Imac i3 3.06GHz or 3.2GHz?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Danando1993, Oct 31, 2010.

  1. Danando1993 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    #1
    Im buying a new imac i3 soon but unsure if it is worth paying the extra £250 for the 3.2GHz version. is it worth the money seeing as ill be using the mac for internet surfing, emails, photographs, photoshop now and then, occasional gaming and MS office also will need it for university work soon. Or would upgrading the ram be sufficient or would i need an i5?
     
  2. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #2
    You won't notice any difference between the 3.06/3.2 for those tasks. RAM would be a better upgrade.
     
  3. mike.coulter macrumors regular

    mike.coulter

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Location:
    Cardiff
    #3
    Yeah, you wont notice a difference...

    The 3.06 c2d is blazing fast as it is, the i3 must be amazing.
     
  4. Nuttydev macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    Bristol, England.
    #4
    Well I don't recall ever going over 40% or so processor usage with the sort of usage you described. With gaming I'm guessing it uses up most of it, but it's given me decent performance (Medal of Honor beta played nicely on high surprisingly). However, running programs such as aperture and having multiple photos open in photoshop has used up all my 4gb of ram at times so as already said, that'd be a better upgrade.
     
  5. bry223 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    #5
    If you're going to be gaming the 3.2ghz model is a better choice. It has a faster GPU, more VRAM and is DX11 compatible if youre gaming in W7.
     
  6. Danando1993 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    #6
    ah okay thanks for the help, also will photoshop run smoothy on the i3?
     
  7. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #7
    Yep, unless you open several 30MP RAW images.
     
  8. raysfan81 macrumors 6502a

    raysfan81

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #8
    There isn't really any difference in the performance between the 3.06 ghz and 3.2 ghz processors. The other components like RAM, graphics, and hard drive performance make a difference though.
     
  9. Rodus macrumors 6502a

    Rodus

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    Location:
    Midlands, UK
    #9
    If you aren't doing CPU intensive tasks then the C2D is still very quick, put the saved money into RAM
     
  10. Danando1993 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    #10
    so basically i should just save my money for extra RAM?
     
  11. raysfan81 macrumors 6502a

    raysfan81

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #11
    That would be my recommendation.
     
  12. Danando1993 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    #12
    okay thanks for the help also are the graphics a lot better?
     
  13. Rodus macrumors 6502a

    Rodus

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    Location:
    Midlands, UK
    #13
    The graphics are a bit better, not a massive amount. Technically the 5xxx Radeons are DirectX11 capable whilst the 4xxx are DX10 but DX11 on the 5670 will be pretty slow anyway.
     
  14. mpe macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #14
    I would rather say it is about OpenGL 3.3 vs OpenGL 4.1 support as there is no DirectX support at all on MacOS.

    Theoretically the differences between 4xxx and 5xxx Radeon family can play a role in future when more application will be actually using GPU (not just games). The 5xxx architecture adds support for higher precisions and instructions that can improve the performance of some tasks, such as video encoding and transcoding. But at this moment the difference between 4670 and 5670 is really just subtle.
     

Share This Page