The BCLK is 133 MHz for all Nehalem/Westmere parts.Hmmm... Bus/Core Ratio??? If you divide 2.66GHz by 20 (or 2.4 by 18), you get 1333Mhz bus speed... not 1066!!!
What could this possibly mean?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Beware: the Core i7 is probably not worth it this time
- Thread starter Nuak
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hey guys,
Just put (most) of the figures from the OP review data into a spreadsheet and calculated an average for all benchmark results. Appears that the i5-520M is 3.857589757% on average slower than the i7-620M.
I just though I'd share. Looks like I'm going with the i5-520M.
Just put (most) of the figures from the OP review data into a spreadsheet and calculated an average for all benchmark results. Appears that the i5-520M is 3.857589757% on average slower than the i7-620M.
I just though I'd share. Looks like I'm going with the i5-520M.
Fly in your ointment: The OP's review data isn't testing MacBook Pros. It's testing Windows machines.
There is tons of data available now that shows the MacBook Pro Core i5 closer to 8-12% (depending on 2.4GHz or 2.53GHz) on average slower than the MacBook Pro Core i7 (2.66GHz).
But whatever floats your boat.
Mark
As far as consumers are concerned, the cache shouldn't even be displayed... it's relatively meaningless to people who aren't engineers and knowledgeable about the architecture... the effect of another MB of cache won't make a difference. Reviewers like to toss it around as another stat they can use to make their word count.
I thought if 1680 looked good the extra screen size would make it easier to read. 1920 may be too small for my eyes and the hi-res 15" might be hard for me to read too. I just don't want the 15" regular screen because I want more screen space. Just trying to figure out options.
To my eyes, the 15" high-res and 17" high-res look like they display text at virtually the same size. The larger screen of the 17" is cancelled by the higher resolution.
Mark
If you are talking about the iMac, right!
If you are talking about the MacBook Pro, wrong.
Mark
Any decrease in lid structural rigidity with the anti-glare option? It's my understanding that it lacks the glass layer over the screen that the glossy MBPs have.
The lid on my 15" with anti-glare feels plenty rigid to me. I can open the lid by pulling it open from a single corner and I don't get any sense that the lid feels flimsy. I don't have a glossy right here to compare.
Mark
Actually, half right - the i5 and i7 iMacs both have four cores, but the i7 iMac has hyperthreading, so it add four execution threads.
On the mobile part, i5 vs i7 is pretty much just clock speed and L3 cache - both are dual-core processors with hyperthreading for four execution threads.
Don't forget that you can't just compare 2.53 vs 2.66GHz. 5% doesn't sound worthwhile, but that's just the base clock speed.
With turbo boost, the i5 and i7 are 2.93 and 3.33GHz, respectively. So with single-threaded applications, the i7 is 13.5% faster.
The i5 has 3MB of L3 cache, the i7 has 4MB. That's a 33.3% increase.
If you intend to use your i7 Mac for a few years, don't worry, you're getting your money's worth out of your $200 upgrade. (The sad part is, most of this $200 goes directly to pad Apple's profit, it doesn't reflect the minimal price difference of the actual chips).
As for dual-channel vs. triple-channel RAM, all mobile versions of the i5 and i7 use dual channel. Triple channel only comes into play in the desktop/workstation/server versions.
With turbo boost, the i5 and i7 are 2.93 and 3.33GHz, respectively. So with single-threaded applications, the i7 is 13.5% faster.
The i5 has 3MB of L3 cache, the i7 has 4MB. That's a 33.3% increase.
If you intend to use your i7 Mac for a few years, don't worry, you're getting your money's worth out of your $200 upgrade. (The sad part is, most of this $200 goes directly to pad Apple's profit, it doesn't reflect the minimal price difference of the actual chips).
As for dual-channel vs. triple-channel RAM, all mobile versions of the i5 and i7 use dual channel. Triple channel only comes into play in the desktop/workstation/server versions.
No offense to the OP but I would say the total opposite to you. One because you should buy the best you can as it will ultimately last longer and two the anandtech review:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3659/apples-15inch-core-i5-macbook-pro-the-one-to-get
The conclusion of which reads:
While I'm not sure about the 2.53GHz Core i5, the i7 is definitely worth it if you plan on keeping the machine for a while. I originally stated that I didn't believe the i7 to be worth the upgrade. Since then I managed to get my hands on an i7 system and noted its greater-than-expected performance; my conclusion has been updated to reflect that. The 22% increase in total system cost comes with a 11 - 15% increase in performance in most CPU intensive applications thanks to the extra clock speed and cache.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3659/apples-15inch-core-i5-macbook-pro-the-one-to-get
The conclusion of which reads:
While I'm not sure about the 2.53GHz Core i5, the i7 is definitely worth it if you plan on keeping the machine for a while. I originally stated that I didn't believe the i7 to be worth the upgrade. Since then I managed to get my hands on an i7 system and noted its greater-than-expected performance; my conclusion has been updated to reflect that. The 22% increase in total system cost comes with a 11 - 15% increase in performance in most CPU intensive applications thanks to the extra clock speed and cache.
He said:
What does he mean by this? Why is it worth it if I plan on keeping it for a while? What is going on to happen in, say, 4 years that i5 will not be able to handle?
He also said:
CPU intensive applications. So for browsing, word processing and occasional video/audio/pictures editing/encoding, the i5 seems to be just fine. However, if i7 does not generate more heat and does not "eat" more battery, why not get it and have a better overall performance, assuming the money difference between the two CPUs is not an issue, of course?
I am like others is trying to decide between i5 and i7. My main concern is battery life and heat. I have read all reviews, but thus far I have not come across a direct comparison of the battery's performance and heat between the two CPUs.
Also, Photoshop's minimum requirement for video memory is 256MB. Does it mean that if I run Photoshop on i5 (which has only 256MB of video memory) I will not be able to run anything else that requires video memory, or is it simply the minimum amount of video memory that Photoshop needs to run, but it does not actually monopolize an entire 256MB?
I am a student so student discount applies for me, but that made my 17 inch $2099. I was planning to spend $2299 before the refresh... so why not upgrade the cpu and make it the same price I was going to pay in the first place??
Now, if even marginally different, I have a better processor for the price I was originally going to pay... Sure feels like I came out ahead.
Yes I could have done other upgrades, but I can never change GPU or CPU, but I can replace RAM or HDD's so I'm more than happy.
Now, if even marginally different, I have a better processor for the price I was originally going to pay... Sure feels like I came out ahead.
Yes I could have done other upgrades, but I can never change GPU or CPU, but I can replace RAM or HDD's so I'm more than happy.
That's so that users who want to utilize the advanced 3d functions with any degree of fluidity won't have a heart attack if their system doesn't handle it so well.
If your compositions are tiny 300 x 200 size works with single digit layers then you won't need that much horsepower.
If you're touching up a giant raw file straight from a hasselblad zoomed in so close you can see the models pores on a 30 inch ACD, then the faster processor capabilities as well as the additional vram can help for Ps gpu accelerated functions. I believe there are certian fucntions that will only be enabled depending upon the available amount of vram, but I can't find that particular document.
Edit: Here it is. Adobe basically breaks it down in banks. I'll probably post this in a seperate thread so people can stop agonizing over it.
Gist: 256 will work fine. Pro? Go 512.
But Anand also said that an i5+SSD is better than an i7.
RT @chrisatzinger: @anandshimpi so in your option the better buy in the i5 MBP plus an SSD (X25-M) vs the i7 model? ME: Yes, absolutely.
I'd like to see a benchmark to compare before I pull the trigger.
