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

[diegobgr]

Hi.

Tomorrow I will make my order at Apple Online Store.

I will get a new 21,5" high-end, and I'm wondering if the i5 upgrade worths or not.

I will use it for play games and photography.

[zedsdead]

Unless you plan to do any kind of video encoding, you really will not notice any difference.

[Hellhammer]

Not really worth it unless it's for work where time means money

[Tigerman82]

I think this is the one question to which many people would like an answer but to which the answer is left as a bit of a mystery. I do not have the space for the 27" model and while everyone praising the QUAD CORE models I do not think they are necessary for those who do not do extra heavy work -- you have to remember that even the last gen C2D cpus were said to be more than what a basic user needs.

I'm getting the 21.5" model with the better GPU. However, I'm not sure about the i5-upgrade. I'm planning on using this iMac for at least 4-5 years so I do want some futureproofing. On the other hand, I don't want to pay for nothing.

For example... There is that Youtube-video of some guy playing Crysis with his iMac 21.5" i3 and some said that the game lagged. Would an i5 cpu help at all in this situation?

[diegobgr]

Not, it's not for work.

Gaming and photography, but family photos, nothing professional.

[TMRaven]

3.6ghz is a juicy number, but will mostly be used for pumping ePenis. The only thing you might get out of a 3.6ghz cpu is a bit of futureproofing, but even then, it won't be as much future-proofing as you could get out of a lynnfield.

I'd say buy the base i3, and if you really need a more powerful cpu further down the line, you can help replace that iMac with a newer iMac using the money you saved by not going i5.

[Tigerman82]

I'm getting the high-end 21.5" iMac and still have very mixed feelings about whether or not I should spend the extra $200 for the i5 3.6ghz cpu. Could someone please help me?

I mostly surf the net and watch video clips from Youtube etc. I'm a university student so I write a lot. I do also take pictures and use Photoshop Elements as my tool (I mostly just crop and use Noise Ninja etc.). I use Spotify a lot and watch movie trailers in HD.

I do plan on gaming but I do not go for the newest and prettiest titles. I much rather play something like CS: Sourse than I would something like Crysis. So you could say I like somewhat older games and not the games that require the most out of a computer (something like the latest Command&Conquer -game would probably be the toughest one requirementswise).

I'm going to use this iMac for at least 4-5 years so I don't want to save money at the expense of performance. However, most seem to say that Turbo Boost doesn't really give you anything and that the performance difference between the i5 and the i3 3.2ghz is so tiny that I won't notice it unless I do something like pro video encoding. I do have the extra $200 but if the i5 doesn't give anything extra I can always buy 4 gigs of RAM (making it a total of 8 gigs of RAM) and something else with it.

HELP, PLEASE!

[SiMBa37]

I'm getting the high-end 21.5" iMac and still have very mixed feelings about whether or not I should spend the extra $200 for the i5 3.6ghz cpu. Could someone please help me?

I mostly surf the net and watch video clips from Youtube etc. I'm a university student so I write a lot. I do also take pictures and use Photoshop Elements as my tool (I mostly just crop and use Noise Ninja etc.). I use Spotify a lot and watch movie trailers in HD.

I do plan on gaming but I do not go for the newest and prettiest titles. I much rather play something like CS: Sourse than I would something like Crysis. So you could say I like somewhat older games and not the games that require the most out of a computer (something like the latest Command&Conquer -game would probably be the toughest one requirementswise).

I'm going to use this iMac for at least 4-5 years so I don't want to save money at the expense of performance. However, most seem to say that Turbo Boost doesn't really give you anything and that the performance difference between the i5 and the i3 3.2ghz is so tiny that I won't notice it unless I do something like pro video encoding. I do have the extra $200 but if the i5 doesn't give anything extra I can always buy 4 gigs of RAM (making it a total of 8 gigs of RAM) and something else with it.

HELP, PLEASE!

I'm in the same boat as you, after much back and forth, I decided to go with the i3 3.2 for the high end 21.5". You (we) could use the extra $200 to get some more RAM which will benefit your photoshop experience a lot more than the i5 dual core 3.6. Form what previous threads have stated the newer iMac video card drivers have a considerable performance boost on the gaming experience, perhaps more than the just the new chips/gpu alone could explain.

Unless someone comes on here with hard numbers about the performance of the 21.5" i5 3.6, I'd save your money and stick with the i3 3.2, and use the cash for some more meaningful upgrades to hardware or software.

If you're wondering why I haven't bought it yet, I have one my medical certification exams mid august, I figure I'll reward myself after that. If I buy it before, too much temptation to play with it.

[Tigerman82]

Unless someone comes on here with hard numbers about the performance of the 21.5" i5 3.6, I'd save your money and stick with the i3 3.2, and use the cash for some more meaningful upgrades to hardware or software.


Choosing i3 does seem more sensible as most information what I've found using Google has pointend in that direction. On the other hand, it does a bit like not choosing the i5 would mean I'm being cheap. I guess this must be Apple's strategy: getting to those who are easily tempted. :D Of course another way to look at is that because everyone is hyping their new i7 iMac, we who are going for the smaller model want to max out the specs as well.

[SkyMasterson]

I think this is the one question to which many people would like an answer but to which the answer is left as a bit of a mystery. I do not have the space for the 27" model and while everyone praising the QUAD CORE models I do not think they are necessary for those who do not do extra heavy work -- you have to remember that even the last gen C2D cpus were said to be more than what a basic user needs.

I'm getting the 21.5" model with the better GPU. However, I'm not sure about the i5-upgrade. I'm planning on using this iMac for at least 4-5 years so I do want some futureproofing. On the other hand, I don't want to pay for nothing.

For example... There is that Youtube-video of some guy playing Crysis with his iMac 21.5" i3 and some said that the game lagged. Would an i5 cpu help at all in this situation?

I'm wondering this too. Not for Crysis but just games in general, say starcraft 2 and diablo 3. I may just go with the extra 4 gigs of ram instead.

[Tigerman82]

I did some more digging around and found two useful articles. The first is this Anandtech-article (http://www.anandtech.com/show/2901/16) about the Dual Core i3 and i5 processors. Actually I found the link to this via this forum. Anyway, in the conclusion the reviewer says that he does not believe any dual core i5 is worth the money compared to the i3. This certainly supports the claims that you would hardly even notice going from i3 to DC i5.

But what about the Turbo Boost feature that you get with the DC i5? Well, I found this Tom's Hardware -article (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/turbo-boost-overclocking,2512-7.html) that tested Quad Core cpus performance when it comes to Turbo Boost. If you look at the benchmarks of Crysis and the conclusion below you clearly get the idea that, at least when it comes to gaming which is more relevant than Aperture or Photoshop to the not-so-pro user, Turbo Boost gives such a small boost that it doesn't even mean anything. I know that article covers the Quad Core cpus but I read that Turbo Boost is truly effective with the Quad Cores -- not so much with the Dual Cores. In other words, the Turbo Boost in the Dual Core i5 doesn't give you any edge.

Of course there's the fact that the Dual Core i5 has some technology that could give a slight edge to the i3 in the future. On the other hand, it does feel like these technologies are used in pro editing programs and not in programs that basic users use. I mean I doubt Firefox will take advantage from Turbo Boost much. :D

I still feel a temptation towards the i5 but I've pretty much always chosen the most expensive parts (not knowing what they mean performancewise) and then, within 1-3 years, regretted I put so much money into a computer. Perhaps now I should finally make the sensible choice. The performance of the high-end i3 iMac is such that it meets the needs of a demanding basic user (although as we have seen from the Youtube clip, you cannot play a game like Crysis with everything high). That's actually all I want: a quality computer for the basic stuff that has the performance to feel slighty "too fast". I will use the extra $200 for 2x2 gigs of RAM from Crucial and be still left with cash (maybe a new Logitech mouse with be in order). :)

[dylin]

Not, it's not for work.

Gaming and photography, but family photos, nothing professional.

Well, its not for work, but in gaming, the i5 would be a nice bump in performance, but not enough to pour out more money for.

I think it would be safe to just go with the i3

[Sammy Cat]

So far everything has been speculation regarding the i5 3.6mhz. There haven't been any tests posted yet. A good chip is just that, but at the price of the new 3.6 iMac you could save money on a 27" refurbished i5 quad core. Again no hyper-threading and almost 1ghz slower for normal processes. Are you going to take advantage of 4-cores? The 3.6 config. was also my first choice.

I've stopped questioning the cpu speed after viewing different results from tests of slightly slower chips and have started to question the screen. I was not happy at all with the i3 256mb video card 21.5" screen. I would like to see the 21.5" with the 512mb video card in it. At $1799, it is a bit expensive. They should have put in the 1GB video card with it (too hot probably). I would have bought it without question at that price. I don't think the current offering is worth the money.

The question should be, is the i3 with a 512mb video card worth $1500. The answer to that question is also NO.

The base model i3 seems best aimed at those who will not have a problem selling it in 2 years for $700 or so. That would be about a usage fee of $300 per year. By that time, you could take that $700 and apply it to an iMac that will have USB3, Light Peak, Sandy Bridge processors, possibly standard SSD (or a cheap add-on vs. today), possibly Blue Ray, and more software that will be able to utilize core technology.

I believe that the current iMac, is not a wise choice for future proofing unless you get an i7.

[Tigerman82]

So far everything has been speculation regarding the i5 3.6mhz. There haven't been any tests posted yet. A good chip is just that, but at the price of the new 3.6 iMac you could save money on a 27" refurbished i5 quad core. Again no hyper-threading and almost 1ghz slower for normal processes. Are you going to take advantage of 4-cores? The 3.6 config. was also my first choice.

I've stopped questioning the cpu speed after viewing different results from tests of slightly slower chips and have started to question the screen. I was not happy at all with the i3 256mb video card 21.5" screen. I would like to see the 21.5" with the 512mb video card in it. At $1799, it is a bit expensive. They should have put in the 1GB video card with it (too hot probably). I would have bought it without question at that price. I don't think the current offering is worth the money.

The question should be, is the i3 with a 512mb video card worth $1500. The answer to that question is also NO.

The base model i3 seems best aimed at those who will not have a problem selling it in 2 years for $700 or so. That would be about a usage fee of $300 per year. By that time, you could take that $700 and apply it to an iMac that will have USB3, Light Peak, Sandy Bridge processors, possibly standard SSD (or a cheap add-on vs. today), possibly Blue Ray, and more software that will be able to utilize core technology.

I believe that the current iMac, is not a wise choice for future proofing unless you get an i7.

Admittedly the previous-gen quad cores are excellent deals right now. On the other hand, they still cost more than the high end 21.5" iMac (with the 512Mt GPU). The biggest reason for me not to get the quad cores is the size of the 27" screen. I already have a 40" screen and a blu-ray player in the same room so I would not watch any movies with the iMac. Obviously that massive screen is the "cool" choice right now but I would much rather not sacrifice my desk space and not make my decor look like I don't give a damn about anything else except computing. :D

I've also seen benchmarks where i3s have beaten i5s (and also benchmarks where C2Ds have beaten quad cores). On the other hand, almost all of the articles in the Net are saying that i5s are not good bang for the buck. It is true that Apple has seem to have found extra juice from the i3 (reviews are hyping about how it beats computers with better cpus). However, I doubt that Apple has miraculously made the i5 a great deal better than the i3.

Anyway, right now I feel like I've made a good decision going with the 3.2GhZ iMac. If I buy the extra 4 gigs of RAM making it a total of 8 gigs of RAM, I think I will have a faster general purpose computer than what the DC i5 iMac would be.

[spiffy05]

The question should be, is the i3 with a 512mb video card worth $1500. The answer to that question is also NO.

The base model i3 seems best aimed at those who will not have a problem selling it in 2 years for $700 or so. That would be about a usage fee of $300 per year. By that time, you could take that $700 and apply it to an iMac that will have USB3, Light Peak, Sandy Bridge processors, possibly standard SSD (or a cheap add-on vs. today), possibly Blue Ray, and more software that will be able to utilize core technology.


Why do you think that the i3 with a 512mb card is not worth $1500?

[Tigerman82]

Why do you think that the i3 with a 512mb card is not worth $1500?

I'm interested in this as well. I know they are saying that the sweetest iMac -deal from the new ones is the cheapest model. However, doubling the GPU's memory will certainly pay off. I would be VERY surprised if it didn't.

Perhaps the base model is the best deal right now but, as I'm not one who buys something and then updates within two years, I feel the 512Mb GPU is a MUST for me. That's why I'm buying the high-end 21.5" model.

[spiffy05]

Perhaps the base model is the best deal right now but, as I'm not one who buys something and then updates within two years, I feel the 512Mb GPU is a MUST for me. That's way I'm buying the high-end 21.5" model.

My thoughts exactly. That, and the fact that you can't upgrade the internal drive higher than the stock 500gb.

Regardless, I've already purchased mine (arriving on Friday :) as I felt it was a good deal for me, and my 3 year old Core 2 Duo Macbook was getting long in the tooth.

I would still like to hear why you disagree though!

[Sammy Cat]

Anyway, right now I feel like I've made a good decision going with the 3.2GhZ iMac. If I buy the extra 4 gigs of RAM making it a total of 8 gigs of RAM, I think I will have a faster general purpose computer than what the DC i5 iMac would be.

I agree with you that the 3.2ghz was a better buy over the i5. The storage, and video card upgrade are worth the extra $300 if you plan on using it for more than two years.

The video card on the base model i3 makes it short term buy and hold.

[dwd3885]

get the i3. IF you want to spend more money (just a little bit) get the REFURB QUAD i5. This is actually CHEAPER than upgrading and getting the dual i5 on the 21.5" and you get a 27" screen. The refurb quad i5 and i7 are the two best values Apple has going right now.

[Tigerman82]

get the i3. IF you want to spend more money (just a little bit) get the REFURB QUAD i5. This is actually CHEAPER than upgrading and getting the dual i5 on the 21.5" and you get a 27" screen. The refurb quad i5 and i7 are the two best values Apple has going right now.

Not everyone likes the big screen, though. I know it's hard to imagine but some of us don't think the bigger the screen the better. If you have the space then it's a different story but some of us have desks with other things on it as well and some of us do not want a computer screen to be the biggest thing in the livingroom. Moreover, I've seen plenty of people commenting on how they hate small size of everything when using the 27" because of its resolution. And gaming... You have to scale down to play and it is a well known fact that the more you scale the worse the picture gets. With the 21.5 you do not have to scale.

[dwd3885]

Not everyone likes the big screen, though. I know it's hard to imagine but some of us don't think the bigger the screen the better. If you have the space then it's a different story but some of us have desks with other things on it as well and some of us do not want a computer screen to be the biggest thing in the livingroom. Moreover, I've seen plenty of people commenting on how they hate small size of everything when using the 27" because of its resolution. And gaming... You have to scale down to play and it is a well known fact that the more you scale the worse the picture gets. With the 21.5 you do not have to scale.

that is all true. if you don't want a 27" screen then that iMac is not for you. BUT it will give you the best performance for your dollar.

[lwien]

if you don't want a 27" screen then that iMac is not for you.

Huh? So if one wants a smaller screen, they shouldn't get an iMac? :rolleyes:

[SiMBa37]

Not everyone likes the big screen, though. I know it's hard to imagine but some of us don't think the bigger the screen the better. If you have the space then it's a different story but some of us have desks with other things on it as well and some of us do not want a computer screen to be the biggest thing in the livingroom. Moreover, I've seen plenty of people commenting on how they hate small size of everything when using the 27" because of its resolution. And gaming... You have to scale down to play and it is a well known fact that the more you scale the worse the picture gets. With the 21.5 you do not have to scale.

Agreed. I've stated this before, but for myself, I have a desk with a built in hutch that like very much, but there is no way to fit that 27" in there. Plus I'm so used to working on my 11.6" netbook, they 21.5" seems like luxury to me. I guess I could always buy a new desk, but the specs of the 21.5" i3 3.2 1TB are perfect for all my uses. But I can see the appeal of the 27" quads for people who need more intense power and want to use their screen for watching movies and playing xbox/PS3.

[dwd3885]

Huh? So if one wants a smaller screen, they shouldn't get an iMac? :rolleyes:

i believe i said if you don't want a 27" screen, then don't get the 27" iMac. I didn't say, don't get an iMac.

[lwien]

i believe i said if you don't want a 27" screen, then don't get the 27" iMac. I didn't say, don't get an iMac.


Ahh.........yes you did. I misread it. I apologize. Sorry....:o

[Tigerman82]

Just when I was satisfied with my decision...

I made the mistake of viewing this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=980698) about Geekbench-results. We haven't been getting any advice from the i5 (dual core) owners but it seems now someone has finally benchmarked his or her 21.5" i5. And guess what? The performance seems to be way more than expected. Let's put it this way: the dual core i5 3.6GhZ seems to beat last year's QUAD CORE i5 2.66GhZ with ease in the 32-bit test. That's pretty impressive.

So let's compare:

32-bit: i3 3.06 Ghz scores 5700, i3 3.2GhZ scores 6000, i5 3.6GhZ scores 6850 and last year's i5 (QUAD CORE) 2.66GhZ scores 6200.

There hasn't been any 64-bit entry yet from the i5 3.6GhZ, but one guy estimated that it could be in the 7400s. In comparison: i3 3.06 Ghz got 6400, i3 3.2GhZ got 6600 and last year's i5 (QUAD CORE) 2.66GhZ got 7450.

I guess the only question is how good a comparison a Geekbench-score is to real-life use. If it is at all a good comparison then I will certainly get the i5 3.6GhZ after all. In fact, I think the difference in scores in Geekbench is so massive that I doubt it is much less in real-life use.

So... I guess I'm going with the i5 after all. :D

[diegobgr]

So, it WORTHS.

Well, my order is going to be cancelled.

[swajames]

Just when I was satisfied with my decision...

I made the mistake of viewing this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=980698) about Geekbench-results. We haven't been getting any advice from the i5 (dual core) owners but it seems now someone has finally benchmarked his or her 21.5" i5. And guess what? The performance seems to be way more than expected. Let's put it this way: the dual core i5 3.6GhZ seems to beat last year's QUAD CORE i5 2.66GhZ with ease in the 32-bit test. That's pretty impressive.

So let's compare:

32-bit: i3 3.06 Ghz scores 5700, i3 3.2GhZ scores 6000, i5 3.6GhZ scores 6850 and last year's i5 (QUAD CORE) 2.66GhZ scores 6200.

There hasn't been any 64-bit entry yet from the i5 3.6GhZ, but one guy estimated that it could be in the 7400s. In comparison: i3 3.06 Ghz got 6400, i3 3.2GhZ got 6600 and last year's i5 (QUAD CORE) 2.66GhZ got 7450.

I guess the only question is how good a comparison a Geekbench-score is to real-life use. If it is at all a good comparison then I will certainly get the i5 3.6GhZ after all. In fact, I think the difference in scores in Geekbench is so massive that I doubt it is much less in real-life use.

So... I guess I'm going with the i5 after all. :D

I'm interested in this too - I've held off buying the iMac pending seeing some benchmarks and some real world feedback. One thing to note though, the geekbench results for the 3.6 i5 seems to be on a machine with 12GB of ram. I'm not sure to what extent this may have impacted the score.

[LAPTOPODO]

I'm beetwen the New i5 - 3,60 Ghz and a reburb i5 2,66 Ghz (i7 2,8ghz maybe)

Althought the i5 dualcore goes quiet good i think maybe it's a good investment the Quadcore, looking into future.

[diegobgr]

I can only have a 21,5" due to space, so...

Well, finally, I will go with the i5. But I will wait untill tomorrow, to see more benchs.

Next week, it will be here.

:D

[Tigerman82]

I think I might have spoken with too much haste...

Actually I didn't. :D

[diegobgr]

I guess the avarage is so low for the i3 because for some reason some folk got scores as low as 5900 (compared to those who got 6600-6700).

What get most of people? About 6500?

Well...I think that finally we will go for the i3, don't you?

I also think that the differencia will be noticeable only in encoding video or things like that.

[JHorstmann]

I'm interested in this too - I've held off buying the iMac pending seeing some benchmarks and some real world feedback. One thing to note though, the geekbench results for the 3.6 i5 seems to be on a machine with 12GB of ram. I'm not sure to what extent this may have impacted the score.

I have the 3.6 i5 here, but i don't have the money for the 64-bit. I just posted my geekbench score over on my forum. But it posted a 7008- 8gb RAM

[Tigerman82]

Well...I think that finally we will go for the i3, don't you?

I also think that the differencia will be noticeable only in encoding video or things like that.

Well luckily I'm buying the iMac within three weeks so I do have time to get a better picture of the situation regarding the i5 680 model. My gut feeling does tell me that it's not worth the extra money but I'd hate to be wrong -- especially since I will be using the iMac for at least four years. On the other hand, at this point the extra $200 begins to feel like pocket change: why stress, why not just get it and have the best performance. I guess I'm a bit more economical nowadays and want the best performance for the buck.

I mean let's think about that guy in Youtube playing Crysis with the i3 550 iMac with the game lagging. What if choosing the i5 680 would let that guy play Crysis (all settings high except shadow) without the lag.

[Tigerman82]

I have the 3.6 i5 here, but i don't have the money for the 64-bit. I just posted my geekbench score over on my forum. But it posted a 7008- 8gb RAM

Thanks for this!

Okey, so we now have scores of 6800 (with 12 gigs of RAM) and 7008 (with 8 gigs of RAM) for the i5 680. I guess the RAM doesn't make that much of a difference (as in the i3 550 Geekbench scores a person with 4 gigs of RAM scored higher than a person with 8 gigs of RAM).

[selfdisplaced]

these scores don't make any sense, especially considering the i5 has 400mhz faster processor (and next step up) and also supports turbo boost with the i5 which gives it a few extra hundred mhz.

also, does the i5 21.5" support 12gb? all you can order from apple is 8gb.

[maril1111]

these scores don't make any sense, especially considering the i5 has 400mhz faster processor (and next step up) and also supports turbo boost with the i5 which gives it a few extra hundred mhz.

also, does the i5 21.5" support 12gb? all you can order from apple is 8gb.

If I am correct it should unofficially support up to 16GB of ram

[tyche]

Are these stock out of the box scores or after the installing Mac OS X v10.6.4 Update that had a graphics card update.

[diegobgr]

Finally, I will go i5. It's better, and it has more future proof.

[selfdisplaced]

i'm glad i spent the extra ~200$ (188$ with companies discount), it's obviously enough faster and it is more futureproof as others have said.

[SiMBa37]

I already sealed my fate with an i3 3.2 1TB when I purchase it in 2 weeks. I just got my wife an iPad and I can't justify spending another $200 on top of my $1399 (I get a faculty discount...hopefully).

But if I had the cash I'd get the i5 3.6. Heck, if I had the cash plus a bigger desk with no hutch i'd get a 27" quad core, but enough with the fantasy.

[selfdisplaced]

NEW iMACs:

32bit

* i3 - 3,06Ghz - 5700 (2 results)
* i3 - 3,2Ghz - 6000 (>10 results)
* i5 - 3,6Ghz - 6850 (2 results)
* i5 - 2,8Ghz - 6711 (>10 results)
* i7 - 2,93Ghz - 9300 (4 results)


64bit:

* i3 - 3,06Ghz - 6400 (1 result)
* i3 - 3,2Ghz - 6600 (2 results)
* i5 - 3,6Ghz - still missing
* i5 - 2,8Ghz - 8000 (2 results)
* i7 - 2,93Ghz - 10700 (1 result)


Going by those results i would imagine the 3.6 i5 64bit would be about 8500ish i would imagine. So it would be 3.2 i3 6600. So it's quite the difference. just my estimates on this low results so far.

[Tigerman82]

NEW iMACs:

32bit

* i3 - 3,06Ghz - 5700 (2 results)
* i3 - 3,2Ghz - 6000 (>10 results)
* i5 - 3,6Ghz - 6850 (2 results)
* i5 - 2,8Ghz - 6711 (>10 results)
* i7 - 2,93Ghz - 9300 (4 results)


64bit:

* i3 - 3,06Ghz - 6400 (1 result)
* i3 - 3,2Ghz - 6600 (2 results)
* i5 - 3,6Ghz - still missing
* i5 - 2,8Ghz - 8000 (2 results)
* i7 - 2,93Ghz - 10700 (1 result)


Well it turns out those numbers are good. I previously mentioned that some i3 550 iMacs got scores as high as 6600-6700 from the 32-bit test. I wondered how it is possible to get those kinds of scores with a model that is scoring 5800-6000 as well in the same test. Anyway, those 6600-6700 scores turned out to be 64-bit test scores.

This means that we can safely say that any i3 550 iMac will get around 5800-6000 points from the 32-bit test and any i5 680 iMac will get around 6800-7000 points. The difference between the i3 processors is about 300 points and the difference between i3 550 and 15 680 is about 1000 points. That would make, at least in Geekbench, i5 a 'bang for the buck' choice in my book.

[diegobgr]

Well it turns out those numbers are good. I previously mentioned that some i3 550 iMacs got scores as high as 6600-6700 from the 32-bit test. I wondered how it is possible to get those kinds of scores with a model that is scoring 5800-6000 as well in the same test. Anyway, those 6600-6700 scores turned out to be 64-bit test scores.

This means that we can safely say that any i3 550 iMac will get around 5800-6000 points from the 32-bit test and any i5 680 iMac will get around 6800-7000 points. The difference between the i3 processors is about 300 points and the difference between i3 550 and 15 680 is about 1000 points. That would make, at least in Geekbench, i5 a 'bang for the buck' choice in my book.

What bang for the buck means? Sorry, I'm not English.

[maril1111]

Bang for the Buck means it has the best Price vs Performance value

[Tigerman82]

What bang for the buck means? Sorry, I'm not English.

It means good value. We have been trying to guess if the i5 680 is worth the money. At least in Geekbench it seems to be.

[diegobgr]

Thanks.

I can't wait to have my i5 here. It will make a perfect combo with my iPhone.

[diegobgr]

I'm wondering if the upgrade will worth for photos and games.

[Tigerman82]

From another thread:

Just got the 3.6ghz i5, 8gig RAM, Radeon 5670.

Runs WoW on Ultra at a consistent 31 fps. Have had no lag problems at all- have been questing for 5 hours tonight.

EDIT: That is actually a strange result as I found this thread where a guy with 3.2GhZ i3, 8gig RAM, Radeon 5670 seems to get about 50 fps playing WoW on Ultra. Check it out! (http://mattgadient.com/2010/08/01/imac-21-5-i3-3-2ghz-with-the-radeon-5670-mid-2010-in-gaming/)

[diegobgr]

What would you do for photo and gaming?

[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.:o

[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: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=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 (http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/224842575#1):

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 :confused:

[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 :confused:

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 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i5+680&commit=Search)

[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 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=982099).

[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 (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i5+680&commit=Search)

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.

[stonemann]

I think the base iMac is a terrific deal for most users. It stands up fairly well compared to the more expensive options. See the Macworld benchmarks here:

21.5- and 27-inch iMacs (Mid 2010) (http://www.macworld.com/article/153135/2010/08/mid2010_imacs.html?lsrc=top_1)

Saying that, the iMac i3 3.2 is also a very capable machine plus you get the better graphics card and bigger storage. It still doesn't account for the price hike over the base model - but if it makes you feel better that's the machine I'd go for. I'd save the $200 extra that I'd spend on the i5 for more memory or Applecare. Or put the money towards an iPad...

[Tigerman82]

I found this site called cpubenchmark.net. Here are some scores:

i3 540 - 2774
i3 550 - 2794

i5 680 - 3179

i5 750 - 4209 (like the one in 2009 iMac)
i5 760 - 4508

i7 860 - 5823 (like the one in 2009 iMac)
i7 870 - 6156

It seems that the difference between the old and the new quadcore cpus is roughtly 300 points. I've read that the performance difference between the old and the new is not enough to justify an upgrade. So this would mean that 300 points doesn't really show in real-life usage.

The difference between i3 550 and i5 680 is a little under 400 points. That's significantly more than the difference between the i3's but it's nowhere near the difference you get when you move from quadcore i5 to i7: roughly 1600 points. You can see why so many people opt for the i7 as it is clearly faster than the quadcore i5. You can also see why it is so difficult to choose between the i3 and the dual core i5.

The differences between the i3s definately show why people think the base model is the sweet spot: unless you need the extra space and the better GPU you don't get much from going from i3 540 to i3 550.

[Nihilvor]

I found this site called cpubenchmark.net. Here are some scores:


Okay, but those scores are for the processors, not the actual computers, and they explain some initial assessments of the models. They don't necessarily take in effect clocking or how well the OS is integrated. The geekbench scores, which is a respected source for such information, are coming in much more in favor of the i5 model. It a good deal if you have a little extra money at your disposal.

Compare:

i5 3.6 http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i5+680&commit=Search

i3 3.2 http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i3+550&commit=Search

i3 3.06 http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i3+540&commit=Search

[tyche]

My own belief was you want the fastest 21.5" iMac, get the i5. Which is what I did. I see lots of posts of people trying to justify cost/performance and other intangibles. To me it's worth it no question. I'll sit happy knowing this is as good as it gets (21.5" versions) in 2010.

Whether that translates into 60 seconds faster encoding a video, 120 seconds faster compiling my programs or 10 fps faster in a game, the only way to get it is an extra $200 and I'll pay that.

[selfdisplaced]

So i got today a notice from apple that my CTO i5 21.5" is delayed and won't ship until some point end of next week...maybe. So i cancelled the order and got the 27" i7 refurb. an hour after doing so my status said it was prepared for shipment.

[SiMBa37]

This is like the Godfather, everytime I make my decision to go with the i3 3.2 in the high end 21.5" iMac, you guys keep pulling me back in to get the i5 3.6 dual core. Its an extra $180 for me w/ my discount, plus the wait time, plus the fear if something goes wrong, it goes back to the factory, not to the Genius Bar.

hmmm...decisions, decisions. :confused:

[Tigerman82]

This is like the Godfather, everytime I make my decision to go with the i3 3.2 in the high end 21.5" iMac, you guys keep pulling me back in to get the i5 3.6 dual core. Its an extra $180 for me w/ my discount, plus the wait time, plus the fear if something goes wrong, it goes back to the factory, not to the Genius Bar.

I guess we who are stressing about this the most should just go ahead and buy the i5 upgrade -- especially as I too will get the discount. That way we don't have to second guess whether our iMacs could have been better. I did think about if the i5 (being among the highest clockspeed cpu's Intel has ever made) would cause heat problems but I'm sure with the 32nm technology and Apple's quality this isn't worth stressing about.

I will probably order the iMac, my first Mac, within 2-3 weeks. In the meantime, I just ordered 2x2 gigs of RAM from Crucial to the new iMac (making the total RAM amount 8 gigs). Got a good deal too (Crucial is of course one of the best memory brands you can choose for a Mac and their online prices are great). I paid $130 (including shipping) for the 2x2 gigs which where I'm from is an amazing deal.

[dexthageek]

I found this site called cpubenchmark.net. Here are some scores:

i3 540 - 2774
i3 550 - 2794

i5 680 - 3179

i5 750 - 4209 (like the one in 2009 iMac)
i5 760 - 4508

i7 930 - 5823 (like the one in 2009 iMac)
i7 940 - 6156

It seems that the difference between the old and the new quadcore cpus is roughtly 300 points. I've read that the performance difference between the old and the new is not enough to justify an upgrade. So this would mean that 300 points doesn't really show in real-life usage.

The difference between i3 550 and i5 680 is a little under 400 points. That's significantly more than the difference between the i3's but it's nowhere near the difference you get when you move from quadcore i5 to i7: roughly 1600 points. You can see why so many people opt for the i7 as it is clearly faster than the quadcore i5. You can also see why it is so difficult to choose between the i3 and the dual core i5.

The differences between the i3s definately show why people think the base model is the sweet spot: unless you need the extra space and the better GPU you don't get much from going from i3 540 to i3 550.

Actually, Apple is not using the 900 series i7 chips in their iMacs.

The 2009 used the i7-860 and the 2010 uses the 870.

[Tigerman82]

Actually, Apple is not using the 900 series i7 chips in their iMacs.

The 2009 used the i7-860 and the 2010 uses the 870.

Thanks for correcting me. :) I did the necessary adjustments to my original post.

[spiffy05]

I will probably order the iMac, my first Mac, within 2-3 weeks. In the meantime, I just ordered 2x2 gigs of RAM from Crucial to the new iMac (making the total RAM amount 8 gigs). Got a good deal too (Crucial is of course one of the best memory brands you can choose for a Mac and their online prices are great). I paid $130 (including shipping) for the 2x2 gigs which where I'm from is an amazing deal.

I think I'll wait until December or January to upgrade the RAM to 12gb. If there's one thing we know for sure, RAM prices drop dramatically.

In the meantime, enjoy your Mac! :)

[Tigerman82]

Finally someone has made the 64-bit Geekbench test with iMac 21.5" i5. Can I get some drum roll... 7801 points!!!

In comparison:

i3 3.2GhZ - 6600
i5 2.66GhZ (quad core) - 7450
i5 2.8GhZ (quad core) - 8000

So overall, in Geekbench (be it as crappy real-life performance indicator as possible) the iMac 21.5" i5 is significantly faster, in both 32-bit and 64-bit, than the iMac 27" quad core i5 of the previous generation. Furthermore, it is very close to the current generation iMac 27" quad core i5.

That put the final nail in the coffin of my decision: iMac 21.5" i5 all the way, baby!!!

What's more, some guy had a theory that you have a better chance of getting a trouble-free iMac if you get the i5 upgrade as that means it will be a BTO iMac. Apparently it could be possible that non-BTO iMacs, being of the shelf, are getting damaged by the excess shipping -- BTO models spend less time in transit.

[Tigerman82]

I went and ordered the 21.5" iMac with the i5 upgrade as it is clearly worth it. I will talk about it (when it arrives) in one of those "new iMac" threads.

[gtking]

I went and ordered the 21.5" iMac with the i5 upgrade as it is clearly worth it. I will talk about it (when it arrives) in one of those "new iMac" threads.

I guess if you're doing serious video editing or running games like Crysis or GTA4 you will see a noticeable difference, otherwise I doubt you can see any difference.

[Tigerman82]

I guess if you're doing serious video editing or running games like Crysis or GTA4 you will see a noticeable difference, otherwise I doubt you can see any difference.

Well I probably won't see a difference since I'm very much a basic user. I do know about 'advanced stuff' but mostly I just surf the net (1-4 browser windows), listen to Spotify, lightly edit pics with Photoshop Elements and write something with Word etc. I did use to play CS: Source but nowadays I play mostly with my Wii.

Anyway, I know the i5 upgrade and the extra 2x2 gigs of RAM are probably somewhat of an overkill, but as this iMac will be my one and only computer for at least four years and preferably more, I wanted to make sure it would be up to some of the 'advanced stuff' that might come to mind.

[diegobgr]

3.60GHZ INTEL CORE I5
4GB 1333MHZ DDR3 SDRAM - 2X2GB
1TB SERIAL ATA DRIVE
ATI RADEON HD 5670 512MB GDDR3
8X DOUBLE-LAYER SUPERDRIVE
APPLE MAGIC MOUSE-Z
WL KB & USER'S GUIDE-ESP
COUNTRY KIT,IMAC 21.5-INCH-IEA

Just ordered. Hope to have it here next week.

Tigerman82, have yours arrived?

[Tigerman82]

Tigerman82, have yours arrived?

It should arrive within a week, most likely on Wednesday.

[diegobgr]

I can't wait anymore, and I have only waited 20 minutes :p

I finally decided over i5 cause I think it can give one more year than i3.

Now, I have to get a Magic Trackprad, a Battery Charger, an Apple Remote...:o

[Tigerman82]

I can't wait anymore, and I have only waited 20 minutes :p

I know the feeling. :D However, I guess my reason for impatience is my credit card. As I've been waiting for the iMac I've got urges to buy accessories and software for it -- probably something I won't even need. Luckily I've bought most of what I wanted beforehand: Logitech Dinovo for Mac keyboard, Logitech Performance Mouse MX, Photosphop Elements 8, 2x2 gigs of extra RAM (which I know regret as RAM prices seem to be going down and even though I got a good deal I could have waited and coped with the 4 gigs of RAM). Hopefully the iMac will be on time so that I don't buy anything more on impulse. :p

If you are wondering about the peripherals... The Mac keyboard and the Magic Mouse don't suit me; I do like stylish design peripherals but also the kind which are ergonomic. For my hands, those Logitech stylish peripherals are more suitable (the Apple keyboard feels too small and the Magic Mouse is too flat and not ergonomic enough).

[diegobgr]

Yes, well, I really like both Wireless Keyboard and Magic Mouse. But if I don't find them confortable, I have a good wireless keyboard and laser mouse from Logitech.

I'm not going to buy anything else right now. Well, maybe the Apple Dock and Apple Remote.

But Battery Charger, Magic Trackpad...I don't really need it, I just like them.

I think that I have enough for a while with an iMac and an iPhone.;)

[SiMBa37]

3.60GHZ INTEL CORE I5
4GB 1333MHZ DDR3 SDRAM - 2X2GB
1TB SERIAL ATA DRIVE
ATI RADEON HD 5670 512MB GDDR3
8X DOUBLE-LAYER SUPERDRIVE
APPLE MAGIC MOUSE-Z
WL KB & USER'S GUIDE-ESP
COUNTRY KIT,IMAC 21.5-INCH-IEA

Same deal here, I "came around" and decided to go for the i5 after the impressive geekbench scores.

I ordered it on 8/9/10 in the evening, still hasn't even been processed for shipping yet. I'm crossing my fingers for tomorrow as the processing day.

I'll post a review once I get it, after all, it'll be my first mac after 25+ years of owning PC's.

[Tigerman82]

Well after those very positive Geekbench-scores Macworld brings us closer to earth: http://www.macworld.com/article/153385/2010/08/36ghzcorei5_imac.html?t=

Their benchmarks show that compared to the 3.2GhZ i3 the performance gains of the dual core i5 are quite modest. Many of us what the situation would be in terms of gaming. Well Macworld did benchmark Call of Duty 4 and the results were: the i3 81.4 FPS, the i5 82 FPS.

Anyway, I'm still glad that I chose the i5-option as it brings some performance boost to the game and I did buy the iMac with the education discount -> the i5 upgrade wasn't that costly. Moreover, having the best cpu available for the 21.5" doesn't make you wonder if you only paid a little more for the better component. However, I do feel that for the 27" iMacs the i5 3.6GhZ is NOT worths.

[SiMBa37]

Well after those very positive Geekbench-scores Macworld brings us closer to earth: http://www.macworld.com/article/153385/2010/08/36ghzcorei5_imac.html?t=

Their benchmarks show that compared to the 3.2GhZ i3 the performance gains of the dual core i5 are quite modest. Many of us what the situation would be in terms of gaming. Well Macworld did benchmark Call of Duty 4 and the results were: the i3 81.4 FPS, the i5 82 FPS.

Anyway, I'm still glad that I chose the i5-option as it brings some performance boost to the game and I did buy the iMac with the education discount -> the i5 upgrade wasn't that costly. Moreover, having the best cpu available for the 21.5" doesn't make you wonder if you only paid a little more for the better component. However, I do feel that for the 27" iMacs the i5 3.6GhZ is NOT worths.

That review was disappointing in that the stock SuperDrive brand they had seemed crippled when it came to Handbrake rips, the drive had riplock. Someone posted in the comments that you can get around that by ripping to ISO then Handbrake the ISO, but still....seems like a crap shoot which SuperDrive you'll get.

[iread]

Please:
Can someone tell me the difference between the iMac 21.5-inch 3.2GHz i3 and the 3.60GHz i5 in practical layman terms and is there really any difference between them :confused: