When only a few cores are being used the i5 2.7GHz will probably be a bit better, but when all cores are being used the i5 3.1GHz will be better.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
i5 2.7GHz looks better than 3.1GHz?
- Thread starter qap
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well if you're on a budget 2.7 + SSD would bring you further than 3.4 without SSD. Or if you're one of those filthy rich buying up more resources than you need, get 3.4 + SSD
Funny that several of you said the SSD would be a better investment. That was what I thought but almost no one agreed in my thread. They almost all said get the better CPU/GPU for the same money.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1147631/
I would try the SSD and my current iMac (the quadcore 2.8ghz mid-2010) is in warranty (I bought it only 3 months ago), If I open it i'll lose the warranty. I'm buying the new iMac (absolutely with SSD) and after it will arrive I'll sell my current iMac.
Yep I'm a bit confused about the 2.7GHz + SSD or the 3.1GHz + SSD. I don't need the GPU power and If the 2.7 is almost fast (or sometimes with some apps faster) than the 3.1 but for less heat, less watts (and less money) . I think i will go for it. I don't need a "superiMac" that when I browse internet runs at 80degree or with 12 cores etc
The Mac mini + Apple LED make sense, for me is nicer/better than the iMac (I love the Cinema LED design ) but at the moment there isn't the SSD option and the hardware is ooooooooldd veeery old
If the new "mini" will have the same cpu and ssd option like the macbook pro i will go for it with the cinema led.. but.. WHEN? I don't know why but I can't wait
The benchmark linked from jborko show the difference between the two processors only when the apps is optimized for multi-cores the 3.1 is faster but in other apps not. For example in Adobe CS5 the 2.7 is faster (and I will use it sometimes, surely more often than play game or convert big video files.. )
all of these things with LESS power and heat, I'm really surprise that apple have put the i5-2400 in the 27" hiend instead of the the i5-2500K (maybe for the "Intel® Trusted Execution Technology")
Yep I'm a bit confused about the 2.7GHz + SSD or the 3.1GHz + SSD. I don't need the GPU power and If the 2.7 is almost fast (or sometimes with some apps faster) than the 3.1 but for less heat, less watts (and less money) . I think i will go for it. I don't need a "superiMac" that when I browse internet runs at 80degree or with 12 cores etc
The Mac mini + Apple LED make sense, for me is nicer/better than the iMac (I love the Cinema LED design
) but at the moment there isn't the SSD option and the hardware is ooooooooldd veeery old If the new "mini" will have the same cpu and ssd option like the macbook pro i will go for it with the cinema led.. but.. WHEN?
I don't know why but I can't wait The benchmark linked from jborko show the difference between the two processors only when the apps is optimized for multi-cores the 3.1 is faster but in other apps not. For example in Adobe CS5 the 2.7 is faster
(and I will use it sometimes, surely more often than play game or convert big video files.. )
all of these things with LESS power and heat, I'm really surprise that apple have put the i5-2400 in the 27" hiend instead of the the i5-2500K
(maybe for the "Intel® Trusted Execution Technology")To be honest I am also disappointed from this refresh for several reasons...
1. For 200 bucks I would expect drastic difference in the performance and this is not the case between models (at least not according to the all benchmarks)
2. i7 absence at least in one of the base models. Apple wants to keep stuff standard so why not just configure 4 different models give 2 models with i7 and cancel BTO... Have the models as standard and I am sure if they prove fast and reliable as iPad, iPhone etc, they will sell smoothly.
3. Not having SSD as standard option... I know it is expensive solution, but Apple would have ruined the competition by introducing this option as default.
4. 8GB RAM standard should have been default... I already said this once, but, Apple seriously, 4GB??? This is so '00...
Windows machine can be configured with better config for less, and althoug everyone is saying those monitors worth a lot, I consider performance is more important. iMac has the potential with minimal effort but Steve "Greedy" Jobs will milk our consumers asses few more years before giving us good models for reasonable prices...
I need computer and I am leaning towards 27 base version, only because I am sick of windows, and I need something stable, quite, all-in-one, reliable and hopefully long-lasting (at least 3-4 years), but I am not sure this refresh is future-proofing for the next 3 years namely because I consider SSD will be standard very soon and Ivy bridge will give even higher boost.
1. For 200 bucks I would expect drastic difference in the performance and this is not the case between models (at least not according to the all benchmarks)
2. i7 absence at least in one of the base models. Apple wants to keep stuff standard so why not just configure 4 different models give 2 models with i7 and cancel BTO... Have the models as standard and I am sure if they prove fast and reliable as iPad, iPhone etc, they will sell smoothly.
3. Not having SSD as standard option... I know it is expensive solution, but Apple would have ruined the competition by introducing this option as default.
4. 8GB RAM standard should have been default... I already said this once, but, Apple seriously, 4GB??? This is so '00...
Windows machine can be configured with better config for less, and althoug everyone is saying those monitors worth a lot, I consider performance is more important. iMac has the potential with minimal effort but Steve "Greedy" Jobs will milk our consumers asses few more years before giving us good models for reasonable prices...
I need computer and I am leaning towards 27 base version, only because I am sick of windows, and I need something stable, quite, all-in-one, reliable and hopefully long-lasting (at least 3-4 years), but I am not sure this refresh is future-proofing for the next 3 years namely because I consider SSD will be standard very soon and Ivy bridge will give even higher boost.
1. If you're talking about the base 27" to the higher 27", check the CPU and GPU difference. Pretty big bump there.
2. The price would be exactly the same, and it would just create more clutter and confusing choices for the customer, which is counterproductive.
3. SSD standard would jack up the price way too high, and sales would drop by a lot. That's why it's an option, so the customer can decide whether they want to spend that money or not.
4. Meh, RAM is pretty cheap, I'd say 4GB is the standard in most computers. (For reference, an iMac came with 128MB in 2000, and was expandable to a max of 1GB)
If you don't want to spend that much, buy a PC, I won't be offended.
1. Benchmarks do not reflect that much difference. Check COD fps and Handbrake tests... Minimal differences. COD should show a higher difference because of the better GPU with more VRAM, but it doesn't seems to be the case, so what is the point then of the better GPU and VRAM.
2. Nah... the confusion is that the processor is there and they decide to put it as BTO. They put the i7 in the MBP, why couldn't they put it in the standard iMac... again offering options for money.
3. SSD is not that expensive to produce. Prices are pumped because its pretty much new technology, except is not that much new... 3 years + in the consumers market. What I meant is to have for instance 64GB SSD on board for Apps and snappy performance and have the HDD for storage... Pretty much resolves the pricing question, doesn't it?
4. Exactly it is cheap, so why not have it as default.
And overall, prices of the previous models have significantly dropped after 2011 introduction (300+ EUR in Europe) and even with these prices both Apple and/or resellers have profit, which means there is still space for both profit and customer pleasure...
No one offends anyone, this is a discussion forum so we discuss and share thoughts...
Macworld's video card benchmark is poorly designed. The 6970 is almost twice as fast as the 6770, so it's a pretty huge difference.
http://www.barefeats.com/imac11b.html
BTW, Apple does not exist to cater to your needs. They exist to make money. "Oh noes, Apple didn't include a unicorn with my iMac. Those greedy bastards!". Don't like it? Don't buy it.
Ehm for the "point 1", according to the Intel site, the price of the i5-2400 3.1GHz ($184.00) is LESS than the i5-2500S 2.7GHz ($216.00).
Infact I think Apple have put the i5-2400 instead of the the i5-2500($206.00) or i5-2500K($216.00) for the price, because the 27" hiend has a better GPU and put the 6970M plus the i5-2500 (instead of the i5-2400) would create the hiend iMac a lot expensive
IMO: If you are a gamer buy the 27" i5-2400 and 6970M, if you are a office/internet guy buy the 27" i5-2500S and 6770M .
(sorry for my english, I live in the "bunga-bunga country", do you know where is!? )
Infact I think Apple have put the i5-2400 instead of the the i5-2500($206.00) or i5-2500K($216.00) for the price, because the 27" hiend has a better GPU and put the 6970M plus the i5-2500 (instead of the i5-2400) would create the hiend iMac a lot expensive
IMO: If you are a gamer buy the 27" i5-2400 and 6970M, if you are a office/internet guy buy the 27" i5-2500S and 6770M .
(sorry for my english, I live in the "bunga-bunga country", do you know where is!?
)
IMO if you are a gamer, get an Xbox or PS3. So OP what do you do with your computer, if it is just minimal stuff as you originally posted, why do you want to upgrade a 2010 model. Just keep your 2010 and get an iPad.
To the others... New iMac's chipset is supposed to support drive spanning. Small SSD and a large conventional drive working as one. Invisible to the user. OCW sells a premium 40 gig for $99. I would pay the $100.
To the others... New iMac's chipset is supposed to support drive spanning. Small SSD and a large conventional drive working as one. Invisible to the user. OCW sells a premium 40 gig for $99. I would pay the $100.
I did a crappy little test in the Apple store the other day. I opened up a terminal and timed how long bc takes to calculate 2 to the power of 1 million: time echo 2^1000000 | bc -l >/dev/null. The 2.7 i5 took roughly 3.8 seconds, and the 3.1 i5 took roughly 4.1 seconds. I don't really know much about this Turbo Boost, but that sounds like the culprit.
For comparison, my 2.8 C2D MBP takes about 5.5 seconds, and the current 13" MBA took about 8.8 I believe. A MBP I tried in the store, which I believe was a 2.3 i7 (at least according to the sign next to it, forgot to check the About This Mac), did 4.2 or 4.3 seconds, remarkably close to the 3.1 i5 iMac.
It's just some random test, so take it with a grain of salt.
For comparison, my 2.8 C2D MBP takes about 5.5 seconds, and the current 13" MBA took about 8.8 I believe. A MBP I tried in the store, which I believe was a 2.3 i7 (at least according to the sign next to it, forgot to check the About This Mac), did 4.2 or 4.3 seconds, remarkably close to the 3.1 i5 iMac.
It's just some random test, so take it with a grain of salt.
I want the new iMac with SSD, why not… but I don't like the 95W TDP in the 3.1ghz and small or null speed gain. And I'm just doing some considerations…
Right, but not inaudible to the user
Like i've wrote: clock=speed (with the same structure in the CPU), If you launch a benchmark that use only one core the 2.7GHz will run at 3.7Ghz and the 3.1GHz will run at 3.4Ghz…
If Apple have used the i5-2500 also in the hiend the extra-money should be more worth! Because the clock in the 2500 is set at 3.3Ghz with all cores and 3.7Ghz with one core.
But:
This chipset is supposed to support that feature. I haven't seen any evidence that it is currently implemented, and Apple may never support it (I doubt they will).
I'm growing somewhat tired of this argument. If I like to play games, does that mean I'd like to play any game? No; and some games play better on a computer (RTSes/FPSes). Obviously there are also games that are better on, or exclusive to (often RPGs), a console, so they complement but can't replace each other.
As for the topic, I'm also rather intrigued by Apple's choices. No chance that they have gotten custom chips again, then?
Benchmarks on all four new Imacs are similar. No outstanding difference . Perhaps BTO with an SSD will show a substantial difference if the SSD is Intels Larsen Creek (scheduled to be released 5/11)
While these Imacs are faster than the 2010 version they're not all that the can be or should be.
While these Imacs are faster than the 2010 version they're not all that the can be or should be.
It's not an argument. I have just never understood spending $600 on a video card to play a game on a 20- 27 inch monitor, when a console cost much less.
Better graphics, better gameplay (mouse/keyboard). Although, at that price point you're looking at a serious gamer. You could pick up a great card for $300, maybe a little less.
In these results the 3.1 is the better one of the 2 types. In some test even double out-rate the 2.7Ghz. Nah, i am happy with my BTO 3.1Ghz + SSD. I only have to wait for June
http://www.barefeats.com/imac11b.html
http://www.barefeats.com/imac11b.html
In these results the 3.1 is the better one of the 2 types. In some test even double out-rate the 2.7Ghz. Nah, i am happy with my BTO 3.1Ghz + SSD. I only have to wait for June
http://www.barefeats.com/imac11b.html
How can be faster 3.4GHz (i5-2400) vs 3.7GHz (i5-2500S)?
Don't belive to all.. check the benchmark Check these benchmarks that are more truthful
Audio Encoding: iTunes 9.0.3.15 (wav to aac Audio)
Intel Core i5-2500S (Sandy Bridge 4c) 2.7 GHz (Turbo 3.7 GHz): 64 sec
Intel Core i5-2400 (Sandy Bridge 4c) 3.1 GHz (Turbo 3.4 GHz): 67 sec
Archiving: WinZIP 14 File Compression
Intel Core i5-2500S (Sandy Bridge 4c) 2.7 GHz (Turbo 3.7 GHz): 205.00 sec
Intel Core i5-2400 (Sandy Bridge 4c) 3.1 GHz (Turbo 3.4 GHz): 211.00 sec
PDF Creation: Adobe Acrobat 9 Professional
Intel Core i5-2500S (Sandy Bridge 4c) 2.7 GHz (Turbo 3.7 GHz): 69 sec
Intel Core i5-2400 (Sandy Bridge 4c) 3.1 GHz (Turbo 3.4 GHz): 71 sec
Archiving: WinRAR 3.92 x64 File Compression (multi-threaded)
Intel Core i5-2500S (Sandy Bridge 4c) 2.7 GHz (Turbo 3.7 GHz): 58 sec
Intel Core i5-2400 (Sandy Bridge 4c) 3.1 GHz (Turbo 3.4 GHz): 62 sec
Complete scores http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/chart...compare,2422.html?prod[4790]=on&prod[4792]=on
and
http://i.imgur.com/vXk1e.jpg
http://marketingtactics.com/Speedmark/
Intel Core i5-2500S (Sandy Bridge 4c) 2.7 GHz (Turbo 3.7 GHz): 64 sec
Intel Core i5-2400 (Sandy Bridge 4c) 3.1 GHz (Turbo 3.4 GHz): 67 sec
Archiving: WinZIP 14 File Compression
Intel Core i5-2500S (Sandy Bridge 4c) 2.7 GHz (Turbo 3.7 GHz): 205.00 sec
Intel Core i5-2400 (Sandy Bridge 4c) 3.1 GHz (Turbo 3.4 GHz): 211.00 sec
PDF Creation: Adobe Acrobat 9 Professional
Intel Core i5-2500S (Sandy Bridge 4c) 2.7 GHz (Turbo 3.7 GHz): 69 sec
Intel Core i5-2400 (Sandy Bridge 4c) 3.1 GHz (Turbo 3.4 GHz): 71 sec
Archiving: WinRAR 3.92 x64 File Compression (multi-threaded)
Intel Core i5-2500S (Sandy Bridge 4c) 2.7 GHz (Turbo 3.7 GHz): 58 sec
Intel Core i5-2400 (Sandy Bridge 4c) 3.1 GHz (Turbo 3.4 GHz): 62 sec
Complete scores http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/chart...compare,2422.html?prod[4790]=on&prod[4792]=on
and
http://i.imgur.com/vXk1e.jpg
http://marketingtactics.com/Speedmark/
It's faster with some benchmarks (with all cores "on") but is slower with one or two cores "on" (for the lower clock with Turbo-Boost on).
If Apple had put the i5-2500 on the HiEnd (3.3GHz and 3.7GHz in turbo-boost) the hiend iMac could be faster always (or the same speed with one core only). But for economize (i Think) Apple has used the i5-2400 (2.7GHz and 3.4GHz in turbo-boost) that is less expensive: 189$ instead of the 206 or 216$ for the i5-2500 o 2500K (ps: 2500S costs 216$). With the 2400 the CPU is faster not always and also has TDP 95W (2400) vs the 65W (2500S).
That is a nice view (tomshardware) Almost in all the test, the i5 3.1Ghz is 10sec. quicker done with his task. In some renders even 20 sec. For me, i draw in big Photoshop documents. My files can climb to 1gb. I do quick safes to be secure . If it safes me 10 seconds every safe i do.. the 3.1Ghz will be my best friend! If i safe my document 20 times a 10 seconds saving.. saves me 10 secs less being enjoyed, every safe job!
It is a total picture.
my 2 cents
It is a total picture.
my 2 cents
Yes depends on your needs, the 3.1 it's faster but not always.
Anyway I think the other benchmark is more precise and truthful because it's on the iMac.. http://i.imgur.com/vXk1e.jpg link http://marketingtactics.com/Speedmark/
if the TDP would be the same in the 2.7 and 3.1 I could buy the 3.1 but with 30W more in the 3.1 I don't know if it's the better choice
Both case with SS-Drive like you (there are only 230 difference between 2.7 and 3.1) I'm waiting for know the brand and bandwitch of the new SSD...
Anyway I think the other benchmark is more precise and truthful because it's on the iMac.. http://i.imgur.com/vXk1e.jpg link http://marketingtactics.com/Speedmark/
if the TDP would be the same in the 2.7 and 3.1 I could buy the 3.1 but with 30W more in the 3.1 I don't know if it's the better choice
Both case with SS-Drive like you (there are only 230 difference between 2.7 and 3.1) I'm waiting for know the brand and bandwitch of the new SSD...
In these results the 3.1 is the better one of the 2 types. In some test even double out-rate the 2.7Ghz. Nah, i am happy with my BTO 3.1Ghz + SSD. I only have to wait for June
http://www.barefeats.com/imac11b.html
Those are synthetic benchmarks. The difference in application performance between the two is actually very small. In fact, there's only a 4 point difference in their Speedmark 6.5 scores (223 vs 227), and at many tasks the 21.5" 2.7GHZ is as fast or faster.
http://www.macworld.com/article/159692/2011/05/imacmid2011benchmarks.html?lsrc=top_1