2.5 i5 or 2.9 i7 ?

mrbez

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Sep 22, 2012
20
0
Hi Guys,

I currently have a mid 2009 2.26Ghz MacBook Pro, which has been excellent from day one.

However, I am looking to upgrade and I'm not sure if I should go for the 13" i5 or spend a little more on the i7.

Realistically, I only use the laptop for surfing and Uni work - However, I do use photoshop and Lightroom quite a lot, as I do take and edit a lot of photographs.

Would I notice a big difference in the i5 overt current MBP? Or do I just go for the i7?

Either way, I would be upgrading the ram to 16GB - Not from apple of course. I have 8GB in mine now.

Thanks in advance.
 

Dark Void

macrumors 68030
Jun 1, 2011
2,614
465
Go with the i5. Photoshop is not very intensive in terms of the processor - you won't notice the difference in everyday tasks either and that money is much better spent if put towards a SSD which will give you those increases in everyday and Photoshop based tasks.
 

theineffablebob

macrumors regular
Jul 29, 2012
110
10
The i7 will only help in specialized applications like video editing and 3D rendering. In general usage, both processors will appear identical.

In Anandtech's testing, the i5 2500k and i7 2600k (both desktop CPUs) were apart by mere seconds in the benchmarks. 1 second difference in running a Photoshop filter, 5 second difference in rendering a video, 4 second difference in a Monte Carlo sim, etc. Not sure if it's worth the couple hundred dollars extra.
 

mrbez

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Sep 22, 2012
20
0
Thanks for the input so far guys - Does anybody else have anything to say on the matter, thanks.
 

NutsNGum

macrumors 68030
Jul 30, 2010
2,849
323
Glasgow, Scotland
I say wait for the next generation of cores. Since Windows 8 is launching this year, and the cores usually follow Windows release schedule, waiting is a better idea.
New Core-i processors are released on a more or less yearly basis with the odd spec bump in between. Ivy Bridge is already out, and Haswell won't be released until next year. March at the earliest.
 

Puevlo

macrumors 6502a
Oct 21, 2011
633
1
The i7 is substantially better. Why settle for the bare minimum when you can spend a little bit more and ensure your computer lasts for longer?
 

mrbez

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Sep 22, 2012
20
0
The i7 is substantially better. Why settle for the bare minimum when you can spend a little bit more and ensure your computer lasts for longer?
Why do you say this? Do you have anything that can back this up as this will help, thanks.
 

snoylekim

macrumors member
Aug 7, 2011
74
0
I'd say I5.. the two processors are both dual core , means 4 threads.. The I5 is at least twice as fast as what you're runnning now .. I have the 2011 equivalent in a Mac Mini, and it does fine with Final Cut Pro, Aperture Canon DPP, etc .. If the I7 were a quad core, for only 300.00 difference, my answer would be different..

I slightly disagree with the previous poster about Photoshop /Lightroom and processor-intensive ..I use both of these ( in a windows environment, but Mac wouldn't be different) ..Import, Export, Develop functions all use nice bursts of processing .. and Adobe does utilize cores and treads pretty well on the Intel processors.. In this case, though, the difference between the two doesn't appear to be enough .. You will notice a big difference when you start using your new computer versus your trusty 2009 MBP ..

Based on your use ... make sure you have 8 G of Memory .. Adobe will use it .. as far as an SSD .. Yes , but you should probably consider getting the 7200 RPM Hard Drive and placing that in the Optibay .. if you shoot RAW, we know those files aren't getting any smaller..even a 512 G SSD as the only drive in a 'photo machine' is kinda small ..
 

mrbez

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Sep 22, 2012
20
0
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but why do people rave so much about SSD?

All I can seem to see is a massive cost for such little disc space? Or am I missing something?
 

T5BRICK

macrumors G3
Aug 3, 2006
8,089
2,057
Oregon
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but why do people rave so much about SSD?

All I can seem to see is a massive cost for such little disc space? Or am I missing something?
Your HDD is the slowest part of your computer, upgrading to a SSD gives a very noticeable boost in performance. More noticeable than a 400MHz difference in processor speed.

Here is an example:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1432670

Unfortunately I didn't take a "before" screenshot, but my old 250GB HDD that originally came with the computer had about 40MB/s read and 35MB/s write. That huge boost in speed is a difference you notice immediately when you boot up the computer or open a file or program.
 

CocoSS

macrumors member
Aug 30, 2011
76
0
The SSD is a flash storage so the READ/WRITE speeds are 10x faster than a normal HDD. So, the performance is way way better.
 

andymac2210

macrumors regular
Jul 18, 2011
228
0
I wouldn't run a computer without an SSD now I've had one in both my last MBP's.

It'd be like going back to a pentium 4, the performance is just increased that much in noticeable ways.
 

Benbikeman

macrumors 6502a
May 17, 2011
616
0
London, England
In Anandtech's testing, the i5 2500k and i7 2600k (both desktop CPUs) were apart by mere seconds in the benchmarks. 1 second difference in running a Photoshop filter, 5 second difference in rendering a video, 4 second difference in a Monte Carlo sim, etc. Not sure if it's worth the couple hundred dollars extra.
In Lightroom, especially with multi-step Develop presets, you'll see a worthwhile boost. Yes, it's seconds, but when you're processing a wedding of 300-500 photos, seconds add up. If you can afford it, go for the i7.
 

snoylekim

macrumors member
Aug 7, 2011
74
0
In Lightroom, especially with multi-step Develop presets, you'll see a worthwhile boost. Yes, it's seconds, but when you're processing a wedding of 300-500 photos, seconds add up. If you can afford it, go for the i7.
Agree with you 100%.. if the OP were pro, no question ..too bad the upgrade isn't to quad core I7 ( like the 15" offers) for the additional bucks .. then , it's a no brainer .. OP will need to decide against his/her usage ..
 

kevinbomb123

macrumors member
Dec 2, 2011
59
0
i5, your going to have a bottleneck with the gpu to begin with,with the i7 your going to process a crap load of data but when its handed off to the intel hd 4000 the gpu wont be able to handle all that.
 

macuser1232

macrumors 6502a
Jan 20, 2012
666
3
Hey OP would you mind running a Geekbench test and posting the results or PMing me them.

Thanks
 

Dark Void

macrumors 68030
Jun 1, 2011
2,614
465
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but why do people rave so much about SSD?

All I can seem to see is a massive cost for such little disc space? Or am I missing something?
I suggest a SSD because upgrading to that component will help you out the most. If your usage is everyday usage (starting up the computer, opening some applications, checking e-mail, etc) and Photoshop (file based program) then a SSD will give you the performance increases that you may be looking for as opposed to upgrading the processor.
 

mrbez

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Sep 22, 2012
20
0
Oh. Just wanted to compare it with my Early 2011 MBP i5 with 8gb of RAM. I get a score of 6500 but that's in 64bit mode.
Should I run it again in 64 bit?

So looking at mine and yours, your i5 performs in theory twice as fast?
 

macuser1232

macrumors 6502a
Jan 20, 2012
666
3
Should I run it again in 64 bit?

So looking at mine and yours, your i5 performs in theory twice as fast?
I guess. I mean you do have a core 2 duo. Also, the graphics card is probably a lot better. By the way, my friend has a late 2011 Macbook Pro i7 with only 4gb of ram and he got 8000 on geekbench using 32 bit!! I have no idea how he got that but he says it's because of the graphics card improvement.