Core i5 vs. i7?

[Arfdog]

Interesting graph but benchmarks are not the same as "real life". If you have to render lots of video, the processor will give far more bang for buck than the Fusion Drive, and for some programs that can use the graphics processor the 680MX will give much more bang for buck than the other choices. If you spend your time opening and using office applications then only the Fusion Drive will make any noticeable difference.

I think you misunderstand. The CPU Geekbench benchmarks measure CPU/memory performance only. So it measures how fast it will render video or any other CPU-intensive task. The hard drive tests measure file performance. The GPU benchmarks represent graphics performance only.

So the graph shows the upgrade in Geekbench score from the i5 to the i7 is much more costly than the GPU and HD upgrades.

 

[talmy]

I think you misunderstand. The CPU Geekbench benchmarks measure CPU/memory performance only. So it measures how fast it will render video or any other CPU-intensive task. The hard drive tests measure file performance. The GPU benchmarks represent graphics performance only.

So the graph shows the upgrade in Geekbench score from the i5 to the i7 is much more costly than the GPU and HD upgrades.

I fully understand the graph and the benchmarks. However what I'm saying is the actual bang for buck depends on what you are doing. If you are spending most of your system intensive time (as opposed to browsing the web or writing, for which you are wasting money on any performance option) doing video rendering, the roughly 40% increase in bang for the roughly 27% increase in buck to go with the i7 is a better deal than the no effective increase in bang you will get from the 14% increase in buck off the Fusion Drive. Why no increase? Because the rendering will drive all cores to 100% utilization and even a conventional hard drive has no trouble keeping up.

Benchmarks don't tell the whole story.

 

[Arfdog]

I fully understand the graph and the benchmarks. However what I'm saying is the actual bang for buck depends on what you are doing. If you are spending most of your system intensive time (as opposed to browsing the web or writing, for which you are wasting money on any performance option) doing video rendering, the roughly 40% increase in bang for the roughly 27% increase in buck to go with the i7 is a better deal than the no effective increase in bang you will get from the 14% increase in buck off the Fusion Drive. Why no increase? Because the rendering will drive all cores to 100% utilization and even a conventional hard drive has no trouble keeping up.

Benchmarks don't tell the whole story.

That's fine, but it's not very realistic is it. No one really logs the fraction of time spent doing one task over the other. For the very few who know they do mostly CPU tasks, then your point applies. If someone is looking for a server, then obviously they wouldn't benefit from a GPU upgrade.

For the average all-around user, who is likely to do many kinds of tasks, it's good to know which upgrades get the biggest bang.

 

[All Taken]

Benchmarks don't tell the whole story.

No, no they don't. As a simple graph for people who understand the different components it's a useful graphic. The only people who don't understand that sometimes an i7 is more useful than Fusion in terms of bang for buck are the very people who don't understand what an i5/i7 are in the first place. Everyone is on the same page as you and knows that differing needs demand different tools but everyone seems to agree that the graph is a nice and 'simple' indicator for everyday computing, only you felt the need to complicate it and act as if people were not already well aware.

Do you have a more complex graph that we can perhaps scrutinise and diminish based on assumptions of peoples understanding?

 

[Drharrington]

A lot of analysis for 200 bucks. I'm just saying. If inclined - then just do it.

 

[Arfdog]

Awesome..amazingly helpful information in making buying choices.

Thanks!