Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Differences between i5 and i7

cfedu said:
So let me get this straight. Intel lets Apple unlock hyper threading on an i5 but not for there PC customers.

Wow
Click to expand...

Without looking into it I would assume that any manufacturer would have the option.

jasin said:
A side note. I did read on Mac Rumors, a different site, that apple wont be moving to Ivy bridge in the future. They are supposedly switching to Arm.
Click to expand...

Apple is supposedly testing an ARM processor in the Air. It doesn't mean they'll switch to it.

jasin said:
That's my understanding so far. And thanks for correcting me acedickson :). Maybe acedickson can elaborate on this locked unlocked HT thingny?
Click to expand...

If by default it is locked then Apple unlocked the capability.
 
acedickson said:
Without looking into it I would assume that any manufacturer would have the option.



Apple is supposedly testing an ARM processor in the Air. It doesn't mean they'll switch to it.

.
Click to expand...

Intel and Amd cpus supposedly have lots of overhead which is why they want to switch to ARM. At least, thats what I read.
 
I just checked intel's website, this model is by default 2 cores 4 threads.
I think some i5's have hyper threading, some don't. the i5 2415m all have hyper threading. nothing to unlock.
 
The i5 has runs at 2.3GHz with 3MB of L3 Cache. The i7 runs at 2.7GHz with 4MB of L3 cache.

The i7 would be noticeably faster.

Edit: found out the mobile i5s have HT.
 
Icy1007 said:
The i5 has 2 cores and 2 threads and runs at 2.3GHz. The i7 also has 2 cores, but has 4 threads and runs at 2.7GHz.

The i7 would be noticeably faster.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect. They have the same number of cores and same number of threads. Otherwise the Geekbench would be nearly twice as fast between the two.
 
acedickson said:
That's incorrect. They have the same number of cores and same number of threads. Otherwise the Geekbench would be nearly twice as fast between the two.
Click to expand...

Don't forget other factors too. Overall system performance is not based solely on the cpu. Amount of system memory, system memory speed, hard drive type and speed, etc.. have a huge impact on system performance as well. :) Like I was originally saying, a ssd drive on a Mbp will get you faster boots than an i7 will. Many have tested this too, real world testing .. not just benchmarking stuff.
 
Last edited:
jasin said:
Don't forget other factors too. Overall system performance is not based solely on the cpu. Amount of system memory, system memory speed, hard drive type and speed, etc.. have a huge impact on system performance as well. :)
Click to expand...

There is an impact but not nearly as great as the processor. The easiest way to see that difference is to look at benchmarks between the 13" and 15". The biggest difference between those is processor related.
 
I think what I have gotten from this thread for me when I purchase my new Mbp this summer is to get the i5 with an ssd rather than the i7 with the 5200 hard drive.

acedickson said:
There is an impact but not nearly as great as the processor. The easiest way to see that difference is to look at benchmarks between the 13" and 15". The biggest difference between those is processor related.
Click to expand...

So you are saying an i7 Mbp with a 5200 hard drive will boot faster than an i5 Mbp with an ssd drive?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jasin said:
So you are saying an i7 Mbp with a 5200 hard drive will boot faster than an i5 Mbp with an ssd drive?
Click to expand...

No, and that wasn't my point. An SSD doesn't make encoding faster. What the user notices with an SSD is that the data is read faster. Speed of boot isn't related to the processor.

You're talking about two different forms of speed.
 
acedickson said:
There is an impact but not nearly as great as the processor. The easiest way to see that difference is to look at benchmarks between the 13" and 15". The biggest difference between those is processor related.
Click to expand...

False. That does explain the benchmark difference, but a slower processor with a faster drive will load things faster, and a slower processor with more memory will be able to do more things at once. Very little noticeable performance differences come from the processor, as very little software requires the level of performance that any modern CPU provides. Video encoding will benefit, but very little else would benefit much other than benchmarks, especially with the small difference between the DC i5 and i7
 
ok, clearing up the hyperthreading confusion once and for all:

Desktop i5 does not have hyperthreading
Laptop i5 does have hyperthreading

desktop and laptop i7 both have hyperthreading
 
alust2013 said:
False. That does explain the benchmark difference, but a slower processor with a faster drive will load things faster, and a slower processor with more memory will be able to do more things at once. Very little noticeable performance differences come from the processor, as very little software requires the level of performance that any modern CPU provides. Video encoding will benefit, but very little else would benefit much other than benchmarks, especially with the small difference between the DC i5 and i7
Click to expand...

I don't think that made my statement false. It depends what is important to the user. If the quickness of apps opening and your boot times are important then for that user and SSD is more important. For users that take advantage of their processing power with encoding and such then the processor is the most important factor.

Encoding times were absolutely unaffected by what type of drive was used. More memory increased the speed but it didn't have a substantial impact like the quad-cores do over the dual-cores.

I made that statement from my point of view. The processing power is much more important than an app opening in 1 second instead of 2.5. Now, with that said, I will buy an SSD and upgrade the RAM when very soon because I do appreciate the added benefits.
 
acedickson said:
No, and that wasn't my point. An SSD doesn't make encoding faster. What the user notices with an SSD is that the data is read faster. Speed of boot isn't related to the processor.

You're talking about two different forms of speed.
Click to expand...

This comparison is from 2008, but it does show Mbps with ssd are faster overall.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-notebook-portable,1913-5.html

acedickson said:
I don't think that made my statement false. It depends what is important to the user. If the quickness of apps opening and your boot times are important then for that user and SSD is more important. For users that take advantage of their processing power with encoding and such then the processor is the most important factor.

Encoding times were absolutely unaffected by what type of drive was used. More memory increased the speed but it didn't have a substantial impact like the quad-cores do over the dual-cores.

I made that statement from my point of view. The processing power is much more important than an app opening in 1 second instead of 2.5. Now, with that said, I will buy an SSD and upgrade the RAM when very soon because I do appreciate the added benefits.
Click to expand...

I think he's referring to having a super faster processor and not lots of memory and a slow hard drive. In a situation like that there will be a bottleneck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jasin said:
This comparison is from 2008, but it does show Mbps with ssd are faster overall.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-notebook-portable,1913-5.html
Click to expand...

I know it's faster, I agreed with that but it makes the computer faster at booting and read/writing of data. For me, those things are secondary to processing power because I encode video a lot.

I would never buy any computer by basing the first factor on those two things. They would be second on my list.

jasin said:
I think he's referring to having a super faster processor and not lots of memory and a slow hard drive. In a situation like that there will be a bottleneck.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who you're referring to, alust or I. If me, I'm referring to the current lineup. I'll take the 15" w/o SSD over the 13" w/ SSD for what I do. I wouldn't experience any bottlenecks because the drive isn't related to my encoding speed, it's the processor.

Both factor into the user experience in different ways. While an SSD is faster than a HDD at doing the things it does, would you guys really prefer a 2 generation old MBP w/ SSD over any of the current models w/o? If so, your usage is probably pretty basic because the speed of apps opening is what's important to you. Obviously, that won't apply to everyone. I'm sure someone that transfers tons of data a lot might disagree but that's not the average user.
 
Last edited:
MBp with i5 and SSD is a nice balance. NO bottleneck. :)

bniu said:
ok, clearing up the hyperthreading confusion once and for all:

Desktop i5 does not have hyperthreading
Laptop i5 does have hyperthreading

desktop and laptop i7 both have hyperthreading
Click to expand...

Well, I was going to buy a pc laptop with an i5 before I decided on getting a Mbp, and they all told me there was no HT. That's weird. If Mobile i5 has HT why would they tell me that? :confused:

acedickson said:
I know it's faster, I agreed with that but it makes the computer faster at booting and read/writing of data. For me, those things are secondary to processing power because I encode video a lot.

I would never buy any computer by basing the first factor on those two things. They would be second on my list.



I'm not sure who you're referring to, alust or I. If me, I'm referring to the current lineup. I'll take the 15" w/o SSD over the 13" w/ SSD for what I do. I wouldn't experience any bottlenecks because the drive isn't related to my encoding speed, it's the processor.

Both factor into the user experience in different ways. While an SSD is faster than a HDD at doing the things it does, would you guys really prefer a 2 generation old MBP w/ SSD over any of the current models w/o? If so, your usage is probably pretty basic because the speed of apps opening is what's important to you. Obviously, that won't apply to everyone. I'm sure someone that transfers tons of data a lot might disagree but that's not the average user.
Click to expand...

Alust's comment. And he is right.

jasin said:
MBp with i5 and SSD is a nice balance. NO bottleneck. :)
Click to expand...

Yes it is. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jasin said:
Alust's comment. And he is right.
Click to expand...

Eh, he's got a point. If you're doing a lot of video encoding, then a quad i7 with a standard hard drive will beat the tar out of an i5 with the best SSD you can find any day.

And seriously, use the multiquote button (just to the right of the quote button)
 
alust2013 said:
Eh, he's got a point. If you're doing a lot of video encoding, then a quad i7 with a standard hard drive will beat the tar out of an i5 with the best SSD you can find any day.

And seriously, use the multiquote button (just to the right of the quote button)
Click to expand...

Most Mbp users are not doing that kind of stuff. If I was doing that kind of stuff I'd buy a 27" imac NOT a Mbp. That's me though.
 
Last edited:
alust2013 said:
Reread the post. That's exactly what he said.
Click to expand...

Wait, I was referring your comments. I said you are right. I said nothing about him being right. The argument is fallacious anyways -- its called a small sample size fallacy. Like I said, most Mbp users are not sitting around encoding video.

alust2013 said:
And seriously, use the multiquote button (just to the right of the quote button)
Click to expand...

I quote what is relevant and what I am responding too. :)

alust2013 said:
Reread the post. That's exactly what he said.
Click to expand...

I corrected my mistake. I was referring to your comments NOT statements he made.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jasin said:
Most Mbp users are not doing that kind of stuff. If I was doing that kind of stuff I'd buy a 27" imac NOT a Mbp. That's me though. And no, he did not say that. He said having more memory and an ssd will give you better overall system performance than just a faster cpu because there will be no bottleneck.
Click to expand...

The new iMacs performance is only marginally better if not equal. I'd rather have the portability with the power so I can edit and render on site.

37824.png


37827.png


37825.png


37828.png


37826.png


Source - Anandtech
 
Last edited:
jasin said:
16GB memory
3.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i7.
1TB (7200 rpm) hard drive
AMD Radeon HD 6970M with 2GB of GDDR5 memory
27" screen
2560 by 1440 pixels

http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html

Is only marginal? huh :confused:
Click to expand...

You said if you were encoding you would just buy an iMac. I provided you with proof that the performance when encoding is the same. The other specs are irrelevant to what I was referring to. I was talking about real world performance and not specs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back