how good is the 5750 in a i7?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by cs4160, Aug 7, 2010.

  1. cs4160 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    #1
    I have read a few posts of new i7 users posting various stats on their machine. I am specificaly interested in the gpu performence (without OC). I am a traditional tower pc guy, but i have slowly but surely been able to convince myself of the relative merits of going loaded imac i7 over low end MP (the least of which is the horrible value and waiting 500+ days for no real improvments other than having the base now include a few bto upgrades to save you a few hundred bucks...but dont get me started).

    Anyway, back on message, NAS solves my concerns about extra HD's, the cpu is certanly fast enough, mem not an issue...so my only concern is gpu.

    Just looking at it from a price perspective, i am not sure how comfortable i am that a $130 graphics card will keep me fat and happy for 3 years (tech refresh assumption). I don't need a $600 cards, but when i have typicaly built pc's, the last few years, a $300 or so card has kept me happy. With the imac, it appears that switching gpu's is not easy or something i will probably do during its warranty covered life cycle....

    So how good is the card (sorry it took so long to get there). I am a somewhat power home user...not professional, but i probably fall under the label i saw floaing around on another post as someone using 500 bucks of sw to load up raw images of their cat...or in this case kids and a golden retriever. I love games, but to be fair, my xbox has replaced most of my need for quick fps. 27in is a big screen. Can i play most games at full frame/speed extra? I assume photo shop cs5, et will work fine.

    Any comments would be appreciated.

    i really am on the fence on which one to get, i guess next week hopefully i can really price compare them, but the MP just seems to be such a god awefull value that its hard for me to jusitfy buying the low end model...my legacy prejudiceness against all in ones is taking a bit to get over...the imac seems to be the obvious choice.

    Thank you
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    It's an okay card, most games run without issues but in 3 years, we don't know. If you're just a casual PC gamer, it's just fine for you and you can always get a PC if you're going to game more
     
  3. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #3
    Its an ATI 5850 Mobility with GDDR5. You can also have a loot at dozens of threads discussing the performance. In short: you will be able to play all the modern and most of the future games with ok quality and ok performance.
     
  4. cluthz macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #4
    NO real improvements?
    New graphic cards and the latest CPUs from intel?
    What did you expect? Laser cannons and jet rockets?

    The Mac Pro is value for money, I just checked Dell and HPs offerings for similar workstations and the Mac Pro ended out as the cheapest one..
    (Here in norway a Dell Precision T7500 with 2x E5620 Xeons starts at $5500)

    But if gaming performance is your goal, then for all means go with a PC or iMac.
     
  5. cs4160 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    #5
    while trying not to hijack my own thread, the MP is value for money? Lay off the sauce brother :)

    After 500 days, you get a slight bump in cpu speed, a new graphics card, thats still one years old, and your HD goes from 640mb to 1tb.....after 17 months! Sorry, thats not very attractive.The higher end MP's are in a league of their own, and without peer, but the low end 2010 MP are a big dissapointment. I might still buy one, but value for money, thats funny. That is, unless you think selling the same PC (GPU notwithstanding) for @400 bucks less 17 months later is cutting edge...

    Since November, the quadcore i7 has really demonstrated just how poorly priced the low end MP is. Many of us excused this because the imac just tech turned, and the MP was in the middle of its current cycle. Last week they both flipped, and the gap didnt close that significantly. If you can rationalize being locked into one HD (not SDD) and an "ok" GPU, you save 400 bucks and get a new monitor...I would have to be a complete idiot not to buy one (trust me, i will own up to being the idiot if thats what i do next week...assuming the 2010's hit the bto page).

    There are reasons to get a low end MP, but lately, especialy with the imac cannabilzing some sales,they really have limited the audience. And thats even if they added laser cannons :)
     
  6. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #6

    I'm with you on this. Personally I would love to get a Mac Pro as my next computer but because my wallet won't allow me to, I have settled with purchasing the high end iMac. What sucks for me is that along with purchasing any Mac Pro model, I will also have to buy a display with it. Unfortunately Apple is still using chips that were released "recently" as repackaged chips that were actually released last year, which is why I'm really hesitant to invest in this refresh of the iMac. Hopefully Apple has some great options for the Mac Pros that are ordered as bto and hopefully the new display will be relatively affordable as well.
     
  7. InvalidUserID macrumors 6502a

    InvalidUserID

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    Palo Alto, CA
    #7
    I have nothing to add...I'm just in the same boat as the OP, I'm considering the i7 iMac.

    :)
     
  8. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #8
    You don't really know what you are talking about. Mac Pro is a workstation. It uses a server CPU, a server mainboard and server memory (error-correction), which alone are way more expensive then the consumer versions. Just have a look for how Xeon CPUS and server-grade components sell. It is rather ridiculous of you comparing it to consumer PCs or talking about "minor bump in CPU" when faster CPUs in fact do not exist. Server-tech was not built to be faster then the consumer-tech, but to be more reliable. For this reliability, you pay a premium. Mac Pro is value for money because comparable PC workstation offering end up being the same price or higher.

    So the point is: an iMac will probably be faster then Mac Pro in many tasks. But these are completely different machines which are build with completely different components. Of course, its a pity that Apple does not offer a consumer-tech upgradeable tower, but there will be reasons for that. As for me, an iMac is absolutely sufficient for all my needs.
     
  9. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #9
    SP Mac Pro is ridiculously overpriced. Equivalent from Dell with workstation GPU costs about 1500$, 1000$ less than Mac Pro what comes with consumer grade GPU. DP Mac Pro is well priced as it costs around the same or even less than equivalents from other brands. I don't know what he was waiting for as Mac Pro got an update I expected. Price cut would have been nice but hey, it's Apple :p
     
  10. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #10
    We are talking about the recently announced Mac Pro. I don't see Dell selling a Xeon W3565 based PC for 1500$ when the CPU alone costs 1000$... You are of course right that current one-CPU MP is overpriced and it is also true that it does not include a workstation graphics card...
     
  11. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #11
    W3565 costs 562$ and that is not used in base Mac Pro, it uses W3530 which costs only 294$. Dell Precision T3500 with W3530 is as low as 1039$ and with W3565 it's 1479$. These are with 1GB RAM and other default components but those can be upgraded straight from Dell or aftermarket and it's still a lot cheaper than Mac Pro is. 2499$ for quad core workstation is a ridiculous price IMO, especially when compared with other brands

    Customize it yourself and see how cheap it is. This is pretty offtopic though
     
  12. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #12
    Mea culpa! I misread the Apple spec page :(. I will leave my previous answers unedited though, as a tribute to my own stupidity :)
     
  13. Thermonuclear macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    #13
    Just a brief word about the Mac Pro here.

    I have a Mac Pro I bought back in October 2006 when they were announced and it has been in use for long hours every day since. It's a two processor, four total cores 2.66 GHz machine and the only problem I've had is a drive that failed after three years. Fortunately, a drive replacement takes less than a minute and no tools are needed. I'm very pleased with the unit and I expect it to still be around for a total of ten years, just like its predecessor, my year 2000 PowerMac G4 400 MHz box that's still running well.

    If I had to replace the Mac Pro, I'd get a new two processor, eight total core Mac Pro, even though the price is relatively high. With a potential ten year lifetime and with obsolescence stalled by its expansion and upgrade capability, the total cost is under US$2 per day.
     

Share This Page