core 2 duo faster than i5/i7?

[TDHXXX]

I was in the apple store today and overheard a customer talking to a staff member, her son wanted the quadcore but after some discussion the staff member said that the core2duo will be much faster than the quadcore processors?

Can anyone confirm this? I was planning on getting an i7 but now I don't know...

[Chundles]

Not really, the Core i5 will be faster than the Core 2 Duo but why spend the cash if you don't need it?

Maybe the kid was just doing internet, word etc. and loved the screen size for looking at photos and watching videos. Don't need to spend the extra cash for that. May as well get the C2D and AppleCare or some software.

[TDHXXX]

He was planning on using it for video editing.

I'll be using mine for the adobe suite (primarily photoshop, illustrator and flash) and games, would I benefit from the quadcore?

[Sun Baked]

Right now maybe for old apps, but as apps are upgraded to take advantage of the better thread handling, the quads will shine.

If you plan on keeping the machine 3 years, the quad would be worth the expense as apps beyond the Apple OS and their iWork/Life/Pro apps take advantage of the more powerful resources.

[kroeks]

Right now maybe for old apps, but as apps are upgraded to take advantage of the better thread handling, the quads will shine.

If you plan on keeping the machine 3 years, the quad would be worth the expense as apps beyond the Apple OS and their iWork/Life/Pro apps take advantage of the more powerful resources.
+ almost every product from Adobe (also pretty early ones) make use of all the cores avaible.

I think today most programs run just a bit faster on Duo, but in a year Quad will be faster. Like he said, you'll be better prepared when you go for the Q

[itommyboy]

I was in the apple store today and overheard a customer talking to a staff member, her son wanted the quadcore but after some discussion the staff member said that the core2duo will be much faster than the quadcore processors?

Can anyone confirm this? I was planning on getting an i7 but now I don't know...


Thanks to turbo boost, essentially the i7 is the fastest duo core available until apps start using more cores. ;) If you have the money ready for the i7 pull the trigger it's the biggest baddest fastest iMac available (for now) and will last you a good long while.

[robotkiller]

I was in the apple store today and overheard a customer talking to a staff member, her son wanted the quadcore but after some discussion the staff member said that the core2duo will be much faster than the quadcore processors?

Can anyone confirm this? I was planning on getting an i7 but now I don't know...

Sounds like someone is trying to unload some dual cores.

As others have mentioned, turbo-boost will increase clock speed of a single core to 3.46 and the i7 has an 8M L3 cache vs the 6M L2 cache(?) of the C2D. Because of that (and probably numerous other reasons), the Quad should be faster under all circumstances, at least theoretically. Saying a C2D is "much faster" is just straight BS.

[alphaod]

The sales rep may not have been malicious at all; simply misinformed. Too many folks still buy into the megahertz myth, believing that clock speed is the sole determinant to performance.

[UrFatMom]

I was in the apple store today and overheard a customer talking to a staff member, her son wanted the quadcore but after some discussion the staff member said that the core2duo will be much faster than the quadcore processors?

Can anyone confirm this? I was planning on getting an i7 but now I don't know...

How can someone at the App store say such BS...? Unless they wanna get rid of their c2d. Last time I heard crap like that was at Best Buy :)

[Kronie]

I was in the apple store today and overheard a customer talking to a staff member, her son wanted the quadcore but after some discussion the staff member said that the core2duo will be much faster than the quadcore processors?

Can anyone confirm this? I was planning on getting an i7 but now I don't know...

Sounds like that Apple salesperson just wanted to "make a sale"

"Why wait for the lesser i7 when you can have a C2D today" LOL

[gr81mgbgt]

Core 2 Duo. For Today's Applications YES. Most Application only need 2 cores, You only need the core 2 duo if it for home use + more,

GET the Quad Core if your editing and doing Graphic Design, more intense multiple programs running simultaneously.

You are throwing money away if you get an i5 or i7 if it for home use, internet, music, videos, Movies,word, ect...

[Kronie]

=

You are throwing money away if you get an i5 or i7 if it for home use, internet, music, videos, Movies,word, ect...

What about two or three years from now?

[unamused]

The sales rep may not have been malicious at all; simply misinformed. Too many folks still buy into the megahertz myth, believing that clock speed is the sole determinant to performance.

Agreed... Its very similar with cars and horsepower... People think that because a car has more HP it is by default faster when in truth, torque is a HUGE factor especially when comparing 0-60 times. Obviously their are other large factors like weight and gearing, but its essentially the same thing with computers and CPU's. You have to look at all the specs, not just one. "Torque wins races but horsepower sells cars"

[fa8362]

What about two or three years from now?

What about it? In 1994, some folks were recommending dual processor computers at significantly greater expense. See how that turned out.

[gr81mgbgt]

What about two or three years from now?

3 years from now? You will be purchasing a new computer. There is no such thing as future proofing. Whats new today, is old tomorrow.

[negatv1]

3 years from now? You will be purchasing a new computer. There is no such thing as future proofing. Whats new today, is old tomorrow.

Exactly! People act like they are buying for Armageddon, when these same people are likely they will be running out to upgrade to the next released revision. And I'm guilty as charged. ;)

[UrFatMom]

The question is more like, why not put the 200$ in now and never regret it, or buy C2D and keep telling yourself, what if I had the quad..?

Both processors are already outdated anyway, but I'm pretty sure next year i'll be happy I put the 200$ more in the i5...

[gr81mgbgt]

The question is more like, why not put the 200$ in now and never regret it, or buy C2D and keep telling yourself, what if I had the quad..?

Both processors are already outdated anyway, but I'm pretty sure next year i'll be happy I put the 200$ more in the i5...

Its a question if you need it or not, and if your going to utilize the extra power. There shouldent be any questioning after you buy either or.

[53x12]

What about the fact that the i5/i7 are based on the 1156 socket which, along with the 1366 socket, seem to be the way of the future. At least with the i5/i7, you theoretically could update the CPU to something new/faster if it fits the 1156 and won't melt the computer. I would definitely say the i5/i7 are worth the money for 2009 technology rather than the C2D (2006 technology). If you keep the computer 3-4 years, you are looking at the difference of the technology being 3-4yrs old vs. 6-7yrs old. That is fairly significant.

[Kronie]

3 years from now? You will be purchasing a new computer. There is no such thing as future proofing. Whats new today, is old tomorrow.


Actually I will probably be buying a new computer next year :D. As I'm sure my i7 iMac (whenever Apple can manage to ship the damn thing) will be ready for a nice new owner and I can own the top of the line again........for about three months.....

And I'm sorry but there IS such a thing as future proofing. Lets compare the base 27" with a 27" i7 quad in three years and see which one runs better with current software of the time. Any guesses?;)

[53x12]

And I'm sorry but there IS such a thing as future proofing. Lets compare the base 27" with a 27" i7 quad in three years and see which one runs better with current software of the time. Any guesses?;)


Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.

[fa8362]

Actually I will probably be buying a new computer next year :D. As I'm sure my i7 iMac (whenever Apple can manage to ship the damn thing) will be ready for a nice new owner and I can own the top of the line again........for about three months.....

And I'm sorry but there IS such a thing as future proofing. Lets compare the base 27" with a 27" i7 quad in three years and see which one runs better with current software of the time. Any guesses?;)

I bet there will be an insignificant difference for most users. Same as today.

[53x12]

I bet there will be an insignificant difference for most users. Same as today.

I beg to differ. Once developers start taking advantage of GCD, multiple cores, and HT you will see a significant difference. At this point you are right, the difference is insignificant since developers haven't really taken advantage of them yet. However that will not be the case in the next couple of years. Sorry, I believe you are wrong on this one.

[fa8362]

I beg to differ. Once developers start taking advantage of GCD, multiple cores, and HT you will see a significant difference. At this point you are right, the difference is insignificant since developers haven't really taken advantage of them yet. However that will not be the case in the next couple of years. Sorry, I believe you are wrong on this one.

Well, I obviously think you're wrong, so I guess we're even. Personally, I think it's inadvisable to spend money on what might or might not happen. Wait until it does.

[300D]

until apps start using more cores.

Which was about 4 years ago.

[stonemann]

And I'm sorry but there IS such a thing as future proofing. Lets compare the base 27" with a 27" i7 quad in three years and see which one runs better with current software of the time. Any guesses?;)
Alternatively, if I buy the low end dual core iMac today for $1000 less than the high-end quad core and invest that money wisely (e.g. Apple stock), I could have around $1500 to invest in a top of the range iMac in three years while you will still be using a three-year old computer. The moral of the story is to buy what you need (which for most users is often less than they think) not what you think you might need at some date in the future.

[gr81mgbgt]

Couldn't agree more. I think many users are buying the quad core just because its the best out and its the fastest.

You honestly don't need i5 or i7 unless your heavy in graphic design and editing. Then its all worth it.

Don't buy on "future proof" that's not applicable, BUY what you will utilize.

[ViViDboarder]

Core 2 Duo. For Today's Applications YES. Most Application only need 2 cores, You only need the core 2 duo if it for home use + more,

GET the Quad Core if your editing and doing Graphic Design, more intense multiple programs running simultaneously.

You are throwing money away if you get an i5 or i7 if it for home use, internet, music, videos, Movies,word, ect...

No matter how you look at it the C2D will NOT be FASTER than the i5/i7's. This is just false.

I bet there will be an insignificant difference for most users. Same as today.

This is the case for probably 80% of computer users. They simply will not be using all the power that is provided by the quads or even the C2D's for that matter. Many computer users are buying netbooks which are running on processors at clock-speeds that existed 8 years ago and have plenty of power to visit Facebook and use a word processor.

If you're a PC enthusiast you'll want the latest and greatest no matter what. You will never be future-proof, only future-resistant. A Quad will keep you happy maybe a year longer. At which point you'll be buying a new computer anyway.

So put it this way, if you need the extra power and flexibility of a quad core or just want to flex nuts and show off your brand new shiny then get the quad.

If you don't even know what applications use up to four cores or have any clue what Hyperthreading is or any kind of possible application of four cores, then save yourself a buck and get a C2D.

[gr81mgbgt]

No matter how you look at it the C2D will NOT be FASTER than the i5/i7's. This is just false.



This is the case for probably 80% of computer users. They simply will not be using all the power that is provided by the quads or even the C2D's for that matter. Many computer users are buying netbooks which are running on processors at clock-speeds that existed 8 years ago and have plenty of power to visit Facebook and use a word processor.

If you're a PC enthusiast you'll want the latest and greatest no matter what. You will never be future-proof, only future-resistant. A Quad will keep you happy maybe a year longer. At which point you'll be buying a new computer anyway.

So put it this way, if you need the extra power and flexibility of a quad core or just want to flex nuts and show off your brand new shiny then get the quad.

If you don't even know what applications use up to four cores or have any clue what Hyperthreading is or any kind of possible application of four cores, then save yourself a buck and get a C2D.

Well Said.

[Frosties]

...but after some discussion the staff member said that the core2duo will be much faster than the quadcore processors?...


No1 rule: Never trust the advice of a staff member in the store.

[Alan64]

Alternatively, if I buy the low end dual core iMac today for $1000 less than the high-end quad core and invest that money wisely (e.g. Apple stock), I could have around $1500 to invest in a top of the range iMac in three years while you will still be using a three-year old computer. The moral of the story is to buy what you need (which for most users is often less than they think) not what you think you might need at some date in the future.

This is quite true (OK, I wouldn't count any stock going up 50%). However, I don't like having to get a whole new computer, migrate files over, get new software, etc. Not to mention the extra waste for the environment. I want to buy a computer and keep it for a long time, so it makes sense to me to get that i5.

With my current PC, I added some more RAM, then later I added still more RAM. Then I had to add a second hard drive. Then I replaced my monitor. Each time it didn't seem quite worth ditching the whole thing when the upgrade wasn't too expensive. It's hard to pull the trigger on a whole new rig. Now I can't wait to ditch my Pentium III Dell and get a 27" i5 iMac!

EDIT: Checked & realized my Dell actually has a Pentium IV 2.0 Ghz. Maybe I could get another year out of it? NO WAY!

[ViViDboarder]

This is quite true (OK, I wouldn't count any stock going up 50%). However, I don't like having to get a whole new computer, migrate files over, get new software, etc. Not to mention the extra waste for the environment. I want to buy a computer and keep it for a long time, so it makes sense to me to get that i5.

With my current PC, I added some more RAM, then later I added still more RAM. Then I had to add a second hard drive. Then I replaced my monitor. Each time it didn't seem quite worth ditching the whole thing when the upgrade wasn't too expensive. It's hard to pull the trigger on a whole new rig. Now I can't wait to ditch my Pentium III Dell and get a 27" i5 iMac!

P3??!?!? Wow... That's way too long. :D

I had a AMD Athon back when the P3's where out then upgraded the HDD and graphics card. Then a couple about 3-4 years later built a whole computer from scratch with Mobo, RAM and a P4 CPU. Later got a new GPU and HDD. 4 years later got a Athlon 64. Later upgraded HDD and GPU again. :D

That was 5 years ago and now I'm looking to upgrade to an i7, 4 gigs of ram, new GPU and all. Of course in the last 4 years I've bought a Macbook Pro, EeePC netbook and just now bought a 21.5" iMac.

Some people just can't stick with components that are more than 4 years old. That's about my computer lifecycle. I do small upgrades and then every 4 years a major upgrade.

[bajee]

core 2 duo faster than i5/i7? False

Its the same as saying

p4 is faster than the core 2 duo chips :D

[TDHXXX]

No1 rule: Never trust the advice of a staff member in the store.

I've come to realise that after hearing a staff member say that it is currently possible to hook a ps3/xbox .etc up to the new 27" iMac.

[ViViDboarder]

I've come to realise that after hearing a staff member say that it is currently possible to hook a ps3/xbox .etc up to the new 27" iMac.

Haha. Yea. I got a fairly knowledgeable guy when I bought my 21.5". He told me that there was only 1 place he knew to buy a MiniDisplay to MiniDisplay cable to use with the monitors and that it was from some other countries Apple store website and that it was a Belkin cable. We both agreed that it was crazy that Apple wouldn't have released a cable for people to actually USE a feature they touted in their new product.

Oh well!!! Hopefully we get something soon. :D

[richard.mac]

^ theres a Belkin Mini DisplayPort cable on the US Apple Store? monoprice.com has one as well.

to connect a PS3/XBox you could use a Mini DisplayPort to DVI or HDMI adapter or cable which you can also get on monoprice.com

[ViViDboarder]

^ theres a Belkin Mini DisplayPort cable on the US Apple Store? monoprice.com has one as well.

to connect a PS3/XBox you could use a Mini DisplayPort to DVI or HDMI adapter or cable which you can also get on monoprice.com

Oh they have it now then. They didn't the first week the iMacs where released. I was in the store and we checked the webpages.

Also, I'm pretty sure that doesn't work. I think people here have tried it with the XBox and PS3 with no luck. Can anyone confirm?

EDIT: Maybe not in this thread as we're already offtopic :D

[Jiten]

The only way I can foresee that the C2D will be rendered useless is if Apple change architecture like what it did with the PowerPC to Intel jump. Other wise I'm pretty sure the C2D will still be viable for most productivity software at least 3 years and beyond. Unless you make a living and really need the horsepower like video editing, producing graphics or doing high end scientific calculations, it is all 'want' not 'need.' Not that wanting the latest models is necessarily a bad thing, especially if you can afford it. I'm pretty sure more then half of those buying the latest and greatest are fueled more by gadget lust then actual need.

So I agree with the guys who say that saving and investing your money instead of blowing it away everytime a new latest Mac comes out is the wiser course in most cases. :)

[thejadedmonkey]

Maybe the c2d has more RAM. The OP didn't say if it was a C2D that they already owned or not, but I'm sure any C2D iMac with 6gb of RAM will outperform a i5/i7 with 2 or 4gb of RAM, while using word or adium.

[bokap]

I am finally buying a new iMac after using my G4 Dual Mirror Door for about 8 years. I previously had a 7500 PowerMac for about as long so I am planning on keeping my iMac for a number of years. I use the computer for the usual internet stuff but also I use it for photography. I have a Canon 50D which produces large files and I use DPP to convert and then export to Photoshop. It's slow on this computer. Would I get any benefit from i5 or i7 or should I put the extra money into ram?

[cfitz7111]

Sounds like that Apple salesperson just wanted to "make a sale"

"Why wait for the lesser i7 when you can have a C2D today" LOL

I thought the i7 is available for online purchase only, and the i5 would be available in the stores. So I doubt it was a pushy sales person.

[gr81mgbgt]

Maybe the c2d has more RAM. The OP didn't say if it was a C2D that they already owned or not, but I'm sure any C2D iMac with 6gb of RAM will outperform a i5/i7 with 2 or 4gb of RAM, while using word or adium.

Yeah, Good Point. I got the 27" 3.06ghz 8gb Ram, and its fast running multiple programs.

[ViViDboarder]

The only way I can foresee that the C2D will be rendered useless is if Apple change architecture like what it did with the PowerPC to Intel jump. Other wise I'm pretty sure the C2D will still be viable for most productivity software at least 3 years and beyond. Unless you make a living and really need the horsepower like video editing, producing graphics or doing high end scientific calculations, it is all 'want' not 'need.' Not that wanting the latest models is necessarily a bad thing, especially if you can afford it. I'm pretty sure more then half of those buying the latest and greatest are fueled more by gadget lust then actual need.

So I agree with the guys who say that saving and investing your money instead of blowing it away everytime a new latest Mac comes out is the wiser course in most cases. :)

I don't think anyone is saying that the C2D won't be able to run applications.

I have a feeling in the next 3 years the chip and socket will be all but dead. How long does one chip generally stay active for? It's getting to the end of it's product cycle and the Quad Core chips are replacing it on Intel's line. I just bought my C2D iMac and I'm sure it'll be great and run well for a number of years. I'm building a new desktop and with that I'm going to make damn sure to get an i7 and with the new socket for future upgrades :D

[lexvo]

I am finally buying a new iMac after using my G4 Dual Mirror Door for about 8 years. I previously had a 7500 PowerMac for about as long so I am planning on keeping my iMac for a number of years. I use the computer for the usual internet stuff but also I use it for photography. I have a Canon 50D which produces large files and I use DPP to convert and then export to Photoshop. It's slow on this computer. Would I get any benefit from i5 or i7 or should I put the extra money into ram?

I asked a similar question on a photo forum and I was advised to invest in RAM. I'm planning to buy a Canon 5D markII and 8Gb should do for these files.

So I ordered an i5 with 8Gb RAM two days ago :)

[ViViDboarder]

I asked a similar question on a photo forum and I was advised to invest in RAM. I'm planning to buy a Canon 5D markII and 8Gb should do for these files.

So I ordered an i5 with 8Gb RAM two days ago :)

I would advise buying gram from a third party vendor. It's way overpriced having Apple install it.

[Goldie009]

Saying that the i5 or i7 is faster than a dual core is a very subjective claim.

YES - the i5 and i7 can perform more calculations per clock cycle, and as a result of this are CAPABLE of running programs quicker than a C2D processor of comparable speed. But lets just say you're in the following situation....

You have 2 screens set up, with EyeTV tv program running on one of them, it has 2Gb of RAM in use for the live TV buffer. You have Photoshop running too which is using over 1.5Gb in a large work flow.... So all in all about 4Gb RAM in use, when you consider the RAM for OSX and other background services...

A C2D mac with 8Gb RAM would cope fine with this, whereas an i7 with 4Gb RAM would probably come to a stand still. Not because of the processor though, the i7 would be sitting around wasting clock cycles waiting for VRAM from the hard drive to feed it at horridly slow speeds - because RAM is all used up. Whereas the C2D with plenty of RAM is purring along nicely, as it's being fed straight from the RAM, which is only half full....

For most people, a C2D may be enough power. The whole system setup affects speed. A fast processor is useless with hardly any RAM for what you want to do, similarly a SSD would give you quicker start up times and vastly increase general usage - without having to change your processor.


This is only an example to prove a point that having the fastest processor is not always the best way to a fast computer - it depends on your needs.

[Scallywag]

Actually I will probably be buying a new computer next year :D. As I'm sure my i7 iMac (whenever Apple can manage to ship the damn thing) will be ready for a nice new owner and I can own the top of the line again........for about three months.....

Really??? Is there a practical point to doing this?? Or do you just want the newest because it's the newest, even if there's no cosmetic difference??? (no offense, I'm just curious)

[ViViDboarder]

Saying that the i5 or i7 is faster than a dual core is a very subjective claim.

YES - the i5 and i7 can perform more calculations per clock cycle, and as a result of this are CAPABLE of running programs quicker than a C2D processor of comparable speed. But lets just say you're in the following situation....

You have 2 screens set up, with EyeTV tv program running on one of them, it has 2Gb of RAM in use for the live TV buffer. You have Photoshop running too which is using over 1.5Gb in a large work flow.... So all in all about 4Gb RAM in use, when you consider the RAM for OSX and other background services...

A C2D mac with 8Gb RAM would cope fine with this, whereas an i7 with 4Gb RAM would probably come to a stand still. Not because of the processor though, the i7 would be sitting around wasting clock cycles waiting for VRAM from the hard drive to feed it at horridly slow speeds - because RAM is all used up. Whereas the C2D with plenty of RAM is purring along nicely, as it's being fed straight from the RAM, which is only half full....

For most people, a C2D may be enough power. The whole system setup affects speed. A fast processor is useless with hardly any RAM for what you want to do, similarly a SSD would give you quicker start up times and vastly increase general usage - without having to change your processor.


This is only an example to prove a point that having the fastest processor is not always the best way to a fast computer - it depends on your needs.

That's a poor argument.

Of course if you choke out the i7's power with less ram it's going to run slower.

All things equal the i5/i7's are faster than the C2D. Simple as that.

Sure if you put an i7 on a computer with 500mb of ram and a slow HDD it'll run slower, but same with a C2D.

If everyone shared your logic I could try to pawn off my 4 cylnder Sentra off as "faster" than a Mazerati!!!!!! (if you put a 10 HP motor in it and replace the transmission with one from a lawnmower).

Your first sentence about the i5/i7 performing more clockcycles is EXACTLY what we are talking about here. It's more powerful. No, most people don't need it and there are other ways to gain power from your machine.

Also, it's also true that everyone buys into the whole "RAM is like COMPUTER COCAINE!" mentality. RAM does NOT speed up your computer. If you are really choking your computer out on RAM (unless you're running a vast number of high performace apps at once, like with multiple users or other professional applications) excessive RAM is going to have no effect on speed.

Many people will have little need for more than 4GB of ram. And for the record, EyeTV runs just fine with a 2GB swap on the filesystem and not in the RAM. Even on a 5400rpm HDD or over Firewire. :D

[eelpout]

No matter how you look at it the C2D will NOT be FASTER than the i5/i7's. This is just false.Er, no. The E8600 (3.3 GHz) will occasionally eek out a win in some situations. Look at any of the existing benchmarks floating around out there. For instance the GIMP test here (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/09/08/intel-core-i5-and-i7-lynnfield-cpu-review/5).

[ViViDboarder]

Er, no. The E8600 (3.3 GHz) will occasionally eek out a win in some situations. Look at any of the existing benchmarks floating around out there. For instance the GIMP test here (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/09/08/intel-core-i5-and-i7-lynnfield-cpu-review/5).

Ok. On applications that don't multi-thread well I suppose it'd be down to straight up clock speed :D That's true. But 99.9% of the time it won't be faster!!!

I'm really impressed by the overclocked power on that C2D. Makes me curious what my C2D will do... Hmmm...

[ipodftw]

Makes me wonder what my C2Q can do http://ipodftw.***********/imgs/*********************

[sleyeu]

I was in the apple store today and overheard a customer talking to a staff member, her son wanted the quadcore but after some discussion the staff member said that the core2duo will be much faster than the quadcore processors?

Can anyone confirm this? I was planning on getting an i7 but now I don't know...

bs.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ipeSnHEXtn0/SI1n7OKBuhI/AAAAAAAAAQE/jWtwDpgCyFE/s400/bull+poo.JPG

[Kronie]

Really??? Is there a practical point to doing this?? Or do you just want the newest because it's the newest, even if there's no cosmetic difference??? (no offense, I'm just curious)

No I just always seem to sell my computers and by new ones every year, or close to it. Every one I buy is the one I will have forever but for some reason I end up either upgrading or selling for a different model.

Windows to Mac, Laptop to Mac Pro, Mac Pro to iMac. Hopefully the iMac I will keep for years, who knows?

[paulyras]

Sounds like someone is trying to unload some dual cores.

ABC... Always Be Closing.

Used Car and apparently apple store sales 101 (and actually terrible advice for most sales jobs)

[DarwinOSX]

No. The OS can use more than 2 cores and there are plenty of apps that use more than two including some of the type you list.
Certainly for Video you want more than two cores if you can get it. I doubt the Apple store seller knows that the i5 and i7 has a turbo mode or even what the difference is between a Core 2 Duo and i5 or i7.

Core 2 Duo. For Today's Applications YES. Most Application only need 2 cores, You only need the core 2 duo if it for home use + more,

GET the Quad Core if your editing and doing Graphic Design, more intense multiple programs running simultaneously.

You are throwing money away if you get an i5 or i7 if it for home use, internet, music, videos, Movies,word, ect...

[Gatteau]

How about those who wants to buy now but are waiting for the MacBook Pro's to get the i5/i7's? According to what've been said here in this thread, the waiting is useless, right?

I don't do any intensive graphic editing. Just some light Photoshop use, and maybe some video editing, every now and then.

[ascender]

I have habitually been someone who always had a much more powerful Mac/PC than I actually needed, so with this in mind will just pop down to the Apple Store later and buy a C2D machine.

[fobfob]

Saying that the i5 or i7 is faster than a dual core is a very subjective claim.

A quad core may not run faster but it will run smoother. Just like an 8 cylinder car versus a 4 cylinder car. You wouldn't buy a 2 cylinder car would you? So why buy a 2 core computer? Pretty simple really.

[js81]

A quad core may not run faster but it will run smoother. Just like an 8 cylinder car versus a 4 cylinder car. You wouldn't buy a 2 cylinder car would you? So why buy a 2 core computer? Pretty simple really.

Not exactly that simple...

My wife has a TURBO 4-cyl (Jetta) that will absolutely smoke either my SUPERCHARGED 6-cyl (Frontier) or my brother-in-law's 8-cyl (F-150). I know that's apples and oranges (car vs. trucks) but its the same point.

Hers is "optimized" to go fast, mine is "optimized" for a balance of speed and towing, and the F-150 is "optimized" only for towing; Even though it has the largest engine, its the slowest.

I've seen loads of new PC laptops with a 1.6GHz i7 quad. Which would be faster then? A top-of-the-line 3.33GHz C2D with 6MB cache, or the i7? For most people most of the time, the C2D would be way faster. It all depends on what you're doing - in keeping with the car analogy, in this case the C2D would be the turbo 4 while the i7 would be the V8 (better for heavy lifting, but slower off the line).

[mac2x]

[...] So why buy a 2 core computer? Pretty simple really.
If that's all you need, it's also a pretty simple choice. Save some $$. Personally, I'd rather have a Mac Pro if I needed a quad core computer, for a variety of reasons. ;)

[edit] Xeon processors being one of them.

[ViViDboarder]

A quad core may not run faster but it will run smoother. Just like an 8 cylinder car versus a 4 cylinder car. You wouldn't buy a 2 cylinder car would you? So why buy a 2 core computer? Pretty simple really.

Fuel efficiency is better on a 2 cylender motor scooter. :p