3.03 vs 3.33 ghz ?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by gelie, Jun 26, 2010.

  1. gelie macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    #1
    How much faster is the 3.33 v the 3.03 ghz? I.E if I'm ripping a movie using hand break will there be much difference ? Also will I be able to run more programs at the same time using the 3.33? I know I should wait for the upgrade, but my powerbook G4 is on it's last legs. I can only fit the 21.5 in my office. Thx.
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    It's about 9% faster, maybe up to 15% as it has more cache. HandBrake is pretty much the only app you'll notice any difference between them
     
  3. gelie thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    #3
    Thank you, will there be much of a difference if I run multiple programs ? Like iPhoto , iTunes and QuickTime,etc at the same time?
     
  4. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #4
    Zero difference, only if you used multiple CPU intensive apps but those aren't.
     
  5. ouimetnick macrumors 68020

    ouimetnick

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Location:
    Beverly, Massachusetts
    #5
    The difference is so small. The price difference is NOT worth it.
     
  6. gelie thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    #6
    Thanks on my g4(1.5 ghz, 1 gb ram) when I open multiple applications everything starts freezing and running slow.
     
  7. iamthedudeman macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    #7
    The C2D 3.33 is not only better, it's better by a wide margin.

    I have bought about 13 27 inch imacs 7 of which were the i5 model. Bought a i5 model for the home. But with some yellowing issues. Bought my father a 27inch refurb and he really liked the quad core model so I traded him since he had a better screen.

    Five days ago my wife complained that the 27 inch was too big so I bought the high end 21.5 with the 3.33 C2D and sent the 27 inch packing to the office.

    So I have the unique perspective of owning the i5, the 3.06 and the 3.33. Two still at the office and one at home.

    In every day use you do notice a difference with some tasks, such as moving files to and from a data card and file compression as in e'mailing large files and compressing them to e'mail.

    I didn't notice much of a difference between the i5 and C2D E8600 in every day tasks such as startup and shutdown.

    In every day use the C2D 3.33 and i5 were very close in performance in every day tasks. With the 3.06 C2D you do notice a difference in every day use. Contrary to what others tell you there is a difference. And yes you will notice it under certain conditions. Depends on what you are doing. In every day use I noticed a difference. It is subtle but it is there.

    I would say the difference between the 3.06 and 3.33 C2D is almost the same as the difference between the C2D 3.33 and quad core i5. Not as pronounced but almost. The final bench mark figures back this up. The C2D even beats the i5 750 on some tests that do not require multiple threads and the higher cache helps in more ways than one. And that is against a quad core CPU.

    http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-lga775-final-p4.html

    Via the article above:

    What concerns Core 2 Duo E7000, there are no reasons to look in its direction.

    The final score for the i5 750 is 120, the E8600 is 99, and the E7600 is 84.

    Here is the E8600 up against the newer i5 dual core processors as well as the quad core i5 again.

    http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci5-660-p2.html

    I would read both articles to get a full grasp on the numbers and what they mean. The processor is expensive but it is the only option available right now on the 21.5 as far as upgrades go. You shouldn't ask you self if it is worth the extra money, you should ask yourself is what can I get for the extra money.

    Remember you can always upgrade the RAM whenever you want, but you cannot upgrade the CPU, you stuck with it for as long as you own the computer.

    Even when they do upgrade the 21.5's the C2D 3.33 will not be totally out matched by the newer processors if at all. They might decide to go with the 3.33 C2D until santybridge or maybe AMD for the next refresh. Regardless of who they decide to go with unless they go with a quad-core option if at all. Which I doubt. So you do have some level of 'futureproofing' to some degree.
     
  8. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #8
    The multiple apps is an issue of RAM, rather than processor speed. If you have been getting by on a G4, either of the processors will be fine for you.
     
  9. Ace134blue macrumors 6502a

    Ace134blue

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #9
    Quite a difference between the two, the 21.5 imac has desktop cpus soo. Worth the upgrade. The 3.33 is the E8600 with 6mb of L2 cache while the 3.06 is a e7600(i think) which has 3mb of L2 cache. Its gonna be 20% faster in cpu intensive apps.

    Now the i5 750 is waaay faster than the e8600, dont believe those crappy synthetic benchmarks below, er above. Its all about real world tasks. Lets say it takes 60mins on a e8600 to handbrake avatar, and on the i5 750 its gonna take 35 mins. Big diff imo. The xbitlab bench is not a good bench to start showing performance differences.

    IF you really want to see how the i5 750 rapes the e8400(just a slightly lower clock) than read this article.. http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-750-core-i7-860-870-processor-review-test/12
     
  10. iamthedudeman macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    #10
    Am I missing something here? Didn't the i5 750 rape the E8600 in all the multi-threaded tests in the ixbt lab tests? Echoing exactly what you are trying to point out? It just did not do as well in the non-multi threaded tests. Furthermore isn't it established that the i5 750 is the more powerful chip, by a wide margin? Just because it gets beat in a few non-multi threaded tests has no bearing on the overall performance of the chip itself.

    http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-lga775-final-p2.html

    The E8400 and the E8600 are not the same chip with a slightly higher clock being the only difference. What you posted is basically useless for comparison. The E8400 is in the same series but it is a different chip with a different multiplier of 9x vs the E8600's of 10x. That makes a big difference. Intel went from C0 to E0 stepping on the E8600. There is more to it than just speed.

    Here are some bench marks against a E8500 for comparison. It is about %7 percent faster according to the article than the E8500. Which would make it about 14% faster than the E8400 which is significant.


    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e8600.html


    Xbitlabs uses tests that mimic every day tasks. That is about as real world as you can get. Handbrake mimics real world tasks? Since when?

    And lets not pull numbers out of thin air. 60 min, 35 min.

    You provided a link to tests that are all multi-threaded. Hardly tests that mimic real world tests since most day to day applications are not multi-threaded. Not a good example.

    The ixbt tests are as real world as you can get. guru3d.com is better? Where is there testing guidelines and the reasons for the test and all software that is used?

    ixbt lists every piece of software they use and why they use it. How much more real world is there?

    http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/method-2009-p1.html

    I have owned both imacs with all three chips. In day to day use the C2D E8600 is just as fast or faster than the i5 750 is non-multi threaded tasks that don't stress more than two cores. 90% of apps in day to day use do not use more than two cores. That will change in the future. But not now.

    Is the i5 750 faster overall. Of coarse it is. By a wide margin at that. That is not in question.

    Is the C2D E8600 faster than the E7600 overall. Yes, also by a wide margin.
     
  11. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #11
    Will an average Joe notice the difference? No. Is it worth the extra 200$? Absolutely not unless you do video encoding day after day
     
  12. TMRaven macrumors 68020

    TMRaven

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #12
    You could say the same thing about the current lynnfields.
     
  13. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #13
    I didn't say you can't ;) Any Intel Mac is fine for an average Joe. If you want 27" screen, then 300$ more for better CPU and GPU is worth it, even though you may never even use them as you never know what you'll do in the future plus resale value is higher
     
  14. ouimetnick macrumors 68020

    ouimetnick

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Location:
    Beverly, Massachusetts
    #14
    Wow a small 27 MHz increase for only $200. Sounds totally worth it.

    /sarcasm/

    Why does that upgrade option eve exist?
     
  15. TMRaven macrumors 68020

    TMRaven

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #15
    Partly because of the added cache and partly because Apple likes to make money so they overprice their bto options.
     
  16. peakchua macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2010
    #16
    not really its also intels ****** pricing. ususally all computer oems will give the bto option of 200$. unless newegg or hp or dell is giving away their crap "UPGRADE FOR 50% DISCOUNT OF OR" 6GB RAM FREE SO GO CONFIGURE NOW!!", all OEMS are the same. the industry wont accept overclocked cpus so intel just gives more or less same technologies, 3mb more cache and a higher clock speed as an "UPGRADE:!!!'
     
  17. PeterQVenkman macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    #17
    Do your math again, but this time move the decimal point. ;)
     
  18. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #18
    People buys it anyway. They have to offer something for everyone, not all are interested about OCing. 2GHz used to be super expensive back in the days. Now, it's ridiculous speed, only low-end CPUs have that. It's ~10% faster anyway, that's the difference between 2.4GHz i5 and 2.66GHz i7 in MBP but plenty of people have went for the i7 anyway
     
  19. TMRaven macrumors 68020

    TMRaven

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
  20. Ace134blue macrumors 6502a

    Ace134blue

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #20
    How do you think intel gets higher clocks in the same line of chips? The add +/- 1 multiplier to it... Duh. CO and EO do not affect performance. The only difference is efficiency. A PC user would care about the difference between the two as one stepping is always easier to overclock with and with a lower voltage.

    Its the same difference from the Q6600 B3 stepping to the GO stepping. The GO was more efficient and was much easier to overclock, but both at the same clock speed there is a zero difference between performance.

    Handbrake became a real world test when I started using it to rip dvds to my iphone... As of many other people. As it stands, more than 50% of apps i use are multi-threaded. And guru3d is one of the best hardware/software review sites as of right now.
     
  21. iamthedudeman macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    #21
    How do you think intel gets higher clocks in the same line of chips? The add +/- 1 multiplier to it... Duh. CO and EO do not affect performance. The only difference is efficiency. A PC user would care about the difference between the two as one stepping is always easier to overclock with and with a lower voltage.

    You added to this thread how exactly? By comparing a i5 750 and E8600 which no one on this thread compared in the first place by providing a link that had nothing to do with the topic at hand. Saying the E8600 was better on a few non-multi threaded benchmarks which it is and then you decide to provide tests and bench marks which have nothing to do with the original topic. By providing bench marks for a E8400. And saying that it is the same except for a lower clock when the E8600 is almost 15% faster and more efficient.

    Then you provide a link comparing the two. Lol.

    Duh...................................:rolleyes:


    I know how they get higher clocks. Never said they do affect performance. But I guess efficiency doesn't count? I was trying to explain that they are different other than the clock speed. As you were suggesting. That flew right over your head. Or through it. Whoooossssh. :)

    Handbrake became a real world test when I started using it to rip dvds to my iphone... As of many other people. As it stands, more than 50% of apps i use are multi-threaded. And guru3d is one of the best hardware/software review sites as of right now.[/QUOTE]

    I am not really interested in how many apps that you use are multi threaded.
    You're comparing the i5 to the E8600. Try staying on topic. In case you missed it.

    I believe this was the original OP's post.

    How much faster is the 3.33 v the 3.03 ghz? I.E if I'm ripping a movie using hand break will there be much difference ? Also will I be able to run more programs at the same time using the 3.33? I know I should wait for the upgrade, but my powerbook G4 is on it's last legs. I can only fit the 21.5 in my office. Thx.

    He needs a 21.5 now. So his only choices are spend the money to upgrade the processor and needs to know if it is worth it or not. I don't think he is asking if the i5 is better than the E8600. As we all know that it is.

    I provided him with first hand user experience and benchmarks to make a informed decision as I own both versions of the imac with the i5, C2D 3.06, and C2D 3.33. One at my home currently and two at my office.

    You contributed what exactly?


    You can look at this a bunch of ways. A higher end C2D 3.33 21.5 costs 1700.00. A higher end 21.5 3.06 costs 1500.00. A 21.5 base costs 1200.00. A 21.5 C2D 3.33 base costs 1400.

    Now you can pay a extra 200.00 for the 3.33 which in my opinion not worth it retail.

    But you can get a 21.5 refurb higher end C2D 3.33 for 1450.00. As opposed to 1500.00 for retail. Same machine better processor. Or you can get a refurb 21.5 base C2D 3.33 for 1200.00 As opposed to 1400.00 for a retail 21.5 base model with the C2D 3.33 upgrade. In comparison a refurb 21.5 higher end imac 3.06
    costs just 1300.00 as opposed to 1450.00 for a 3.33. A refurb base 21.5 costs 1000.00 as opposed to 1200.00 for a 3.33 upgrade.

    The best deal there in my opinion is the higher end 21.5 for 1450.00. Or you can basically pay 150.00 more over the 1300.00 3.06 higher end refurb model or you are saving 50.00 and getting a better processor 21.5 higher end refurb as opposed to the retail version C2D 3.06. Depends on how you look at it.

    Is the C2D E8600 worth the 150.00 upgrade. In my option. Yes. For a %20 increase in overall performance I feel that $150.00 is worth it.

    Would I like a i5 or i3 clark better. Of coarse. But as of right now that is not on the table. Your only choices are the C2D 3.33 vs the 3.06.
     
  22. gelie thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    #22


    I am not really interested in how many apps that you use are multi threaded.
    You're comparing the i5 to the E8600. Try staying on topic. In case you missed it.

    I believe this was the original OP's post.

    How much faster is the 3.33 v the 3.03 ghz? I.E if I'm ripping a movie using hand break will there be much difference ? Also will I be able to run more programs at the same time using the 3.33? I know I should wait for the upgrade, but my powerbook G4 is on it's last legs. I can only fit the 21.5 in my office. Thx.

    He needs a 21.5 now. So his only choices are spend the money to upgrade the processor and needs to know if it is worth it or not. I don't think he is asking if the i5 is better than the E8600. As we all know that it is.

    I provided him with first hand user experience and benchmarks to make a informed decision as I own both versions of the imac with the i5, C2D 3.06, and C2D 3.33. One at my home currently and two at my office.

    You contributed what exactly?


    You can look at this a bunch of ways. A higher end C2D 3.33 21.5 costs 1700.00. A higher end 21.5 3.06 costs 1500.00. A 21.5 base costs 1200.00. A 21.5 C2D 3.33 base costs 1400.

    Now you can pay a extra 200.00 for the 3.33 which in my opinion not worth it retail.

    But you can get a 21.5 refurb higher end C2D 3.33 for 1450.00. As opposed to 1500.00 for retail. Same machine better processor. Or you can get a refurb 21.5 base C2D 3.33 for 1200.00 As opposed to 1400.00 for a retail 21.5 base model with the C2D 3.33 upgrade. In comparison a refurb 21.5 higher end imac 3.06
    costs just 1300.00 as opposed to 1450.00 for a 3.33. A refurb base 21.5 costs 1000.00 as opposed to 1200.00 for a 3.33 upgrade.

    The best deal there in my opinion is the higher end 21.5 for 1450.00. Or you can basically pay 150.00 more over the 1300.00 3.06 higher end refurb model or you are saving 50.00 and getting a better processor 21.5 higher end refurb as opposed to the retail version C2D 3.06. Depends on how you look at it.

    Is the C2D E8600 worth the 150.00 upgrade. In my option. Yes. For a %20 increase in overall performance I feel that $150.00 is worth it.

    Would I like a i5 or i3 clark better. Of coarse. But as of right now that is not on the table. Your only choices are the C2D 3.33 vs the 3.06.[/QUOTE]
     
  23. Ace134blue macrumors 6502a

    Ace134blue

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #23


    I am not really interested in how many apps that you use are multi threaded.
    You're comparing the i5 to the E8600. Try staying on topic. In case you missed it.

    I believe this was the original OP's post.

    How much faster is the 3.33 v the 3.03 ghz? I.E if I'm ripping a movie using hand break will there be much difference ? Also will I be able to run more programs at the same time using the 3.33? I know I should wait for the upgrade, but my powerbook G4 is on it's last legs. I can only fit the 21.5 in my office. Thx.

    He needs a 21.5 now. So his only choices are spend the money to upgrade the processor and needs to know if it is worth it or not. I don't think he is asking if the i5 is better than the E8600. As we all know that it is.

    I provided him with first hand user experience and benchmarks to make a informed decision as I own both versions of the imac with the i5, C2D 3.06, and C2D 3.33. One at my home currently and two at my office.

    You contributed what exactly?


    You shoulda never mentioned the i5 750 anyways, if you actually read that site i gave, some of them are not really multi threaded. You said for single threaded the e8600 is faster.. hardly.. You said the E8600 is faster by a margin of 15% and more efficient than the E8400? Thats totally bogus. The E8400 EO has the same *efficiency* as the E8600 EO. The only difference is the clock speed and the multiplier.

    Its not even close to 15% faster its less than 5% An extra 330 mhz is hardly a difference between the two cpus.. You said "and the higher cache helps in more ways than one. And that is against a quad core CPU.". LOL The E8600 has more cache than the i5 750? haha. Its 6mb of L2 Cache for the E8600 and 8MB of L3 cache for the 750. L3 is much faster than L2 and plus it has an extra 2mb. I dont see how the E8600 has more cache?

    In single threaded apps, The difference in the i5 750 and the E8600 is quite noticeable. Apps launch faster and are much more responsive. Examples..
    Safari, Firefox, mail, itunes, ical, preview.. the list goes on. Also, since steam has been released it is very multi-thread aware, which i am sure many mac users are using now.
    In single threaded Apps the i5 750 wins 4/5 vs the E8600. With the i5 750s clock of 3.2ghz and the E8600 of 3.33 their isnt hardly a difference. The higher cache helps more than the extra 130mhz.

    "You contributed >>you forgot "TO"<< what exactly?" I already gave the performance differences and told the OP it was worth the upgrade.
     
  24. gelie thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    #24
    Thanks for all the responses. I'm either going with the middle 21.5 ot the upper 3.33 ghz. Does it make a difference if I were to hook up a second monitor in terms of performance?
     
  25. iamthedudeman macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    #25
    You shoulda never mentioned the i5 750 anyways, if you actually read that site i gave, some of them are not really multi threaded. You said for single threaded the e8600 is faster.. hardly.. You said the E8600 is faster by a margin of 15% and more efficient than the E8400? Thats totally bogus. The E8400 EO has the same *efficiency* as the E8600 EO. The only difference is the clock speed and the multiplier.

    Its not even close to 15% faster its less than 5% An extra 330 mhz is hardly a difference between the two cpus.. You said "and the higher cache helps in more ways than one. And that is against a quad core CPU.". LOL The E8600 has more cache than the i5 750? haha. Its 6mb of L2 Cache for the E8600 and 8MB of L3 cache for the 750. L3 is much faster than L2 and plus it has an extra 2mb. I dont see how the E8600 has more cache?

    In single threaded apps, The difference in the i5 750 and the E8600 is quite noticeable. Apps launch faster and are much more responsive. Examples..
    Safari, Firefox, mail, itunes, ical, preview.. the list goes on. Also, since steam has been released it is very multi-thread aware, which i am sure many mac users are using now.
    In single threaded Apps the i5 750 wins 4/5 vs the E8600. With the i5 750s clock of 3.2ghz and the E8600 of 3.33 their isnt hardly a difference. The higher cache helps more than the extra 130mhz.

    "You contributed >>you forgot "TO"<< what exactly?" I already gave the performance differences and told the OP it was worth the upgrade.
    __________________



    Why shouldn't I have mentioned the i5 750? What are you 12?
    Some of them are not multi-threaded. Most of them are.

    Never said on single tests the E8600 was faster. Just that it beats the i-750 on some single threaded tests. And it does beat it on more than a few. What is so hard to grasp about that? Why are you so suprised? Here is exactly what I said:

    The C2D even beats the i5 750 on some tests that do not require multiple threads and the higher cache helps in more ways than one. And that is against a quad core CPU.

    Which it does. I own both macs with both chips. And the benchmarks echo my experiences as well. Do you own both? How can you tell? I can. You can't. It's as simple as that. The testing backs this up.

    http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-lga775-final-p2.html

    Its actually 660 mhz sherlock. Not 330. You have to include both cores. :rolleyes:

    Efficiency has more to do with clock speed and multiplier. It uses less power(voltage) at the same clock speed. How isn't that important. So wrong again.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e8600.html

    Here it is faster than the E8500 by %7 in these tests.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e8600.html

    Here educate yourself. The i750 is not faster by a wide margin in single threaded tests. That simply is crap.

    It has higher L3 not L2. L3 is slower than L2. L2 cache is faster than L3 cache. L2 has a greater impact on performance. Not L3. L2 cache can be read at half the speed of the L1, L3 at half the L2, and system ram read at about half L3's speed. The L3 on the i5 has associative cache so that does not pertain so much to this processor as the L3 8MB is shared between all four cores. The E8600 has a larger L2 cache. There fore it is faster on some single threaded apps. It all has to do with latency. Is this a hard concept for you?


    Are you done being embarrassed yet? I own both imacs with both chips. So I guess you are speaking from experience. :)

    http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci5-660-p1.html




    __________________
     

Share This Page