POLL: i5 or i7

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Garemz, Nov 15, 2009.

?

i5 or i7

Poll closed Nov 15, 2010.
  1. i5

    28.2%
  2. i7

    71.8%
  1. Garemz macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Location:
    Edmonton Alberta Canada
  2. stridemat Moderator

    stridemat

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    I would go for the i5 because I would rather spend the difference between the two on upgrading something else in the computer such as the RAM.
     
  3. Sambo110 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    Australia
    #3
    The i7. It isn't too much more, and when you consider how much you are spending on the computer it makes it seem like even less, and the benchmarks show the i7 having a lot higher score. May as well get the best now so you don't regret it in a few years time.
     
  4. cmvsm macrumors 6502a

    cmvsm

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    #5
    You're talking about $200 difference for the i7. This is a $2K machine. Doesn't really make a difference in the grand scheme of things. Go with the best processor that you can buy. RAM is upgradeable anytime without having to do major surgery on the iMac. Put your money into upgrades that will cost you later just to install.
     
  5. Garemz thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Location:
    Edmonton Alberta Canada
    #6
    Do you think the upgrade gives $200 worth of power or not?
     
  6. andiwm2003 macrumors 601

    andiwm2003

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #7
    the main article says up to 35% more performance for only $200.

    if i need a computer with high performance i assume i am willing to invest in it. in that case $200 don't matter.
     
  7. lexvo macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #8
    On another forum I read the real world performance difference between the i5 and i7 wasn't that big. Based on that, I ordered an i5.

    Over here I see there is quite a difference in benchmarks. I'm still going for the i5, but I'm anxious to see some real world application performance tests.
     
  8. JBmac macrumors member

    JBmac

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Location:
    Eastern, PA
    #9
    I7 not mature yet...

    When I finally buy one next year I would choose a quad core with hyper threading over the core 2 duo, and the quad core w/o hyperthreading. I want something that will still be relevant in about 4-5 years.
     
  9. Yanwoo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #10
    I love this thinking!

    A $1 is a $1 is a $1. Saving $200 on a computer I'm buying for $2000 is better than saving $150 on a $300 TV (for instance) but not as good as saving $500 on a $1mm house.

    Why? Well $500 buys me more than $200 which buys me more than $150...

    My point is dollars are absolute, you don't spend relative money...
     
  10. cmvsm macrumors 6502a

    cmvsm

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    #11
    Not really. If I can increase the value of an item that I'm buying today for a relatively small amount, speaking in terms of both absolute and intrinsic values, then its an intelligent and viable investment. No one can tell the future obviously, but that's what makes horse races.

    A $500 savings on a $1M home is not going to make a long term difference either way. However, a $150 savings on $300 set will upon resale.

    It's all about recovering as much as you can in through the original investment.
     
  11. gjw4u macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Location:
    Switzerland
    #12
    i5 for me, because I don't require the top of the line i7. The i5 is plenty enough power for what I will be using my iMac for.
     
  12. Garemz thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Location:
    Edmonton Alberta Canada
    #13
    Will the i7 have any bearing on world of warcraft over the i5 ?
     
  13. chibamac macrumors 6502

    chibamac

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    #14
    It gives you a rare i7 mount that makes you go 35% faster :p
     
  14. Mike Macintosh macrumors regular

    Mike Macintosh

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2009
    Location:
    Washington State
    #15
    I agree, I will probably use it as a main desktop computer for web, music, videos, and the occasional games like RE5 and Left 4 Dead, so the i5 should be fine for me.
     
  15. RexTraverse macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    #16
    i5.

    I'm not purchasing my new iMac directly from Apple and, putting aside the legal obligation to pay the sales tax on online purchase, the difference is significantly more than $200. (a 10% sales tax rate sucks)

    Also, these Lynnfield iMacs should be very easy to upgrade and I know I can upgrade if needed. In a year or so when Intel is moving to their next socket design, I can buy the top of the line LGA 1156 processor at clearance prices.

    Obviously, this wouldn't be a good option for most others, but it's why I'm going for the i5. :cool:
     
  16. UrFatMom macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    #17
    i5... Just because i5 is already overkill for what I'll need the iMac for, and that I wanted to buy it from the University (they don't have the i7).

    Gonna put 4gb more and run windows 7 with parallel.

    Cheers!
     
  17. Bryan Bowler macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    #18
    Only you can answer that question. How can I tell you if the performance increase is worth 200 of your dollars?

    Bryan
     
  18. ronaldcastillo macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    #19
    Apple i5 Quad Core

    I'm gonna get a iMac Quad Core i5. Just perfect for the apps that I currently run.
     
  19. Kirbdog macrumors regular

    Kirbdog

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Location:
    Whistler, British Columbia, Canada
    #20
    Core i7. I was going to go that route even before the benchmark got posted.
    But since having seen the difference why would you not get the i7 over the i5?

    200 bucks is not much money, but it is all relative to whether or not you have the 200 bucks to spend.

    I feel that it would be money well justified after seeing the difference in performance.
     
  20. RichardI macrumors 6502a

    RichardI

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Location:
    Southern Ontario, Canada
    #21
    I voted for i7. After seeing the Geekbench bar chart, with only $200 difference in price - it's a no brainer.

    Rich :cool:
     
  21. fruitpunch.ben macrumors 6502a

    fruitpunch.ben

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Location:
    Surrey, BC
    #22
    I would buy the i7 because it is only $200 more and has a significant (up to 35%) performance increase in the benchmarks.
    I realise that this is not necessarily a 35% increase in real world application, but it should translate into a fairly decent speed increase, especially as more and more programs are properly made to take care of multi core and hyper threading.
    I am planning on keeping this computer at least 5 years, until it dies, and the extra power should help in 5 years time as well.
    Besides, if I'm already paying $2400 inc. tax for an i5, whats an extra $210!
     
  22. khollister macrumors 6502a

    khollister

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    #23
    I went with the i5 for a few reasons:

    1) Immediate gratification - I walked into my local Apple store yesterday and came out with an i5

    2) Real concern over HT problems with my music production software. The pro audio forums have been full of issues with the HT in the 2009 Nehalem Mac Pros. I'm sure it will eventually get sorted out, but I was somewhat worried about havings problems. I have one heavily scripted Kontakt (sampler software) library that the author specifically watned would run like crap on the HT Nehalem MP's.

    3) My photography workflow is heavily centered on Nikon Capture NX2, and it is pretty poor from a multi-threaded standpoint, so another 4 cores that it can't use weren't going to help.

    Since I upgrade computers every 2-3 years, it wasn't clear I would get much real-world benefit from the HT in the i7 since the audio industry and Nikon/Nik Software (who developed Capture for Nikon) don't have the reputation of being leaders in adopting/supporting new technology. Even CS4 is still 32 bit and limited to 3GB RAM. Frankly, once 4GB DIMM's come down in price and more music SW gets converted to 64bit, I would benefit from being able to get to 16GB more than some additional virtual cores.

    Of course this could all be an excuse because I could get an i5 now and it might take several weeks for the i7 to get here.

    At any rate, the i5/8GB machine I have is a lot faster on the stuff I do than the 2.8 C2D/4GB 24" it is replacing.
     
  23. Goldie009 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    #24
    Personally I opted for the i7. For a number of reasons.

    1) Future Proofing - My old computer lasted faithfully for around 7 years. It was a windows machine though. I have my macbook 2.2Ghz for Uni and it has lasted 3 years and still runs very well for most needs at uni. If i buy something at circa £2000 I want it to last for as long as possible - takes us students a while to save up these days I can tell you! I held off from getting the 24 inch imac based on rumors of an update, now that it's come, I want to make the most of it and get the top spec I can reasonably justify.

    2) I will be doing a lot of video encoding and photo editing. As well as possibly booting into windows to do electronic circuit simulation and PCB design. Faster processing capabilities will shine through here...

    3). Being a student, I benefit from Apples discount system. Ordering my mac whilst in Uni saved me the best part of £300. Whilst ordering 4Gb of RAM from crucial saved another £60 or so. So all in all my quad core i7 is actually cheaper than some people might pay for an i5 with otherwise similar specs.

    4). I wanted the faster processor.... :D
     
  24. UrFatMom macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    #25
    I understand those who say they want i7 for more power, etc. But for future proofing? Really? You think that in 2 years the i7 will perform better then the i5? I remember when I bought the 2,24ghz pentium 4 instead of the 2,36ghz that was 500$ more for 30% more power... 2 years later, they both sucked exactly the same.

    Future proof in computer processor is irrelevant.

    Buy for now, not for later. Need the i7 now? Buy it. Don't buy it for the wrong reasons.

    just my 2 cents
     

Share This Page