Ordered an i5. My i3 should be here in a couple of days so I'll arrange a return once I get it. It's $150 more here in Canada but I figure why not.
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.
Is the i3 Processor a poor decision?
- Thread starter clerkpalmer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The resale value of a laptop used by a 10-year old for an extended period of time does not depend on whether or not it has a quad-core CPU, double the amount of base RAM, or upgraded storage. The resale value of a laptop used by a 10-year old child depends solely on whether or not you can still see anything on the cracked screen loosely attached to a bent case with missing keycaps, permanent marker and sticker residue all over it, and a teeny-tiny piece of LEGO wedged permanently into one of the USB ports.
Last edited:
The i3 is still faster than the macbook air you could buy a week ago.
Is it a poor decision? I think it is poor value in terms of bang for buck as to get roughly double the processing power is a 100-150 dollar upgrade.
But if you don't need it, and $999 is pushing the budget... maybe that isn't an option.
Personally, i'd steer clear. I'd recommend saving a little bit longer to get the i5, it is stronger in both CPU and GPU by a LOT, for not much extra money. It isn't just the CPU performance. The integrated graphics in the i5 has at least 50% and possibly 100% more GPU power. We don't know for sure as apple haven't released the part numbers, but intel only make the i3 with 32 execution units in its GPU. The i5's GPU is available in 48 and 64 EU form. The i7 has 64 EUs.
EU count on the GPU translates pretty much directly to GPU power. Which may be the difference between gaming on low-med settings, or not at all.
Is it a poor decision? I think it is poor value in terms of bang for buck as to get roughly double the processing power is a 100-150 dollar upgrade.
But if you don't need it, and $999 is pushing the budget... maybe that isn't an option.
Personally, i'd steer clear. I'd recommend saving a little bit longer to get the i5, it is stronger in both CPU and GPU by a LOT, for not much extra money. It isn't just the CPU performance. The integrated graphics in the i5 has at least 50% and possibly 100% more GPU power. We don't know for sure as apple haven't released the part numbers, but intel only make the i3 with 32 execution units in its GPU. The i5's GPU is available in 48 and 64 EU form. The i7 has 64 EUs.
EU count on the GPU translates pretty much directly to GPU power. Which may be the difference between gaming on low-med settings, or not at all.
Ok, the i3 at idle runs around 49-50C....i heard the i5 runs around 70C in idle...so that dual core for this MBA generation of cooling is a must , the i3 is the best all rounder ...for more intense work, dont buy the MBA...just wait for the 14.1" MBp or buy the 16"
That is interesting. Have you recorded these temperatures yourself or have you seen other users reporting these numbers? Both the i3 and the i5 are designed for a tdp of 9w, (they draw the same amount of power at normal workloads/idling) meaning they should produce the same amount of heat at light tasks. During turbo bosting of the processors under intense workloads, these processors draw more than 9watt. It is possible that the quad core i5 might draw more power during turbo boost than the dual core i3 to support the two extra cores. Thus reaching higher temperatures faster than the i3.
The problem is that the heat/power limitations has the i5 gpu performing poorly in unigine or other sustained graphics loads that also stress the cpu - creating a tug of war between the Cpu and gpu for heat and power constraints. Guess we’ll have to wait for benchmarks.
I think this is spot on. All I do is Excel, Word, Powerpoint, Web, Email, and very light PDF work and I bought an i5 with 16GB. I am coming from a 2011 MacBook Air that still runs fairly well. Point is that thing lasted 8+ years. Get the i5 and I think you will find your 10 year old can get through high school with that computer.
Thing is, heat scales exponentially with clock speed, and voltage required scales exponentially with clock speed. Performance scales roughly linearly (well, almost not quite, and depends on the app) with core count. I.e., 4 cores at 2ghz are more efficient at doing roughly the same work than 2 cores at 4ghz - much, much cooler and less power draw (which is why the new iphones have more cores and still relatively low clock speeds).
So... more cores and more EUs is the more efficient way of getting work done than higher clock rate.
Also, the CPU scheduler in the OS can move workload from core to core to spread the heat around a bit, if task isn't using all the cores at the same time. You can see Linux doing this for example as you can graph individual cores on system monitor in different colours. A task using 100% of 1-2 cores will bounce from core to core (on say, my 8 core 2700x) to let cores cool down while another takes over. This way it can sustain higher boost more consistently.
What does this mean for i3 vs i5? In the same power and thermal envelope, the higher core / EU parts will get more work done. If the task is only single threaded and can't take advantage of more cores - then the i5 and i7 will only USE one core (at a time, the task may be shifted between several cores over time) and essentially perform the same as the i3 anyway both in terms of performance and in terms of heat/power (or better, due to higher clock rate and ability to let cores cool down). Also, the i5/i7 are "better binned" parts that typically require less power for the same work. i3s are merely i5/i7 that were too broken to function as quads.
And if you need to get something done quickly that doesn't thermally stress the machine for extended periods: they will be much faster due to having 2x the cores to work on it to get it done ASAP.
The only advantage to the i3 is price.
Last edited:
If you could get twice as many apples for 10% more money, would you?
If you could get a bar of soap that lasted 2x as long for 10% more money, would you?
No one is saying the kid couldn't work with an i3. But the thing is - if this machine is expected to last for a long period of time (and being an expensive purchase, it is) - you will get a machine that remains usable for significantly longer and performs almost 2x as fast for its entire life - for spending 10-15% more money.
That 10 year old child will be 15 years old before this machine is end of life.
If you don't at least seriously consider that if you can afford it - you're insane. You will also no doubt get more back for it come re-sale. in 3-5 years a dual core will be junk that nobody wants. You might still be able to sell a quad.
Just because something is cheaper, doesn't mean it is good value. Even if it is purchased for a kid.
Go show me an actual real world scenario (or even a synthetic benchmark) where the i3 outperforms the i5 or i7 please.
Will the i5/i7 throttle after extended workloads? Yes. So will the i3, but the i5/i7 have 2x the core count to clock slightly lower and get almost double the workload done. They'll get smaller jobs done much faster. They will be more responsive under load (i.e., 1-2 or even 3 runaway threads won't essentially hang the machine).
Comparing results in unigine (or whatever other task none of these machines is designed for) and claiming the i3 is a better choice (purely because the i5/i7 get warm) is like claiming that the i5/i7 are unsuitable for 8k video production and thus the i3 is better.
Last edited:
Do you know if the i3 runs a lot cooler than the i5 at idle? I know they both run at 100 degrees F. at max load, the i3 runs at 2.2ghz avg. at 100 degrees max load and the i5 at around 1.1 ghz max load and 100 degrees. So they both seem to run at 100 degrees at max load, at very different clock speeds and I still have no idea what their temps are at idle.
I think you'll find its 100 C at full load, not F.
If both machines are properly idle, intel processor management should be virtually shutting the processor down in both instances. they should IDLE around the same temp. i.e., not much off ambient. I don't have either machine here to confirm that, but this is how intel CPUs behave, and have done for at least 5 years now.
You'll be sure to hear whining and complaining if that isn't the case from me when i receive my i7 in a week or two (i.e, i'm putting my money where my mouth is and buying the i7. i5 would probably be fine and may even be almost the exact same CPU, but Apple have not divulged GPU spec and the i7 only comes with 64 EUs, whilst the i5 can come with 48/64, so that's what i went for).
Last edited:
2015 Macbook Pro 13" i5 in my sig (i5/512GB/8GB). I've been waiting to pull the trigger for ages - my criteria were non-butterfly keyboard, double the RAM and storage and quad core for under $3k AUD. The 2020 Air hits that metric.
This machine is still doing just fine, but i'm starting to push the storage and memory a lot. In normal use it is fine, but there are tasks I simply can't do on it with 8 GB of RAM (Cisco VIRL for example is pretty memory hungry as it runs a bunch of VMs. even if they're mostly idle they just consume a lot of RAM).
Cpu wise it is starting to hitch a lot, only does 30 fps on my 4k display, etc.
It's getting offloaded to the GF when my 2020 Air arrives. i went i7/16GB/1TB so i'm looking forward to the storage, the quad core and the better GPU to drive the 4k display properly.
Real heavy stuff will still be offloaded to my desktop, but this will get a lot more of the stuff done that I currently can't on the 2015.
Love it - I just sold nearly that exact same MBP this last week actually.
I‘m on a desktop Hack & iPad Pro for now. The 13.4 cursor/trackpad support is proving to really be game changer for me in how much I can enjoy using the iPP for laptop style stuff...
...but I may ultimately be interested in a new MBA once I hear some first hand tales
I‘m on a desktop Hack & iPad Pro for now. The 13.4 cursor/trackpad support is proving to really be game changer for me in how much I can enjoy using the iPP for laptop style stuff...
...but I may ultimately be interested in a new MBA once I hear some first hand tales
if he has an Mac (iMac) and it sits a different room, the Air would be much better for this reason. When my daughter got her 1st MacBook Pro going into high school, I mad her account with limits and parental controls, worked nicely. She couldn’t do anything unless I let her.
to the OP get the i5, I think it will be better in the long run. Also, 16GB of RAM.
Irrelevant here since we are talking about 1.1ghz dual vs quad, with the quad can go up to higher clock speed..
Again, im here just to say , the users should look for the i5, what is the idle temp...because if its true that the i5 it idles at 70C...is not worth it, in long term
100$ is nothing...so i3 should be taken in consideration for a mba that is not designed to be bought for intense tasks
Under return period everybody should, like i always do, test test that device hard and see if there are issues...test that poping sound not to break the speakers, test if that i5 has a firmware issue if it runs at 70C when you are not doing nothing etc
At least in the US, around 10% more money for about 75% more performance in multi-threaded scenarios with that quad-core upgrade; either individual apps with good multi-threading support or running many apps at the same time, there will be a tangible performance improvement. The GPU is also purportedly stronger, going from a G4 to a G7 Iris GPU.
Feels like a no-brainer to me, especially if you intend to own the machine for a few years. That said, value is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't run many apps concurrently and needs are more straightforward, there's nothing wrong with the i3. After all, up until last week, we only had dual-core MacBook Airs, and they seem to have been selling fine.
But I'd be hard pressed to not recommend the extra $100 upgrade regardless.
Feels like a no-brainer to me, especially if you intend to own the machine for a few years. That said, value is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't run many apps concurrently and needs are more straightforward, there's nothing wrong with the i3. After all, up until last week, we only had dual-core MacBook Airs, and they seem to have been selling fine.
But I'd be hard pressed to not recommend the extra $100 upgrade regardless.
if there is no thermal throttling then i5
but there is thermal throttling with i5
so it's i3
if you really want performance then just wait for the Macbook Pro 14 inch
would rather spend in more RAM or more storage than the i5 because of thermal throttling.
but there is thermal throttling with i5
so it's i3
if you really want performance then just wait for the Macbook Pro 14 inch
would rather spend in more RAM or more storage than the i5 because of thermal throttling.
So let's say that even 50% of the theoretical performance improvement is throttled -- a bit much, but let's be generous. You're still only paying 10% more for ~37% greater performance assuming you're only going to get half of the benefit. I think it still makes sense to do the jump from i3 to i5. Where I tend to pause is when you spend 10% but you get equal or less benefit, percentage wise.
I don't disagree on RAM, 16GB is ideal for longevity as well. Maybe even more than the CPU, and definitely on the storage (given you can purchase external storage in a pinch, but you can't purchase extra RAM or CPU later with these soldered boards).
All depends on use cases.
