Compair Intel i5 to core 2 duo

Opstech

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 5, 2010
524
6
California
Hello fellow mac users. I wanted to know if anyone can explain to me, and maybe others, on what would be the big difference between the soon to come i5 chip from the existing core duo's?
Please, no extra babble on the new chip. I just want to know if it will have huge margins over the other.
Thanks,
 

NewMacbookPlz

macrumors 68040
Sep 28, 2008
3,266
0
If you do some reading around for benchmarks, it appears the i5 runs tasks ~20-30% faster at the same clock speed as the C2D with similar power drain.

Edit: I'm not post stalking you spinnerlys, yours wasn't even here when I started my post, honest!! :D
 

Opstech

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 5, 2010
524
6
California
Thanks NewmacbookPLZ,
I wanted to know because I can still get my money back on this one. 20% is great, but what about battery life? If it's the same, ill just keep what I have.
 

NewMacbookPlz

macrumors 68040
Sep 28, 2008
3,266
0
Thanks NewmacbookPLZ,
I wanted to know because I can still get my money back on this one. 20% is great, but what about battery life? If it's the same, ill just keep what I have.
Check out the benchmark links for more concrete data.
 

coast1ja

macrumors 6502
Jul 13, 2009
291
0
Four cores vs. two cores. In numbers: 4 vs. 2 --> 4/2 = 2/1 --> 2 times faster.*

Also http://www.google.com/cse?cx=011016119145480959114:kuv1aq0hily&ie=UTF-8&q=core+i5+vs+core2duo+site:forums.macrumors.com&hl=en&as_qdr=all&meta=

*If it is the same frequency.
The mobile core i5s are two cores... so it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

on a more serious note, the new architecture should add speed... around 20% is the current estimate (equal clocks). Battery life should remain the same.
 

mikes70mustang

macrumors 68000
Nov 14, 2008
1,591
0
US
20% is hardly a huge margin. As for me, its going to have to be at least twice as fast as my current processor for me to upgrade.
 

That70sGAdawg

macrumors 6502a
May 23, 2008
619
178
Athens, GA USA
The difference will be that you have $1300-$2800 less money in your pocket , because 90% of what most do on a Macbook will be handled just as fast on the current models..
 

Jaro65

macrumors 68040
Mar 27, 2009
3,703
563
Seattle, WA
The difference will be that you have $1300-$2800 less money in your pocket , because 90% of what most do on a Macbook will be handled just as fast on the current models..
Yep. I'm listening to iTunes, browsing the web, typing an email, and the iStats shows that 94% of my CPU is idle. Granted, sometimes it goes to 30-40% utilization when I do video conferencing etc., but for most purposes the machines we have available now are plenty powerful already.

Hmm...North GA by the lake, near the mountains sounds nice.
 

maflynn

Moderator
Staff member
May 3, 2009
63,857
30,381
Boston
Four cores vs. two cores. In numbers: 4 vs. 2 --> 4/2 = 2/1 --> 2 times faster.*
The speed increase is not linear, i.e., doubling the cores, doubles the performance. there's a lot of other factors, such as whether applications are compiled to take advantage of > 2 cores (with snow leopard this should be mitigated once programs are recompiled for the newer technology in SL), whether you're a light or heavy multitasker. whether the system resources are available, i.e., disk access is serial and a process must wait for availability to read/write any blocks that are not in cache., etc.
 

Winters

macrumors member
Jan 11, 2010
51
1
The i5 also have a turbo which can boost individual cores when possible in addition to the 10-20% performance gain.
So if they replace the basic macbookpro model and its 2.53ghz core 2 duo with a 2.4 ghz i5 520m it may not look like a huge boost but if you look at the turbo the 520m can actually go up to 2.93ghz in addition to the 10%+ performance gain.
 

briancl

macrumors newbie
Jan 3, 2010
26
0
The difference will be that you have $1300-$2800 less money in your pocket , because 90% of what most do on a Macbook will be handled just as fast on the current models..
I've been saying this for a while, but most people with unibody MBP's do not need to upgrade this time around. There are some people who will make use of the better technology, but most won't. If you have an older MBP, then the benefit could be more dramatic.

For those that are in between and are itching for an upgrade, I'd suggest dropping in an SSD. The cost is much smaller than a new MBP, and the performance benefit is real.

That should hold you over until a full redesign of the MBP which should come with additional performance benefits.
 

maflynn

Moderator
Staff member
May 3, 2009
63,857
30,381
Boston
I've been saying this for a while, but most people with unibody MBP's do not need to upgrade this time around.
Agreed. I own a 2.53 MBP and its more then up to the task right now and the foreseeable future. I have little to no temptation to upgrade this machine. Especially since I paid 2.5k a little more then a year ago.

Yeah some people who want the latest and greatest will sell their unibody MBPs to get one.
 

briancl

macrumors newbie
Jan 3, 2010
26
0
20% is hardly a huge margin. As for me, its going to have to be at least twice as fast as my current processor for me to upgrade.
This depends on what you have right now. If you have a BTO 15" 3.06ghz C2D with 8GB RAM and Intel SSD, then the margin for improvement is small.

If you have a 2.4ghz C2D with 2GB RAM and 5400RPM, then there are real performance gains to be had.

In single-threaded applications and everyday usage, clock for clock, the benefit of Arrandale over C2D is about 10-25%. In multi-threaded applications, the clock for clock benefit is about 30-45%. So, if you have that 3.06ghz, the best you can hope for is a 2.66ghz i7 which should put you near the equivalent performance of a 3.33ghz C2D. That's not a big increase. If you have that 2.4ghz, then you could get that same 2.66 i7, and the jump in performance from 2.4 to 3.33 will be more worthwhile.

Also, as we all know, operating systems and applications are becoming more multi-threaded. The system you buy today may get you a 30% performance increase right now, but the same system 12 or 18 months from now will be 40-50% faster than your old laptop. Of course, the argument could be made that you should wait 12 or 18 months until upgrading, but I won't open that can of worms here. If you don't need an upgrade today, then don't bother. Upgrade when you need to upgrade... otherwise you could be playing the waiting game forever.

I have a 3 year old MBP with a 2.33ghz Merom maxed out with 3GB of RAM. I use VMware 100% of the time, so I definitely need the ugprade. I will get a 2.66ghz i7 MBP as soon as they become available.
 

gnasher729

macrumors P6
Nov 25, 2005
16,510
3,102
Four cores vs. two cores. In numbers: 4 vs. 2 --> 4/2 = 2/1 --> 2 times faster.
Careful. Most of the i3/i5/i7 chips that have just been introduced by Intel are actual dual core, not quad core. Therefore, i5 with four cores is a lot better than Core 2 Duo, i5 with two cores is a good bit better at the same clock speed because of many improvements in the newer chips.
 

netdog

macrumors 603
Feb 6, 2006
5,762
36
London
Other than people doing heavy lifting (like video encoding all day), most people's local computing power needs have gone way down and yet tech benchmarks junks are doing cartwheels over the Arrandale bump that's coming.

The current 2.8 MBP has more horsepower than 99.9% of us will ever use on anything approaching a regular basis, and yet people are clamoring for more power.

When I use my MBA for normal day to day tasks like surfing, reading email and playing music, there is no difference in speed between it and my 8-core Mac Pro.

Only when I am editing RAW photos or rendering video does the Mac Pro shine. Speed is the new Megapixels. For most of us, it just doesn't matter, and as we move to the cloud, it will matter less and less. Most who are waiting for Arrandale are just buying benchmarks, and not an improved user experience.
 

dont24

macrumors regular
Jan 17, 2005
241
2
Northeast
Right now I have the cash for a 13" MacBook Pro. Waiting for the new releases. For what my wife and I will be doing ( web surfing, email, facebook, etc ) current entry level 13" is more than enough. Something portable we can use around the house. Anything more will be done on our 24" iMac. We'll either get the new 13" offering or save more $$ and grab an "old" one. I can't believe how fast refurb'd 13" pros are snatched up from the Apple store! This will be my 1st Apple laptop purchase. New hardware typically remain at the same price point?
 

powerbook911

macrumors 68040
Mar 15, 2005
3,734
158
Right now I have the cash for a 13" MacBook Pro. Waiting for the new releases. For what my wife and I will be doing ( web surfing, email, facebook, etc ) current entry level 13" is more than enough. Something portable we can use around the house. Anything more will be done on our 24" iMac. We'll either get the new 13" offering or save more $$ and grab an "old" one. I can't believe how fast refurb'd 13" pros are snatched up from the Apple store! This will be my 1st Apple laptop purchase. New hardware typically remain at the same price point?
Yes, usually the price stays about the same. There were dramatic cuts to the MBP costs in June due to the economy. They aren't going to cut them even more as the price of the MacBook is just below.

However, you will get *more* for your money when they update them as they will likely have things like more ram, bigger hard drives, faster processor, etc.
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,081
287
Indianapolis
Other than people doing heavy lifting (like video encoding all day), most people's local computing power needs have gone way down and yet tech benchmarks junks are doing cartwheels over the Arrandale bump that's coming.

The current 2.8 MBP has more horsepower than 99.9% of us will ever use on anything approaching a regular basis, and yet people are clamoring for more power.
It sounds like you're regretting your Core 2 purchase.
 

netdog

macrumors 603
Feb 6, 2006
5,762
36
London
It sounds like you're regretting your Core 2 purchase.
Not at all. I had the option to return mine today. The Apple Store is a 5 minute drive from my home. I just chose not to.

When I am reading about the teething problems that the new ones have as Rev A models, I'll be glad I didn't return mine.

What you are seeing in this post is the thinking I did about whether I should return a perfect machine for the new Arrandale.
 

ssbob98

macrumors newbie
Dec 17, 2009
1
0
so question then

So I was going to pick up a current c2d 15" mbp but with the event in a couple of weeks I thought I would wait and see what comes out, worst case I will get a c2d for a bit cheaper.

But the waiting was getting to me, so I thought well while in class it is a big distraction having a notebook, so maybe that 27" iMac with the sexy screen is a smart choice, I can have it now and it costs about the same with all things considered. But with the screen woes and the quality concerns, I am back to waiting, again :(

So my question to you all is all things being equal and this being my first mac (to be used for programming, school work, some gaming, and mostly dorking around on the net) will I be better served waiting for the i5 (assuming it is indeed nearly here) or the c2d being a cheaper find (are refurbs pretty good from Apple)?

Thanks