Amazing Ox Space Monkey
- Sep 21, 2015
The most of the forum members are techies, though. As a counter argument, I have an 2010 iMac 21.5” which has a 3.06GHz i3 processor (2 cores, 4 threads) which does photo-editing without a problem - although not in Photoshop but in Photos and Apperture before that. It used to be fast enough for the 12 MP cameras from the time (Nikon D90, D700, Canon 5D II) and handles the 24 MP Nikon D5600 well..Just browsing threads in this forum, though, it does appear that a lot of people have ordered the I7 and not near as many an I5.
Regarding music, no problems with Cubase (albeit only MIDI files), Sibelius. I mean, this 8-year-old processor is up to the most of tasks I use it for today.
Where it fails miserably is exporting a HD video from iMovie - atrociously slow. Not suitable for any video work at all.
But the new 4 core i3 processor is more than twice faster in single core and 4 times faster in multi core. Speaking of the i5, it’s like 5 or 6 times faster, and the i7 is like 8 times faster. Is there a reason to spend that much on a processor that will stay idle most of the time?
If you get it for professional work, then i7 makes a complete sense. You stay in front of the computer for 8 hours daily and will benefit from the seamless operation. If you are a techie and want the fastest - again. If you are none of these, the i3 or the i5 should be enough. These new computers have SSD inside so they are as fast as they can get.
All in all, it’s a matter about how much you can stretch your budget. .
For most home users the base i3/8/128 should be enough - you are buying an external SSD anyway. I’d go for i3/16/128 but as I, like you, tend to keep my computers for longer, a i5/16/256 might be better. I always try to remind myself that the computer I buy today should solve the problems of today, future-proofing makes no sense. Even if I’d got an i7 back in 2011, it would have been crippled today by the lack of SSD and the slow USB2.