C2D 3.06 vs i5 ?

macchiato2009

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 14, 2009
1,254
1
now that i'm done hesitating between 21.5 and 27"

(i'm going for the 27")

my choice is between C2D 3.06 and the i5

my impression is that no software is really optimized so far for most consumers

and i think that the i5 will be powerful but compared to the C2D, Snow Leopard and most softwares will not exploit it to its max capacity

it might be a better choice to get the 27" C2D 3.06 and invest into the optional video card: the ati 4850 to have the best video card

what do you think ?
 

SmugMac

macrumors regular
Sep 25, 2009
135
0
If you believe in such a thing as future proofing - then the i5 is the better choice.
 

zedsdead

macrumors 68040
Jun 20, 2007
3,233
530
You really only need the Quad if you plan to edit video or some other heavy lifting like that. Remember though that the Quad i5/i7 have Turbo Boost (which goes up to 3.2/3.46), and they are faster than the 3.06/3.33.
 

macchiato2009

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 14, 2009
1,254
1
as i'm just a normal user, i don't edit videos

that's why i'm asking

will i notice a huge difference for doing multitasking, watching HD video (without any lag or freeze), doing some little photoshop, reencoding mp3 & videos for my iphone (which takes quite some time...)

but at the same time quad core is the future... if i want to resell my imac next year or later...

i don't know

it's not about money i can afford it but i hate wasting money
 

dwd3885

macrumors 68020
Dec 10, 2004
2,106
90
as i'm just a normal user, i don't edit videos

that's why i'm asking

will i notice a huge difference for doing multitasking, watching HD video (without any lag or freeze), doing some little photoshop, reencoding mp3 & videos for my iphone (which takes quite some time...)

but at the same time quad core is the future... if i want to resell my imac next year or later...

i don't know

it's not about money i can afford it but i hate wasting money
The C2D is fine..Though, if you're going for 27", I'd get the i5. 27" too big for me, so I can't get the i5, otherwise I would.
 

JPT

macrumors regular
May 4, 2006
247
0
Also remember that the i5 is a desktop cpu vs the iMacs C2D which is a laptop cpu. If I remember correctly, desktop processors are a more powerful than their laptop counterparts.

So not only do you get extra speed thanks to the quad, but it's also a full desktop processor.

Then again I could be completely wrong about the whole desktop/laptop processor thing in relation to the iMac.... :p
 

Fozzybadfeet

macrumors 6502
Oct 7, 2009
273
158
Orange County, CA
Since I am in the same dilemma, let me ask you all this. Is the 3.06 strong enough to handle moderate use of Photoshop, music (downloading, creating, etc), minor gaming, and the rest for email, browsing, etc, etc? I was thinking of buying the 3.06 and upgrading the ram in the future. I can afford the 3.06 but the i5 would take me longer to get...And I'm getting impatient =(
 

Fozzybadfeet

macrumors 6502
Oct 7, 2009
273
158
Orange County, CA
Also remember that the i5 is a desktop cpu vs the iMacs C2D which is a laptop cpu. If I remember correctly, desktop processors are a more powerful than their laptop counterparts.

So not only do you get extra speed thanks to the quad, but it's also a full desktop processor.

Then again I could be completely wrong about the whole desktop/laptop processor thing in relation to the iMac.... :p
I think someone in one of the other threads posted the C2D is desktop not mobile...?
 

SnowLeopard2008

macrumors 604
Jul 4, 2008
6,772
8
Silicon Valley
Also remember that the i5 is a desktop cpu vs the iMacs C2D which is a laptop cpu. If I remember correctly, desktop processors are a more powerful than their laptop counterparts.

So not only do you get extra speed thanks to the quad, but it's also a full desktop processor.

Then again I could be completely wrong about the whole desktop/laptop processor thing in relation to the iMac.... :p
That's perfectly true, but if you're environmentally conscious, you know that laptop processors suck way less power than desktop class processors do. Unless the OP needs the extra power, I suggest a laptop processor. My 2.66GHz processor in my uMBP M09 doesn't lag in HD video, it just lags in the beginning transitioning from the default SD video option to HD. There is no playback lag however.

I suggest investing the GPU because that's the direction developers are moving towards with CUDA and OpenCL programming languages that focus on utilizing the GPU. Also, there is very negligible performance between the i5 and C2D, at least for your uses.
 

Bryan Bowler

macrumors 68040
Sep 27, 2008
3,735
3,386
Since I am in the same dilemma, let me ask you all this. Is the 3.06 strong enough to handle moderate use of Photoshop, music (downloading, creating, etc), minor gaming, and the rest for email, browsing, etc, etc? (
Absolutely. And honestly, so is the lowest model too.

Bryan
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,081
287
Indianapolis
Also remember that the i5 is a desktop cpu vs the iMacs C2D which is a laptop cpu. If I remember correctly, desktop processors are a more powerful than their laptop counterparts.

So not only do you get extra speed thanks to the quad, but it's also a full desktop processor.

Then again I could be completely wrong about the whole desktop/laptop processor thing in relation to the iMac.... :p
Intel's notebook processor line is just power optimized bins off of their standard Penryn or Lynnfield wafer. Clock per clock they're the same processors otherwise. You're going to pay for lower voltage and tighter thermals on mobile processors.

It's tough to find direct comparison benchmarks between the E7600 and the Core i5 750. The E7600 is a ~$130 mainstream dual core. $190 gets you the Core i5 750 which is the value quad core champion right now.

The best I can do right now is an overall benchmark.

http://www.behardware.com/news/lire/20-10-2009/#10495

With the index being the Q6600 at 100 points, the E7600 comes in at 80.3. The Core i5 750 is at 142.5. You're looking at only $50 in the price difference between the processors though. That's chump change.
 

grahamnp

macrumors 6502a
Jun 4, 2008
969
4
Clock for clock the i5 is faster than E7600 on single thread applications.

Basically, an i5 running on only two cores is faster than the E7600 on both it's two cores. The same should be true on only one core. Not to mention the fact that the i5 can be boosted to 3.2ghz which only increases it's advantage.
 

GadgetAddicted

macrumors regular
Jun 11, 2009
186
0
For a person who does video editing, photography, movies, web surfing programming and NO games, would I see a a noticable difference with the i5 rather than going for the 3.06??
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,081
287
Indianapolis
For a person who does video editing, photography, movies, web surfing programming and NO games, would I see a a noticable difference with the i5 rather than going for the 3.06??
You want the quad core. There's no reason to be buying a dual core on machines this expensive to begin with. Raw clock speed becomes less relevant when you have Turbo Boost.
 

GadgetAddicted

macrumors regular
Jun 11, 2009
186
0
You want the quad core. There's no reason to be buying a dual core on machines this expensive to begin with. Raw clock speed becomes less relevant when you have Turbo Boost.
Hmm...is $320 justifiable for upgrading just the processor from 3.06 to i5??
 

ThirteenXIII

macrumors 6502a
Mar 8, 2008
704
51
I was wondering the same thing, i do alot of Importing of DVDs and also converting some to Handbrake/iSquint to iTunes etc.

i think the c2d would be fine and im upgrading to the 512 GPU
 

lasuther

macrumors 6502a
Feb 13, 2004
670
0
Grand Haven, Michigan
The i5 upgrade is really worth the $300. Not only with the processor but for the graphics card. The 27" monitor is huge and has a resolution almost as big as the 30". You'll want that extra power. Quad core and the graphics upgrade will make a big deal 4 years from now. The base 27" is basically outdated today. Don't spend so much money on a outdated processor and graphics card.
 

macchiato2009

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 14, 2009
1,254
1
actually, my choice for the i5 is more based on getting the best video card rather than the i5 itself

but still, this combo will be only available in november :(
 

dwd3885

macrumors 68020
Dec 10, 2004
2,106
90
In getting the 3.06 C2D. It's a $500 difference (from 21.5 to high end 27). So it's not petty cash that's for sure. Coming from a MBP running at 2.4 w/2gb ram, the 3.06 C2D w/4gb will be a beast for everything you through at it. Sure the i5 would be faster and better. But there is always something faster and better unless you get the absolute top of the line.

I think about it like this: in a year or two tops there will be bluray, USB 3, lightpeak all on the iMacs. So will the c2d last 2 years until then when I upgrade? I say without a doubt yes. Because u will want to upgrade when USB 3 bluray and lightpeak are out. So no point in buying a i5 if you won't use it as such until more apps take advantage of it. That's why I saved $500.