justifying there stance on picking the i5.

To the touch my i7 doesn't get any warmer to the touch than the i5, now if you are stressing both machines out maybe the i5 will get to 90 and the i7 to 93 but at that temp its not like, you can differentiate that much. Both feel dang warm.

I do agree with not buying the i7 if you dont need it, why waste the money, if you arent going to game ever, if you arent going to do extremely cpu intensive tasks where you are pushing CPU to near 100% range. Then the i7 is a waste of money.

But the whole i7 is hot like a frying pan, is pure crap.

ZBoater · Jul 11, 2013

mattferg said:
i5. i7 is a waste of money - minimum performance gains or none for most users, plus a lower battery life and louder fans.

Also, on another note we've had a bazillion of these i5 vs i7 threads, please stop creating them, just search in future.

That's last year's old news. This year, the i7 is easily worth $150.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u/5

mattferg · Jul 11, 2013

ZBoater said:
That's last year's old news. This year, the i7 is easily worth $150.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u/5

lol no it isn't. It's more expensive than last year's i7 AND the review you linked me to actually says the i5 is better! Hahahahaha

As for gaming, since the CPU isn't the bottleneck, it actually doesn't add any extra performance over the i5.

scaredpoet · Jul 11, 2013

mattferg said:
lol no it isn't.

That's your opinion. And if you feel that the extra cash is a waste, then don't spend it. But please don't "lololololololololo" and "Hahahahaha" at others because they did spend the money. That's their decision to make, and if you have to belittle them for it, then that suggest you're trying really hard to justify your own decision.

AND the review you linked me to actually says the i5 is better!

Wrong. It doesn't say, concretely, if either CPU is better. It correctly states the case that each CPU is better at different things, and will appeal to different users... meaning that you have to think about your intent with the MacBook Air, and decide that way... not based on what a bunch of loll'ing trolls on forums try to humiliate you into deciding, one way or the other.

These two sentences from the anandtech article say it all:

"If you want ultimate battery life regardless of usage model, stick with the base Core i5. If you need performance, the Core i7 upgrade is absolutely worth it."

thedomus · Jul 11, 2013

mattferg said:
i5. i7 is a waste of money - minimum performance gains or none for most users, plus a lower battery life and louder fans.

Horribly generalised statement. As far as audio (DAW's - Logic, Cubase etc) i7 is far superior... despite the extra heat!

Jazwire · Jul 11, 2013

mattferg said:
as for gaming, since the cpu isn't the bottleneck, it actually doesn't add any extra performance over the i5.

1000% wrong.

Not only is there extra performance, there is noticeable performance.

ZBoater · Jul 11, 2013

I don't understand the confusion. i5 < i7. Period. The difference in battery life is minimal, and only if you are pushing the system hard. And with the i7 you have more horsepower to push. If you want to sit at Starbucks and browse the web, both will give you about the same time.

ylrd · Jul 11, 2013

mattferg said:
lol no it isn't. It's more expensive than last year's i7 AND the review you linked me to actually says the i5 is better! Hahahahaha

As for gaming, since the CPU isn't the bottleneck, it actually doesn't add any extra performance over the i5.

You're trying too hard. If you wanna cover your ears and shout "lalala the i5 I bought is better than the i7", that's fine, but it doesn't make it true.

Heck, you're even saying the CPU isn't the bottleneck for gaming! Good thing you didn't buy a 2012 model or you'd be preaching why Haswell is a waste of money too.

mattferg · Jul 11, 2013

thedomus said:
Horribly generalised statement. As far as audio (DAW's - Logic, Cubase etc) i7 is far superior... despite the extra heat!

I didn't know most users used Logic and Cubase?

----------

Jazwire said:
1000% wrong.

Not only is there extra performance, there is noticeable performance.

100000000% wrong. The GPU is the bottleneck for gaming, so having extra mhz adds no noticeable framerate leaps. Feel free to prove me wrong.

----------

ylrd said:
You're trying too hard. If you wanna cover your ears and shout "lalala the i5 I bought is better than the i7", that's fine, but it doesn't make it true.

Heck, you're even saying the CPU isn't the bottleneck for gaming! Good thing you didn't bought a 2012 model or you'd be preaching why Haswell is a waste of money too.

The CPU isn't the bottleneck for gaming. The GPU is. Any game that needs more mhz for the CPU, it'll require a faster GPU FIRST. It's computing 101. Come on.

Jazwire · Jul 11, 2013

mattferg said:
100000000% wrong. The GPU is the bottleneck for gaming, so having extra mhz adds no noticeable framerate leaps. Feel free to prove me wrong.

----------

The CPU isn't the bottleneck for gaming. The GPU is. Any game that needs more mhz for the CPU, it'll require a faster GPU FIRST. It's computing 101. Come on.

Lol I have both machines, you don't, I know this 1st hand, I am not repeating what others have assumed.

Not all games are GPU bound,

Here is my League of Legends results.(From Jul 1)

*************************************

** League of Legends Test**

Setting on both machines.
Resolution - 1368x768
Character Quality - High
Effect Quality - Medium
Environment Quality - High
Shadows - Off

i5 results:
Avg FPS:41
FPS Range:37-50
Heat: Warm, maybe slightly less warm than i7 , fans running fairly loud

i7 results:
Avg FPS: 48
FPS Range:44-58
Heat: Warm - No Fans (Actually ran i7 test twice, because thought maybe I didn't hear fan on 1st run.)
***********************.

Also i is well known and documented even by Blizzard, that their games WoW, SC2, Diablo3 are indeed in fact impacted by CPU speed.

http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/6787819464

http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3646384611

http://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page14.html

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...9-CPU-or-GPU-priority-for-StarCraft-II-new-pc

http://www.overclock.net/t/1268825/...lly-gpu-intensive-and-which-are-cpu-intensive

This post says it best;

"Most games are GPU dependent at the moment.
Besides..
Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, CIV 5, Battlefield 3, GTA 4, Flight Simulators, Bad Company 2, basically most modern RPG, RTS, and free roaming games.
"

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1258142-single-GPU-config-7970-vs-680
When talking about Blizzard games they are not that GPU intensive. In WoW you need a very good CPU (as much GHz and cache as possible) and in Diablo 3 you need a very fast HDD. Starcraft 2 runs perfect on almost every system out there.

I could list a few hundred more, but these are the 1st few i grabbed.

Suraj R. · Jul 11, 2013

thedomus said:
Horribly generalised statement. As far as audio (DAW's - Logic, Cubase etc) i7 is far superior... despite the extra heat!

DAWs are not processor intensive at all...Logic ran smoothly on my C2D 2008 iMac and it also runs very smoothly on my i5 2013 MBA 13"

kap09 · Jul 11, 2013

Suraj R. said:
DAWs are not processor intensive at all...Logic ran smoothly on my C2D 2008 iMac and it also runs very smoothly on my i5 2013 MBA 13"

Curious how many tracks you were handling?

mattferg · Jul 11, 2013

Jazwire said:
Lol I have both machines, you don't, I know this 1st hand, I am not repeating what others have assumed.

Not all games are GPU bound,

Here is my League of Legends results.(From Jul 1)

*************************************

** League of Legends Test**

Setting on both machines.
Resolution - 1368x768
Character Quality - High
Effect Quality - Medium
Environment Quality - High
Shadows - Off

i5 results:
Avg FPS:41
FPS Range:37-50
Heat: Warm, maybe slightly less warm than i7 , fans running fairly loud

i7 results:
Avg FPS: 48
FPS Range:44-58
Heat: Warm - No Fans (Actually ran i7 test twice, because thought maybe I didn't hear fan on 1st run.)
***********************.

Also i is well known and documented even by Blizzard, that their games WoW, SC2, Diablo3 are indeed in fact impacted by CPU speed.

http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/6787819464

http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3646384611

http://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page14.html

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...9-CPU-or-GPU-priority-for-StarCraft-II-new-pc

http://www.overclock.net/t/1268825/...lly-gpu-intensive-and-which-are-cpu-intensive

This post says it best;

"Most games are GPU dependent at the moment.
Besides..
Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, CIV 5, Battlefield 3, GTA 4, Flight Simulators, Bad Company 2, basically most modern RPG, RTS, and free roaming games.
"

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1258142-single-GPU-config-7970-vs-680
When talking about Blizzard games they are not that GPU intensive. In WoW you need a very good CPU (as much GHz and cache as possible) and in Diablo 3 you need a very fast HDD. Starcraft 2 runs perfect on almost every system out there.

I could list a few hundred more, but these are the 1st few i grabbed.

30fps is pretty damn playable, thus emphasising my point that spending the $140 isn't really worth it.

Suraj R. · Jul 11, 2013

kap09 said:
Curious how many tracks you were handling?

Between 15 and 40, mostly digital.

Sure 40 wasn't IDEAL but it was definitely workable. Eventually I had to replace the mere 1 GB of RAM that it came with to 3 GB where it became more usable. Eventually the computer got too slow so I got the new MBA.

antjefferson · Jul 11, 2013

warriorz said:
Hi all,

Anyone bought an i5 or i7 based in the trickle of reports now in, coming in, such as the obvious Anandtech comparison report? If so which processor did you end up deciding to go for and why? I'm edging toward the i5 just to eek out a bit more battery and keep low heat/ fans hopefully!

Wow - this thread sure did turn into a flame-war.

I was torn between the i5 and the i7 - even after several very helpful posts here as well as reading several reviews (including anandtech's). I decided on the i5. I decided that since 90% of the work I will be doing on this machine (web browsing, answering emails, light photoshop touch ups, ID using captivate) aren't terribly CPU intensive tasks, the i5 would be more than sufficient. Sure - the i7 would have been nice to have - but I don't imagine that I will ever notice the difference (excepts perhaps when I rip DVDs now and then...but even then were only talking about waiting a few extra minutes for the task to complete...no big deal).

I ordered the i5/8GB/256GB - and I'm not looking back. In the end the deciding factor for me was cost vs perceived value. As is, I spent about $1,400

YMMV.

Ifti · Jul 11, 2013

Went with the i7.

Never ad this thing heat up on me and havent ever heard the fans just yet.
Basic use and Im hitting around 8-9 hours anyway - so the same as the i5. However, I know i have the extra power as and when I need it.

Do not regret my purchase at all.

I still stand by my original comments in another thread:

The i7 doesn't run much faster by default than the i5, but it can turbo a higher clock speed than the Core i5.
If you're running a high CPU workload that never lets up in a continuous loop, the i7 is going to die quicker than the i5. Active power is greater at higher frequencies (assuming everything else remains the same) and with no chance to get to sleep the i7 will eat through the battery faster than the i5.

Where the i7 stands a chance however is in workloads where you aren't running the CPU at full tilt all of the time. The i7 needs tiny, tiny, tiny fractions of a second of idle time to throttle down and go to sleep. It's in these sleep states that it'll draw very little power and avoid being a major consumer of the battery. From the CPU's perspective, it wants to finish its work as quickly as possible so it can get back into its really low power idle states.

For workloads with balanced periods of load and idle time, the i7 should be able to at least equal the battery life of the i5. Short bursts of instructions can execute up to 25% faster on the i7, allowing it to go back to sleep that much quicker. Any energy expended from running at higher clock could be saved by spending more time at idle.

The other advantage is the larger cache. A larger cache means a higher likelihood of finding data in that cache, which saves trips to main memory. Anytime you go off-chip for data the power penalty is tremendous. You have to fire up a powerful memory interface, drive requests back and forth over a high speed bus and actually pull the data from DRAM. The entire process is far more power intensive than just grabbing data from the CPU's on-die cache.

Personally, I'll be going for the i7/8/256 varient of the MBA11". Battery life varies depending on how the CPU is used. Asking others how the battery life fares for them will not give any indication of what you will receive yourself. The i7, although using more power, should, in theory, finish the task quicker, and hence go back into its low power idle state quicker then the i5, thus saving power. The battery life for both models should, in theory, be more or less equal unless you throttle the i7 at its high clock speed for long periods of time.

bhags8 · Jul 11, 2013

wow. that Mattferg guy is mad

warriorz · Jul 11, 2013

Jazwire said:
I have both, wife has i5 , I have i7.

I do occasionally game on mine, and its a decent FPS boost for the games I play. (Minecraft, LoL, Diablo3, example LoL has roughly 8-10 fps more than my wifes i5.)

Under normal circumstances my i7 doesn't get hotter than the i5, nor are the fans louder, since they don't come on really on either unit. Unless the CPU is being heavily stressed, unless I am gaming the fan never comes on.

Both units when just doing light work, browsing email etc, literally stay almost cold to the touch.

The whole i7 getting "hot" is imo a bunch of people justifying there stance on picking the i5.

To the touch my i7 doesn't get any warmer to the touch than the i5, now if you are stressing both machines out maybe the i5 will get to 90 and the i7 to 93 but at that temp its not like, you can differentiate that much. Both feel dang warm.

I do agree with not buying the i7 if you dont need it, why waste the money, if you arent going to game ever, if you arent going to do extremely cpu intensive tasks where you are pushing CPU to near 100% range. Then the i7 is a waste of money.

But the whole i7 is hot like a frying pan, is pure crap.

Lol: frying pan, that was pretty funny. Not sure anyone's saying that but I do you understand your overall point. However, if there had to be a choice, an answer, I'd say most would go for i5 > i7 for battery power based on historical theory on processors. But off course I'm acknowledging the point you make about "going at full throttle". Good point.

mattferg · Jul 11, 2013

bhags8 said:
wow. that Mattferg guy is mad

Mad at saving money!

warriorz · Jul 11, 2013

ZBoater said:
That's last year's old news. This year, the i7 is easily worth $150.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u/5

I agree with you ZBoater. In the context of the $100's you're paying for a premium machine, a further $150 is a relatively small percentage to pay for the extra processing power if you'll use it. The extra horsepower will do the job quicker, and a few minutes saved each day, over the course of the lifetime you'll keep the machine is priceless.

iloveair · Jul 11, 2013

If you can afford it why go for second best when you can get i7. I have the 13inch and i dont even know what the fan sounds like. Never turned on or my laptop got hot and i have been backing up encrypting and watching all at once.

mattferg · Jul 11, 2013

warriorz said:
I agree with you ZBoater. In the context of the $100's you're paying for a premium machine, a further $150 is a relatively small percentage to pay for the extra processing power if you'll use it. The extra horsepower will do the job quicker, and a few minutes saved each day, over the course of the lifetime you'll keep the machine is priceless.

Yeah but most users won't use it, so spending $150 on something you'll never use is a huge waste.

----------

iloveair said:
If you can afford it why go for second best when you can get i7. I have the 13inch and i dont even know what the fan sounds like. Never turned on or my laptop got hot and i have been backing up encrypting and watching all at once.

Because you can spend $150 on other things?

falconeight · Jul 11, 2013

I would never have the lesser processor. I like asking people what they have then I slap down a I7 processor on that arse.....at starbucks I do this.

i5 v i7 purchases.

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502a

macrumors G3

macrumors 6502

macrumors 604

macrumors newbie

macrumors 6502a

macrumors G3

macrumors member

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502a

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502

macrumors regular

macrumors newbie

macrumors 68040

macrumors 6502a

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502

macrumors regular

macrumors member

macrumors 6502

Guest

Our Staff