27" i5 or i7 ???

[talmy]

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.

Only true for things that can use the processor. For the OP a used Core2 Duo while slower isn't much slower. By no means 4x slower.

The OP said:

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?

The i7 would be faster for heavy Flash content on the web, but no faster downloading web page content. Email isn't processor intensive, so no faster there, movie and TV show streaming doesn't go any faster than real time and a C2D handles that just fine. Same for iTunes. Light GarageBand usage is also fine on a C2D. If the OP had heavy usage such as video editing then I'd recommend the i7, but for his use it's just a waste of money that could be spend on other things.

 

[Moonjumper]

RAM often gives a bigger boost in speed that a slightly faster processor, and for less cost. Unless you are already going for lots of RAM, don't worry about the top end processor.

 

[Ukeman]

Only true for things that can use the processor. For the OP a used Core2 Duo while slower isn't much slower. By no means 4x slower.

The OP said:

The i7 would be faster for heavy Flash content on the web, but no faster downloading web page content. Email isn't processor intensive, so no faster there, movie and TV show streaming doesn't go any faster than real time and a C2D handles that just fine. Same for iTunes. Light GarageBand usage is also fine on a C2D. If the OP had heavy usage such as video editing then I'd recommend the i7, but for his use it's just a waste of money that could be spend on other things.

that touches on just about everything... except the SSD vs HDD issue.... what about it?

also, i mentioned i have a C2D, 3.06, 4GB ram, 500gb HDD... it's in tip top shape after 4 years being on everyday about 16+ hours (lots of sleep mode though).
- the orignal question was about difference between i5 and i7 .... now we're talking between C2D and i5.

 

[lamboman]

Wow, hell of a lot of crap here. Memory makes your computer faster, and not going for an i7 is skimping?

More memory will only give you a performance increase if you actually require it. In your case, I doubt that you will take advantage of more memory. Of course, there isn't any harm in having it, but if you are stretching the budget already, you won't be missing out if you don't upgrade.

Stick with the i5, the upgrade will do nothing for you.

As for the SSD, don't buy from Apple, as simple as that. To be honest, you probably won't need the SSD either, as you aren't really doing anything intensive with the system.

Finally, I'd recommend the lower end 27" over the higher end model.

 

[thekev]

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

You know... I've used that same link before. I was surprised at the gains in their tests from a 10% higher base clock and hyperthreading, as hyperthreading isn't exactly the same as having real cores available. The issue with the typical core count vs. clock speed choice like it's seen in the mac pro is when you're choosing more cores that are clocked lower vs. fewer clocked higher, especially without turbo boost which didn't come until Sandy Bridge. I kind of wondered if this was Intel's way of attempting to solve the issue where a more expensive cpu could be a potential downgrade depending on the workload.

Wow, hell of a lot of crap here. Memory makes your computer faster, and not going for an i7 is skimping?

More memory will only give you a performance increase if you actually require it. In your case, I doubt that you will take advantage of more memory. Of course, there isn't any harm in having it, but if you are stretching the budget already, you won't be missing out if you don't upgrade.

Stick with the i5, the upgrade will do nothing for you.

As for the SSD, don't buy from Apple, as simple as that. To be honest, you probably won't need the SSD either, as you aren't really doing anything intensive with the system.

Finally, I'd recommend the lower end 27" over the higher end model.

The ssd argument is thrown out there way too much. As far as ram, I usually just say to add 8 to what it comes with. This should give you a fast machine however long you use it, even if the OS becomes slightly more ram hungry, all at a cost of $50 or so from one of the third party sources. It requires more detail though. Ram really doesn't speed up your computer. It prevents it from slowing down at times. 4GB is starting to get just slightly tight with Lion, and bumping it slightly is cheap as hell. That's why I tend to suggest it.

 

[derbothaus]

Only true for things that can use the processor. For the OP a used Core2 Duo while slower isn't much slower. By no means 4x slower.

Do you understand the Intel feature set and what features are good where? ie. Turbo boost overclock bins, hyper threading etc... If you are using the processor for anything (which means your computer is booted) you are using it at differing levels of elevated performance. All of which are faster in the i7. It isn't marketing. I do realize I am on a consumer iMac thread but users answers are head scratching.

 

[talmy]

Do you understand the Intel feature set and what features are good where? ie. Turbo boost overclock bins, hyper threading etc... If you are using the processor for anything (which means your computer is booted) you are using it at differing levels of elevated performance. All of which are faster in the i7. It isn't marketing. I do realize I am on a consumer iMac thread but users answers are head scratching.

I fully understand. If a given CPU is 4x faster, and that is the only difference, then 4x is the maximum speed improvement you will ever see, and that is for usage that pushes the CPU to the max. Some things, like streaming video will be the exact same speed. Web browsing, at least in my experience, is speed limited by the Internet, and not the CPU. As I type this reply my 27" i7 iMac is using about 1.5% of it's CPU capacity. You can't tell me that it is one bit faster than a Core 2 Duo would be at this task.

For nearly 3 years I used a Core 2 Duo MacBook in teaching engineering classes. I run iShowU to capture my lectures while also running Keynote and Windows 7 under Parallels running EE CAD software and simulations. Performance was fine. I recently upgraded to a MacBook Pro with an i7 (quad core with Hyperthreading). I don't get through the lectures any faster, however processing the lectures for distribution can now be completed on that system in the evening after class rather than having it take the better part of the next day. The i7 in this system is easily worth it for me and will literally pay for itself in a couple weeks of teaching.

OTOH, I've got 3 Mac mini's at home. Two run as entertainment centers. Both with C2D processors and minimum 2GB of RAM. Neither of these would perform any faster if they were upgraded. OK, maybe they would save 5-10 seconds a day with an i7. The third mini is a server. It sits there and does it's thing. Processor never stressed. It's performance is limited by its disk drives and Ethernet.

Bottom line is don't buy the hype. Determine where the performance bottleneck is and address that issue. And don't do anything if performance is fine for the task.

 

[derbothaus]

Web browsing, at least in my experience, is speed limited by the Internet, and not the CPU. As I type this reply my 27" i7 iMac is using about 1.5% of it's CPU capacity. You can't tell me that it is one bit faster than a Core 2 Duo would be at this task.

With this I see where you are coming from. Practicality. Can't argue with that.
I have issue with the "hype" thing. It is a fact that with i7 3.4GHz you can have more soft synths going in Logic and finish iTunes conversions seconds faster. (Just examples) It would also finish batch processing in Lightroom faster etc. If time does not matter to you then neither does a faster processor. My only point.

 

[nsilva]

Car analogy that works...

Spending $2,000 on an iMac and not spending the extra $200 is like buying a new Acura and not getting navigation for a few hundred bucks extra. Sure, you might not use it all the time but when you do use it, it's a great thing to have. And it's not like it's a huge amount compared to what you're already spending.

 

[talmy]

Car analogy that works...

Spending $2,000 on an iMac and not spending the extra $200 is like buying a new Acura and not getting navigation for a few hundred bucks extra. Sure, you might not use it all the time but when you do use it, it's a great thing to have. And it's not like it's a huge amount compared to what you're already spending.

Problem with that argument is it can be applied recursively. You always end up with the top of the line car (or computer) by the time you add all the little extras.

Sometimes the stripped model is all that is needed and the money can be better spent on other things (like gasoline!)

 

[throAU]

if you like fast, buy more ram. 4gb is not enough.