2.9GHz i5 or 3.1GHz i7 in 21.5" iMac?

[benjamwes]

I am thinking about getting a 21.5" iMac with 16GB of RAM and 1TB Fusion Drive. I would use the computer for video editing with Adobe CS6 and Cinema 4D, light gaming, school work and general use.

Is it worth sticking with the 2.9GHz i5 (Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz) or upgrading to the 3.1GHz i7 (Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz)?

There is about a £140 price difference.

Thanks!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


EDIT: The reason I'm thinking about getting the i7 is for video rendering.

 

[B...]

The two options, as I see it, are the 2.7 and the 3.1. Don't get the 2.9 because it really does nothing other than 200 MHz. The 3.1 also carries hyperthreading, which means that a quad core iMac acts like an eight core computer. So four threads can operate on the 2.7, but eight can operate on the 3.1

For your uses, however, the 3.1 will be of little use, because you aren't doing anything where .4 GHz means hours saved in the long run. Hyperthreading is also only useful when an application can take advantage of it.

Stick with the 2.7.

 

[benjamwes]

The two options, as I see it, are the 2.7 and the 3.1. Don't get the 2.9 because it really does nothing other than 200 MHz. The 3.1 also carries hyperthreading, which means that a quad core iMac acts like an eight core computer. So four threads can operate on the 2.7, but eight can operate on the 3.1

For your uses, however, the 3.1 will be of little use, because you aren't doing anything where .4 GHz means hours saved in the long run. Hyperthreading is also only useful when an application can take advantage of it.

Stick with the 2.7.

That's a good point, but I don't want to regret not spending the extra money in the future...

EDIT: Also, is there much of a difference in the graphics cards (GT640 and GT650) ?

 

[B...]

That's a good point, but I don't want to regret not spending the extra money in the future...

The fact that you have made around five threads all about pretty much the same thing shows that you're really not sure about your decision. You also said that you are 15 and don't want to spend more than you have to. Now you are saying you don't want to regret not spending more.

My point is that lower specs isn't always worse. I think, for you, the 3.1 is overkill and a waste of the 200 extra you'll spend. The 2.9 is also not a good option becuase you gain nothing other than .2 GHz. I would upgrade to Fusion Drive before I would upgrade the CPU to something which will not really help me, even if it will future-proof my decision.

EDIT: The graphics car of 950M is slightly better, but neither are great performers. The 940M is best for non-enthusiast gamers (actually, the 980M is best).

 

[benjamwes]

The fact that you have made around five threads all about pretty much the same thing shows that you're really not sure about your decision. You also said that you are 15 and don't want to spend more than you have to. Now you are saying you don't want to regret not spending more.

My point is that lower specs isn't always worse. I think, for you, the 3.1 is overkill and a waste of the 200 extra you'll spend. The 2.9 is also not a good option becuase you gain nothing other than .2 GHz. I would upgrade to Fusion Drive before I would upgrade the CPU to something which will not really help me, even if it will future-proof my decision.

EDIT: The graphics car of 950M is slightly better, but neither are great performers. The 940M is best for non-enthusiast gamers (actually, the 980M is best).

Ok, thanks for the help! I don't think I'll go for the i7 then and just upgrade the RAM and get a fusion drive.

 

[B...]

Ok, thanks for the help! I don't think I'll go for the i7 then and just upgrade the RAM and get a fusion drive.

That's a good setup and should be perfect for your needs.