Imac 21.5inch QUAD CORE ? ?

[sebsimone]

Hello,

I am aware there are not any rumors regarding this, however, if quad core i5/i7 etc is now in the MacPros, for the next update should i expect to see quad core capabilities in the smaller screen size in Imacs?

This is purely because i do not need a 27 inch screen, the graphics and processor would be sufficient in screen similar to the 21.5...

Any information on the matter appreciated.

Thanks

Seb

[Hellhammer]

No, because quad cores are too hot and expensive for 21.5"

[sebsimone]

How can the technology be to hot for a 21.5 inch when its suitable for a MacPro? My proposed idea is that surely the technology will become more compact and kept cooler as it progresses?

As for the price, again, the price of quad core technology will inevitably drop over the fourth coming months.

I will wait and see i suppose, although, would you recommend waiting until the next Imac update to buy?

[Hellhammer]

How can the technology be to hot for a 21.5 inch when its suitable for a MacPro? My proposed idea is that surely the technology will become more compact and kept cooler as it progresses?

Mac Pro is a full size tower while iMac is all-in-one... There are quads suitable for 21.5" but they cost way too much and don't even perform that well due low clockspeed

As for the price, again, the price of quad core technology will inevitably drop over the fourth coming months.

Any source of this? There are no new CPUs coming from Intel thus prices will remain the same

I will wait and see i suppose, although, would you recommend waiting until the next Imac update to buy?


21.5" will likely get Clarkdale (i3, i5) which is high clocked dual, so I would wait, it should be a nice boost in performance

[TMRaven]

How can the technology be to hot for a 21.5 inch when its suitable for a MacPro?

I assume you meant macbook pro? i3,5,7 does not mean quad core, it just signifies intel's latest cpu architecture, nehalem.

The new i5/7s in the macbookpros are only dual core. Besides, Clarkdale would most likely outperform clarksfield by a long shot.

[Hellhammer]

Besides, Clarkdale would most likely outperform clarksfield by a long shot.

At the moment, yes, because software isn't designed to be multicore so frequency matters more. In the future, more and more apps will take advantage of quad core and thus in long run, Clarksfield would be faster

By the way, MBPs use Arrandale (mobile version of Clarkdale) and iMac will likely get Clarkdale (desktop version of Arrandale). Clarksfield is mobile quad-core, which would be suitable for 21.5" but it's a lot slower as it tops out at 2GHz

[TMRaven]

And also costs 1000usd for 2ghz!

[sebsimone]

I did mean the Macbook Pro's yes, i was mistaken for the new models having quad core, my bad. So in terms of wanting to get quad core technology, im looking at having to get the 27inch, i cant do with going for the duo core, so you would suggest waiting until the next update and having to go ahead with the 27 inch?

Thanks for the help

[Hellhammer]

I did mean the Macbook Pro's yes, i was mistaken for the new models having quad core, my bad. So in terms of wanting to get quad core technology, im looking at having to get the 27inch, i cant do with going for the duo core, so you would suggest waiting until the next update and having to go ahead with the 27 inch?

Thanks for the help

21.5" won't get quad core before next year. If you can afford quad core now, go for it, the update won't really change it. i5 is only 1699$ from refurb store (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB953LL/A?cid=AOS-US-AFF-FEED)

[DdMac679]

21.5" won't get quad core before next year.

How do you know that?

[Edit] Never-mind, I missed one of your posts.

[Stealthipad]

How do you know that?.

Sometimes stuff just leaves one's mouth with no proof!:eek:

I have owned both the 21" and not 27" iMacs and the 21" holds it's own under normal use. I like my 27" i7 but it is TOO BIG for the distance I have it on my desk. I am actually thinking of going back to a 21" iMac 3.3Mhz.:eek:

[sebsimone]

21.5" won't get quad core before next year. If you can afford quad core now, go for it, the update won't really change it. i5 is only 1699$ from refurb store (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB953LL/A?cid=AOS-US-AFF-FEED)

So you dont imagine there will be any updates in the new Imacs whether that be 21.5 or 27" thats worth waiting 6 months?

[miniroll32]

I imagine that the 21.5" iMac's will receive i5 updates (definitely not i7's!), but whether or not they go with the Quad variant is debatable. Remember - the 27" iMac is 27"s just so that they could have enough heat management for the i7's.

The 21.5" models are really lovely computers, I hope they get an update by June. My guess is that they'll get the NVIDIA 320 graphics and i5's. I don't mind if there's little speed bump in the CPU - its the fact that its newer technology thats attractive. But also, Apple will want to put the 320 in their lineup a.s.a.p and make it the baseline graphics, just as the 9400 was before. :)

I'd buy one in a heart-beat if they updated to i-series CPU's.

[blinkin182]

I imagine that the 21.5" iMac's will receive i5 updates (definitely not i7's!), but whether or not they go with the Quad variant is debatable. Remember - the 27" iMac is 27"s just so that they could have enough heat management for the i7's.

The 21.5" models are really lovely computers, I hope they get an update by June. My guess is that they'll get the NVIDIA 320 graphics and i5's. I don't mind if there's little speed bump in the CPU - its the fact that its newer technology thats attractive. But also, Apple will want to put the 320 in their lineup a.s.a.p and make it the baseline graphics, just as the 9400 was before. :)

I'd buy one in a heart-beat if they updated to i-series CPU's.

Same here... I am REALLY hoping there will be an update in June! I'd love to upgrade my 20 inch Core2duo to i-series CPUs and as others have said in this thread, 27 inch is really too big for my desk, plus I already have a second screen hooked up to my 20 inch.

I'd find it surprising that they wouldn't upgrade them as current laptop lineup performance is quite close to 21.5 inch desktop performance.

[zedsdead]

I imagine that the 21.5" iMac's will receive i5 updates (definitely not i7's!), but whether or not they go with the Quad variant is debatable. Remember - the 27" iMac is 27"s just so that they could have enough heat management for the i7's.

The 21.5" models are really lovely computers, I hope they get an update by June. My guess is that they'll get the NVIDIA 320 graphics and i5's. I don't mind if there's little speed bump in the CPU - its the fact that its newer technology thats attractive. But also, Apple will want to put the 320 in their lineup a.s.a.p and make it the baseline graphics, just as the 9400 was before. :)

I'd buy one in a heart-beat if they updated to i-series CPU's.

They can't have both the i5 and the NVIDIA 320 due to the depute between Apple and Intel (same reason the 13" Macbook Pro stuck with Core2Duo).

I can see Apple sticking with Core2Duo with the NVIDIA chip in the 21.5" iMac and upping the base clock speed to 3.33. They might then offer the upper model with an i5 and desecrate ATI or NVIDIA card.

The 27" will definitely get the Clarksdale Dual Core chips, and likely higher locked quad cores in the upper end (if these are available). They may not get updated till August though, as they seem to still be selling well (they only recently were able to keep up with demand as there was shipping delays). Plus the iMac has had an average of 8-10 months over the past four cycles I think.

[miniroll32]

That was be an interesting update. Plus, they online store usually offers upgrades for the CPU, so I'd just max the b!tch out!

[iamthedudeman]

Sometimes stuff just leaves one's mouth with no proof!:eek:

I have owned both the 21" and not 27" iMacs and the 21" holds it's own under normal use. I like my 27" i7 but it is TOO BIG for the distance I have it on my desk. I am actually thinking of going back to a 21" iMac 3.3Mhz.:eek:

I also have a 27 inch and it is BIG. I have alot of them at my business and had a i5 at home and now have a C2D 27. This monitor makes my eyes water and gives me a headache sometimes.

I was also contemplating going to a 21.5 with a 3.33 C2D.

I read up on the C2D E8600 3.33 and this processor is a beast for a dual core. The culmanation of all of the best the C2D line has to offer. It beats the i3 and i5s and hangs with the i5 750 on more than it's fair share of tests when multi-threaded is not needed. In other words it is faster than most when using everday apps like word processing and internet browsing. Which most of the population does.

"Many users thought that the Core i5-600 would be like Core 2 Duo, just better -- a very fast processor for single and dual-threaded tasks. Unfortunately, we have to disappoint them: multi-threading is meat and drink for these CPUs, they need it as much as higher-end processors do. As soon as older non-optimized applications become involved, it turns out that the Core 2 Duo E8000 series remains unconquered. "

Is it as good as a Quad i5 750. No. Can it more than hold it's own against the new i3's and i5's dual core in everday computing tasks. Yes.

I think that the C2D is too easily dismissed as old tech and that just isn't the case. It is worlds better than the E7600 3.06. 1333 FSB, and large 6MB cache. Now i hear that they are going to rebadge some of the E8000 series line to i3 processors.

I can see Apple sticking with the C2D line with the 3.33 for the refresh as it provides most of the performance of the i3 and i5 dual cores while waiting for AMD or intel to get their act together.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci5-660-p1.html

[Hellhammer]

*snip*

I agree. People are underestimating C2D now because it's "old". i3 isn't faster in other than multithreaded tasks such as video encoding but in gaming, E8600 is still a beast. Issue with C2D is that it's pretty expensive. i3 is cheaper than the cheapest reasonable clocked C2D, that's why it's dying.

[iamthedudeman]

I agree. People are underestimating C2D now because it's "old". i3 isn't faster in other than multithreaded tasks such as video encoding but in gaming, E8600 is still a beast. Issue with C2D is that it's pretty expensive. i3 is cheaper than the cheapest reasonable clocked C2D, that's why it's dying.


Agreed. They need to bring the price down of the E8600. I was quite surprised at the benchmark results. The C2D E8600 marks the pinnacle of the C2D line. Alot of people on these forums say, get the i7 get the i7 or i5. C2D duo sucks. Well these bench marks prove other wise. The E8600 has performance on par with the best dual core i5 has to offer. Surpasses the i3 in dual core performance and even out performs the quad core i5 on some of the tests.

That is very, very impressive.

Since multi-threaded apps are not really supported as much as they will be the C2D E8600 is a processor that is looking mighty good.

[Hellhammer]

Agreed. They need to bring the price down of the E8600. I was quite surprised at the benchmark results. The C2D E8600 marks the pinnacle of the C2D line. Alot of people on these forums say, get the i7 get the i7 or i5. C2D duo sucks. Well these bench marks prove other wise. The E8600 has performance on par with the best dual core i5 has to offer. Surpasses the i3 in dual core performance and even out performs the quad core i5 on some of the tests.

That is very, very impressive.

Since multi-threaded apps are not really supported as much as they will be the C2D E8600 is a processor that is looking mighty good.

It doesn't win the fastest i5 which is 3.6GHz and goes up to 3.86GHz with Turbo ;) i5 is usually faster due Turbo but E8600 wins i3 but then we drive into the second problem which is that E8600 costs 233$ while i3 is 113$.

iX is the way to go but C2D isn't a bad chip, not at all.

[peakchua]

C2D in the next imac if used should get a clock bump... maybe 3.16 ghz for the base. the others, i think i would see dual core i5s running at 3.2 or 3.33 ghz. high end would remain i5 or the present i5. i really hope imac comes soon.. the whole iphone thing is getting really annoying *check macrumors, headline, :IPHONE IPHONE!!!, MYSELF, -_-*

[Hellhammer]

C2D in the next imac if used should get a clock bump... maybe 3.16 ghz for the base. the others, i think i would see dual core i5s running at 3.2 or 3.33 ghz. high end would remain i5 or the present i5. i really hope imac comes soon.. the whole iphone thing is getting really annoying *check macrumors, headline, :IPHONE IPHONE!!!, MYSELF, -_-*

E8500 costs as much as E8600, 233$. That's more than i5 750 in high-end iMac...

[iamthedudeman]

It doesn't win the fastest i5 which is 3.6GHz and goes up to 3.86GHz with Turbo ;) i5 is usually faster due Turbo but E8600 wins i3 but then we drive into the second problem which is that E8600 costs 233$ while i3 is 113$.

iX is the way to go but C2D isn't a bad chip, not at all.

When it comes to non-multi threaded tasks such as every day web browsing and word processing it beats it. It even beats the i5-750 in alot of tests that don't stress all four cores. Now that is impressive. Right now for every day computing the E8600 is one of the fastest out there.

The E8600 is a impressive chip. No doubt.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci5-660-p2.html

"As soon as older non-optimized applications become involved, it turns out that the Core 2 Duo E8000 series remains unconquered. Even the new architecture and Turbo Boost doesn't help, because 4MB of 2.13 GHz cache is not the same as 6MB of 3+ GHz cache. Besides, Hyper-Threading is a disadvantage under these conditions."

[iamthedudeman]

It doesn't win the fastest i5 which is 3.6GHz and goes up to 3.86GHz with Turbo ;) i5 is usually faster due Turbo but E8600 wins i3 but then we drive into the second problem which is that E8600 costs 233$ while i3 is 113$.

iX is the way to go but C2D isn't a bad chip, not at all.

And it's 3.33 base clock with 3.6 for turbo. Not 3.6 to 3.86. The highest is 3.46 GHz 3.73. We don't know how the E8600 would do against that one since it was not tested. With the lower cache than the E8600 for every day tasks the turbo does not help much. The i5 is the better chip but since Apple only offers the C2D 3.33 it isn't a bad choice and not overmatched against the i3 and most of the i5 series.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-650-660-661-review-test/2

[Hellhammer]

And it's 3.33 base clock with 3.6 for turbo. Not 3.6 to 3.86. With the lower cache than the E8600 for every day tasks the turbo does not help much.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-650-660-661-review-test/2

Wrong. There is i5-680 (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=48504) which is 3.6GHz and 3.86GHz with Turbo. There is also i5-670 (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=43556) which is 3.46GHz and 3.73GHz with Turbo. Cache isn't that important when we are talking about raw performance, all i5s win C2Ds anyway.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci5-660-p2.html
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci5-660-p3.html

E8600 is faster in some tests which are more cache intensive but generally, i5 wins

[iamthedudeman]

Wrong. There is i5-680 (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=48504) which is 3.6GHz and 3.86GHz with Turbo. There is also i5-670 (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=43556) which is 3.46GHz and 3.73GHz with Turbo. Cache isn't that important when we are talking about raw performance, all i5s win C2Ds anyway.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci5-660-p2.html
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci5-660-p3.html

E8600 is faster in some tests which are more cache intensive but generally, i5 wins


It wins in more than a few tests. All the tests that did not stress more than two cores it won. Which is 90 percent of current mainstream computing.

So generally it doesn't win. Is it a more powerfull processor overall. Yes. it is for everyday computing. No. Not right now anyway.

As soon as older non-optimized applications become involved, it turns out that the Core 2 Duo E8000 series remains unconquered. Even the new architecture and Turbo Boost doesn't help, because 4MB of 2.13 GHz cache is not the same as 6MB of 3+ GHz cache. Besides, Hyper-Threading is a disadvantage under these conditions.

[Hellhammer]

It wins in more than a few tests. All the tests that did not stress more than two cores it won. Which is 90 percent of current mainstream computing.

So generally it doesn't win. Is it a more powerfull processor overall. Yes. it is for everyday computing. No. Not right now anyway.

As soon as older non-optimized applications become involved, it turns out that the Core 2 Duo E8000 series remains unconquered. Even the new architecture and Turbo Boost doesn't help, because 4MB of 2.13 GHz cache is not the same as 6MB of 3+ GHz cache. Besides, Hyper-Threading is a disadvantage under these conditions.

In everyday computing, even 1.5GHz C2D is sufficient. Software that really stresses the CPU is usually multi-threaded, like video encoding software unless it's horribly outdated. C2D doesn't win in every benchmark that is single-threaded, not at all. It is better in benches that are more cache intensive

Doesn't the cache always run at that same speed as the CPU? Where did you get that 2.13GHz? C2D isn't bad but i5 is better and cheaper. If C2D won, it didn't won by much anyway. So generally, i5 is better, and not by little. Will average Joe notice it? Of course not. Will advanced user do? Yes, if he isn't stuck with ancient software. Plus, people don't buy computers for couple of months, they are meant for years. More and more software is supporting multiple threads so if you even think about future, you would dump C2D right away.

[iamthedudeman]

In everyday computing, even 1.5GHz C2D is sufficient. Software that really stresses the CPU is usually multi-threaded, like video encoding software unless it's horribly outdated. C2D doesn't win in every benchmark that is single-threaded, not at all. It is better in benches that are more cache intensive

Doesn't the cache always run at that same speed as the CPU? Where did you get that 2.13GHz? C2D isn't bad but i5 is better and cheaper. If C2D won, it didn't won by much anyway. So generally, i5 is better, and not by little. Will average Joe notice it? Of course not. Will advanced user do? Yes, if he isn't stuck with ancient software. Plus, people don't buy computers for couple of months, they are meant for years. More and more software is supporting multiple threads so if you even think about future, you would dump C2D right away.


Yes it is only better by a little. The overall score was 99 to 108. That is not a large degree by any stretch. Comparing the i3 the E8600 would likely come out on top on most tests. Any way you look at it the E8600 is a impressive chip.

I agree with you for the most part but the C2D E8600 more than hold it's own with the i3 and i5's and since it is the only upgrade option as far as CPU's go with the 21.5 it isn't a bad option. Even for the future. The next update would likely have a i3 or low i5 or C2D 3.33 in the next update anyway so if you are looking for upgrading the 3.33 C2D is a good option for the future. But you are right the i5 is better but the 3.33 C2D isn't a bad option considering that is all that is offered right now.

Where did you get that 2.13GHz?

That is from the article. Not me.

[Hellhammer]

Yes it is only better by a little. The overall score was 99 to 108. That is not a large degree by any stretch. Comparing the i3 the E8600 would likely come out on top on most tests. Any way you look at it the E8600 is a impressive chip.

I agree with you for the most part but the C2D E8600 more than hold it's own with the i3 and i5's and since it is the only upgrade option as far as CPU's go with the 21.5 it isn't a bad option. Even for the future. The next update would likely have a i3 or low i5 or C2D 3.33 in the next update anyway so if you are looking for upgrading the 3.33 C2D is a good option for the future. But you are right the i5 is better but the 3.33 C2D isn't a bad option considering that is all that is offered right now.

Where did you get that 2.13GHz?

That is from the article. Not me.

Keep in mind that the E8600 cost more than the i5 in the high-end iMac... Price/performance ratio is a lot better in i3 and i5, that's why E8600 isn't that great chip

[Yinmay]

No, because quad cores are too hot and expensive for 21.5"

Says who? Based on what?

E7600: 74.1°C (current 3.06)
E8600: 72.4°C (current BTO 3.33)
i5-750: 72.7°C (quad-core)
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=42915

And for the record:
i7-9xx: 67.9°C (higher-end quad-core)
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37151

As for the price, E7600 and E8600 were extremely pricey when they were introduced in the iMac 8 months ago, why wouldn't Apple be able to introduce an equally pricey processor now anymore?

I see only two logical explanations:
- either Apple is a greedy lazy company that wants to keep milking customers by charging launch price for 8 month+ old components.
- or Apple technologically can and would like to offer the new processors but can't because Intel is unable to produce them in sufficient quantity.

I certainly hope it's the second hypothesis...


Edit to add: according to wikipedia, at launch E7600 was $133, E8600 $266 and i5-750 $196.
Assuming quad-cores in 21.5" would likely be BTO, if anything a quad-core BTO would actually be CHEAPER than the current E8600 BTO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#.22Wolfdale-3M.22_.2845_nm.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i5_microprocessors#.22Lynnfield.22_.2845_nm.29
And the cheapest i7 quad-core is $284 again well within BTO price range if October 2009's E8600 BTO is any indication of what an "acceptable" BTO is.

[iamthedudeman]

Keep in mind that the E8600 cost more than the i5 in the high-end iMac... Price/performance ratio is a lot better in i3 and i5, that's why E8600 isn't that great chip


I agree but that is all that is offered on the 21.5 as of now. What makes it worse is that Apple would be unlikely to go with the higher end i5's and that is with the higher level i5 661. Most likely the E8600 would do better against the lower i5 or higher i3's which is likely what the 21.5 would get if they get them.

[Hellhammer]

Says who? Based on what?

E7600: 74.1°C (current 3.06)
E8600: 72.4°C (current BTO 3.33)
i5-750: 72.7°C (quad-core)
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=42915

And for the record:
i7-9xx: 67.9°C (higher-end quad-core)
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37151

As for the price, E7600 and E8600 were extremely pricey when they were introduced in the iMac 8 months ago, why wouldn't Apple be able to introduce an equally pricey processor now anymore?

I see only two logical explanations:
- either Apple is a greedy lazy company that wants to keep milking customers by charging launch price for 8 month+ old components.
- or Apple technologically can and would like to offer the new processors but can't because Intel is unable to produce them in sufficient quantity.

I certainly hope it's the second hypothesis...


Edit to add: according to wikipedia, at launch E7600 was $133, E8600 $266 and i5-750 $196.
Assuming quad-cores in 21.5" would likely be BTO, if anything a quad-core BTO would actually be CHEAPER than the current E8600 BTO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#.22Wolfdale-3M.22_.2845_nm.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i5_microprocessors#.22Lynnfield.22_.2845_nm.29
And the cheapest i7 quad-core is $284 again well within BTO price range if October 2009's E8600 BTO is any indication of what an "acceptable" BTO is.

What do those temps have to do with anything? Just some Intel crap, provide some real world temps and keep in mind that iMac is AIO, not a full size tower with 1000 times more airflow... Quad core is hotter, you can't beat that.

I agree but that is all that is offered on the 21.5 as of now. What makes it worse is that Apple would be unlikely to go with the higher end i5's and that is with the higher level i5 661. Most likely the E8600 would do better against the lower i5 or higher i3's which is likely what the 21.5 would get if they get them.

i5 661 is the second slowest i5, 650 is 3.2GHz and that 130MHz isn't big difference anyway. i3 isn't that big upgrade but it does provide ~30% better performance in multithreaded apps like video encoding

[iamthedudeman]

What do those temps have to do with anything? Just some Intel crap, provide some real world temps and keep in mind that iMac is AIO, not a full size tower with 1000 times more airflow... Quad core is hotter, you can't beat that.



i5 661 is the second slowest i5, 650 is 3.2GHz and that 130MHz isn't big difference anyway. i3 isn't that big upgrade but it does provide ~30% better performance in multithreaded apps like video encoding

The 660/661 processors are the middle two processors.

the 650/655 processors share the bottom two slots.

With the 670/680 processors claiming the remaining top two spots.

The E8600 would compete very well with the 650/655 processors than it would against the 660/661 processors which it also did well against.



The i3 wouldn't be a upgrade at all since it doesn't provide turbo boost. The E8600 spanks the i3 on more than it's share of tests. So I wouldn't call the i3 a upgrade at all.

[Hellhammer]

The 660/661 processors are the middle two processors.

the 650/655 processors share the bottom two slots.

With the 670/680 processors claiming the remaining top two spots.

The E8600 would compete very well with the 650/655 processors than it would against the 660/661 processors which it also did well against.



The i3 wouldn't be a upgrade at all since it doesn't provide turbo boost. The E8600 spanks the i3 on more than it's share of tests. So I wouldn't call the i3 a upgrade at all.

Only difference between i5s is the clock speed which isn't much, like 5-10%. i3 wins E8600 in multi-threaded performance as it has Hyper-Threading. And it doesn't matter is it a little better or not because it's horribly overpriced chip. i3 fights a good fight against it, even wins in some tests and you can get two i3s for the price of E8600.

Price/performance ratio is the only thing that matter. Yes, we can say that the early dual cores are still capable (used in e.g. Mac Pro) but if they cost 800$ per chip while current chips are 100$, that's not good price/performance ratio.

In the end, most people won't notice anything anyway. See for example this (http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci5-660-p3.html), it has audio and video encoding benchmarks which are the two most common tasks an average Joe does. In those, i5 runs circles around E8600.

[silkod]

Would it be possible a 21,5" update with VideoInput?? What do you think??

This would be as interesting for me as processor update....

[iamthedudeman]

Only difference between i5s is the clock speed which isn't much, like 5-10%. i3 wins E8600 in multi-threaded performance as it has Hyper-Threading. And it doesn't matter is it a little better or not because it's horribly overpriced chip. i3 fights a good fight against it, even wins in some tests and you can get two i3s for the price of E8600.

Price/performance ratio is the only thing that matter. Yes, we can say that the early dual cores are still capable (used in e.g. Mac Pro) but if they cost 800$ per chip while current chips are 100$, that's not good price/performance ratio.

In the end, most people won't notice anything anyway. See for example this (http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci5-660-p3.html), it has audio and video encoding benchmarks which are the two most common tasks an average Joe does. In those, i5 runs circles around E8600.



Internet usage and word processing and data compression are the three most common tasks 99 percent of the population use on a day to day basis.

I can't remember the last time I manually had to encode a video or audio file. Most video editing software or audio software do this for you. Compress or Decompress yes ex Rar file Convert MP3 to MP4 or MPEG 3 to MPEG 4. When you are moving data from one place to another that is using data compression. Move a bunch of pictures or videos off your camera that is data compression.

Most files on the internet today can be played 'as is' or are already encoded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_compression

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/E/encoding.html

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/V/video_encoding.html

http://www.digitalfaq.com/guides/video/introduction-encode-convert.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/codecs.aspx

Most files that you find on the Internet are already compressed. You may not realize that those files are compressed because you can easily download and play the file with no additional actions. Your computer can play any compressed file, provided that the codec it was compressed with is available on the computer's hard disk. The computer uses the codec's instructions to decompress the file you want to play. If the codec is not on your computer, then a player such as Windows Media Player will try to download the codec so that it can understand how to decompress the file.

I would think data compression would be more important as you move music and video files back and fourth between devices. Such as phones, MP3's and cameras. That would come in third behind internet browsing and word processing.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci5-660-p2.html

The above three tasks the E8600 excels in those tasks. Which is every day computing. This sums it up very nicely.

"Many users thought that the Core i5-600 would be like Core 2 Duo, just better -- a very fast processor for single and dual-threaded tasks. Unfortunately, we have to disappoint them: multi-threading is meat and drink for these CPUs, they need it as much as higher-end processors do. As soon as older non-optimized applications become involved, it turns out that the Core 2 Duo E8000 series remains unconquered. Even the new architecture and Turbo Boost doesn't help, because 4MB of 2.13 GHz cache is not the same as 6MB of 3+ GHz cache. Besides, Hyper-Threading is a disadvantage under these conditions."

Until multi-threaded applications become the norm in web browsing and simple word processing, the E8600 remains a very attractive performing chip, regardless of price. Taking price into account it is not a very good chip. But like I said if you want a 21.5 that is the best you can choose from and it is not a bad choice.