27" i5 or i7 ???

[Ukeman]

I like "fast' and plan to get a 27" with ghz upgrade, 4gb ram, and SSD only drive. 256gb would satisfy my needs no problem and since there's no telling what the '12 iMac options will be, I'm not worried there.

I just want to know if for just surfing the web, emai, lots of movie and tv show streaming, no games, no vid editing, some GarageBand type stuff, and iTunes, what difference would i7 make over i5 ... pray tell?

 

[NextGenApple]

I like "fast' and plan to get a 27" with ghz upgrade, 4gb ram, and SSD only drive. 256gb would satisfy my needs no problem and since there's no telling what the '12 iMac options will be, I'm not worried there.

I just want to know if for just surfing the web, emai, lots of movie and tv show streaming, no games, no vid editing, some GarageBand type stuff, and iTunes, what difference would i7 make over i5 ... pray tell?

You will see know gains at all, so the i7 would be a big waste of money. You won't even penetrate the power of the i5 with the tasks you mentioned above.
The thunderbolt port will be more of a future proofing thing with the things you do. So that's a ++ point.

 

[iAppl3Fan]

I like "fast' and plan to get a 27" with ghz upgrade, 4gb ram, and SSD only drive. 256gb would satisfy my needs no problem and since there's no telling what the '12 iMac options will be, I'm not worried there.

I just want to know if for just surfing the web, emai, lots of movie and tv show streaming, no games, no vid editing, some GarageBand type stuff, and iTunes, what difference would i7 make over i5 ... pray tell?

For your needs, i5 will be plenty fast to do what you need and much more. i7 is more benefit for video editing type work. Maybe a few minutes faster than an i5.

I would just do a base 27" and do the SSD upgrade myself as the price is a bit steep.

 

[leman]

I second (or third) the i5.

 

[Ukeman]

I second (or third) the i5.

that about does it then.... now to find something to take my mind off the '12 iMac.
and thanks.

 

[Mr Rogers]

Buy the i7

If I were you, I'd invest in a used 2011 i7 and apply AppleCare before anything else - resale value of a i7 will be far greater than that of a i5 - best purchase used from Apple, that way you get a full three year warranty - quite necessary given issues with HDD's and LCD screens.

 

[leman]

If I were you, I'd invest in a used 2011 i7 and apply AppleCare before anything else - resale value of a i7 will be far greater than that of a i5 - best purchase used from Apple, that way you get a full three year warranty - quite necessary given issues with HDD's and LCD screens.

You will loose more on reselling the i7 over reselling the i5. The resale value is higher of course, but it hardly matches the premium Apple charges for the i7 upgrade. Half of it, at best.

 

[SlugBlanket]

I like "fast' and plan to get a 27" with ghz upgrade, 4gb ram, and SSD only drive. 256gb would satisfy my needs no problem and since there's no telling what the '12 iMac options will be, I'm not worried there.

I just want to know if for just surfing the web, emai, lots of movie and tv show streaming, no games, no vid editing, some GarageBand type stuff, and iTunes, what difference would i7 make over i5 ... pray tell?

You should read this review of the 2011 iMac over at AnandTech. For your usage you will be best served by getting The base model i5 with the 512 MB video card. For your use they are actually FASTER than the more expensive upgrades. That will also allow you to configure an SSD but an SSD will only give you faster boot and program launches. Nice to have but do you really need it ? Apple's supplied SSD's are among the slowest and most expensive. Because of the effort required to fit your own choice of SSD however, many still pay the extra for apple to supply the sub-standard upgrade ... it's just easier that way and they are still fast in human terms. You might want to save that cash though and buy another gadget to go with the Mac.

 

[henrydoown]

27" i5 or i7 ???

Your requirement is so high.according to me i7 is a best for you.

 

[Elven]

As per my signature I run a 27" iMac with the i7 processor option, it's a beast of a system and has run anything I have thrown at it ( Crysis 2 on Bootcamp ) with ease.

 

[Razorhog]

You say you like 'fast', so I assume you'll be upgrading that 4GB ram, right?

 

[Yury]

Base 27" with i5 2.7Ghz will be more than enough for your needs.
I've the same model, working with adobe cs5 & confirm that all works flawless.

 

[adam1080]

i think the i5 will be fine for you.
I got the i7 cause i knew i could get Final Cut Studio for free(dont even know how to use it yet). and i wanted to be able to watch blu-ray and possibly do some gaming.

So far the most instensive thing i have used beside parallels was handbrake. that had the cpu a-whizzin

 

[Ukeman]

wow, thanks for all the comments... lots to respond to and not in order:
- I'm retired, but rather self-indulgent when it comes to my computer time which again, includes lots of movie and tv streaming, emails for a day spa center that i manage, I do a lot of forum chatting (hobbies), and some Garageband type stuff (Band in a Box) files, and itunes music and podcasts for my iPod.
I want fast, but I don't run intense video editing or even photo editing programs, and at my age, i doubt i'll take up any new technical vocations... I do have a full plate at home, with a house, an adopted grand-daughter (2yrs), a business ( I live on-site), 3 young dogs, 8 acres, and an ailing mother.
I'm telling all this just to make the point: Besides keeping my business hopping with email appointments, I mostly have fun on my computer.

-More Ram, I've learned here, won't help speed unless running intense programs.
- I've wondered if i7 would increase resale value, but still seems a waste considering what i do and it probably wouldn't increase mere browsing speed.
- SSD for all my functions is an exciting proposition; as I hear it really speeds things up; like just web surfing.

27" i5, 3.4ghz, 4 Ram, 256 SSD (or whatever new base ssd)... seems perfect.

 

[nsilva]

You're spending over $2,000 on a Mac and you're gonna cheap out on a $200 processor upgrade?

Unbelievable.

 

[Ukeman]

Please read the OP and the comments; it's not about the $ other than if it's a waste to spend the $200 and not use it; some might think that hardly credible. Unless you can explain.

You're spending over $2,000 on a Mac and you're gonna cheap out on a $200 processor upgrade?

Unbelievable.

 

[talmy]

I just want to know if for just surfing the web, emai, lots of movie and tv show streaming, no games, no vid editing, some GarageBand type stuff, and iTunes, what difference would i7 make over i5 ... pray tell?

Not only would the i7 not make any real difference, but neither will the SSD. You're spending a lot of money just to get faster boot and program loading times. I've got an 27" i7 iMac, but also have a couple of base model Mac minis that do nothing but stream video and occasional web browsing, for which they do fine.

I'd suggest the base 27" from the Refurbished store, http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC813LL/A
$1419.

 

[themarwood]

Unless you are using a program that would benefit from hyper-threading like a 3D program for rendering -- you wouldn't see any benefit from the i7. There would be no compromising performance by going with the i5.

 

[derbothaus]

You will see know gains at all, so the i7 would be a big waste of money. You won't even penetrate the power of the i5 with the tasks you mentioned above.
The thunderbolt port will be more of a future proofing thing with the things you do. So that's a ++ point.

No gains at all? Single thread execution at 3.8GHz vs. i5 3.4GHz. So you will see a 400MHz gain in speed there. On anything multi-threaded like Garageband you will see speeds almost double since you now have 8-logical processors not 4 like the i5. So think of 80 vs 125 Tracks or so. The i5 will do everything just fine but the i7 will do it all faster. 200.00 is nothing for double the thread execution.
How about some actual numbers instead of perceived opinions:
http://www.barefeats.com/imac11f.html

 

[talmy]

No gains at all? Single thread execution at 3.8GHz vs. i5 3.4GHz. So you will see a 400MHz gain in speed there. On anything multi-threaded like Garageband you will see speeds almost double since you now have 8-logical processors not 4 like the i5. So think of 80 vs 125 Tracks or so. The i5 will do everything just fine but the i7 will do it all faster. 200.00 is nothing for double the thread execution.
How about some actual numbers instead of perceived opinions:
http://www.barefeats.com/imac11f.html

And in much the same way an automobile that will go 200 mph will get you across town in half the time as one that will go 100 mph.

The OP is doing nothing taxing of the processor so won't see much if any performance improvement.

 

[Ukeman]

And in much the same way an automobile that will go 200 mph will get you across town in half the time as one that will go 100 mph.

The OP is doing nothing taxing of the processor so won't see much if any performance improvement.

true, and Garageband or BiaB music mix software will work sufficiently, even with a base model, and i rarely use that anymore, so what i'm talking about is speed improvement over a Late '08 iMac 3.06 ghz, Duo Core intel 24" 4gb ram to a 2012 27" i5 with ghz upgrade, 4gb ram, and SSD only. Fast, mid-size, vs. high speed train.

 

[derbothaus]

And in much the same way an automobile that will go 200 mph will get you across town in half the time as one that will go 100 mph.

The OP is doing nothing taxing of the processor so won't see much if any performance improvement.

The old car analogy, huh? Aside from it being completely wrong (why do you think processors are made faster? So you can get work done more quickly) By your logic why not just get a used core2 duo? Eventually your jobs will complete just like they will with a new iMac it just takes 4 times as long.

You will see tasks completed faster on everything you attempt. How is that not a performance increase? You do not have to be completely throttling the processor for it to work this way. At 3.8GHz turbo iTunes will convert faster at video encoding with handbrake or similar 8-cores at 3.4 will complete almost 30-50% faster than 4 at 3.1GHz. It is just math. And backed up by every test performed. You have nothing to argue about. The argument is whether the faster performance is worth the price of admission. But it is faster performance.

 

[DanPosMaytee]

It's looking like the refresh is much closer than people thought,

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1351029/

 

[Ukeman]

The old car analogy, huh? Aside from it being completely wrong (why do you think processors are made faster? So you can get work done more quickly) By your logic why not just get a used core2 duo? Eventually your jobs will complete just like they will with a new iMac it just takes 4 times as long.

You will see tasks completed faster on everything you attempt. How is that not a performance increase? You do not have to be completely throttling the processor for it to work this way. At 3.8GHz turbo iTunes will convert faster at video encoding with handbrake or similar 8-cores at 3.4 will complete almost 30-50% faster than 4 at 3.1GHz. It is just math. And backed up by every test performed. You have nothing to argue about. The argument is whether the faster performance is worth the price of admission. But it is faster performance.

oh yeah... add that $200 on again... it's only 200. When you compare that to the total the ratio is one of those poker bets; green light...

 

[DomarackiA]

O.P.

The answer is, nothing. There is no noticeable performance difference between the i5 and i7 and it's really just marketing. For what you do, an i3 is perfect and an i5 is honestly, overkill.