Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

REFURB 27inch 2010 2.93GHz Quad i7 /OR/ 2011 2.7GHz Sandy Bridge Quad i5??!

Z

ZtevenX

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 9, 2010
20
0
FCPX screwed me over since they no longer support my video card =(, i'm looking to get a new Mac for mainly video editing, photoshop, encoding videos...etc

2011
27-inch: 2.7GHz
2.7GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5
2560 x 1440 resolution
4GB (two 2GB) memory
1TB hard drive1
AMD Radeon HD 6770M with 512MB

2010
Refurbished iMac 27-inch 2.93GHz Intel Quad-Core i7 processor
27-inch LED-backlit glossy widescreen display
4GB memory
1TB hard drive
8x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
ATI Radeon HD 5750 graphics with 1GB memory
Built-in iSight camera

I checked out these benchmark and it seems like
2011 scores - 7863
2010 scores - 9124​

1) Very hard choice to make.. 2011 model features Thunderbolt, facetime HD, dual monitor support? more efficient sandy bridge processor? while the older gen iMac is way faster? what else are new in the 2011 model that i should consider?

2) also is there a big difference between 2011 AMD Radeon HD 6770M with 512MB and 2010 ATI Radeon HD 5750 graphics with 1GB memory which one is BETTER?

anything else to consider? please enlighten me =)
thanks guys.
165145-imac_2011_geekbench.jpg


sources:
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/0...ormance-improvement-over-previous-generation/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1146818/
 
For me - easy choice

The i7. For me anyway.

Why? Because the i7 is a hyperthreading chip and shows eight processor windows and any software written for it will act like you have an eight core computer on your desk. There are multiple apps I use that do this.

The i5 is a nice chip but it's quadcore and no hyperthreading. I'm totally sold on the i7 tech these days.
 
aliensporebomb said:
The i7. For me anyway.

Why? Because the i7 is a hyperthreading chip and shows eight processor windows and any software written for it will act like you have an eight core computer on your desk. There are multiple apps I use that do this.

The i5 is a nice chip but it's quadcore and no hyperthreading. I'm totally sold on the i7 tech these days.
Click to expand...

Hmm interesting, but i also heard that gaming suffers from HT? is that true? are there any minor features from 2011 imac that 2010 ones doesnt have?
 
A bit slower than the 2011's, which helps explain the benchmarking differences between the two models.

The i7 with hyperthreading makes it close to an octo mac pro. The pro may not have the biggest, baddest video card on the planet, but can serve a very specific purpose for programs designed to take full advantage of multiple cores.
 
I was having the same problem, but I've since bought the i7. Better processor, gpu in the i7 also has 1gb of ram, which is likely to come in handy if you're rendering longer videos or doing 3D stuff.

There have been a lot of posts on this in the last couple of weeks. Might be worth using the search to see if anyone has posted with a similar use-case to yourself and made a decision.
 
Just got my 2010 2.93 i7 REFURB yesterday. After setting it up and installing everything... my GeekBench clocked in around the 10800s with the stock 4GB RAM. My other 8GB from OWC comes today for a total of 12GB.

I was too on the fence with 2010 vs 2011 (3.4ghz i7)... the 2010 was too good of a deal to pass up.
 
phantomsd said:
Just got my 2010 2.93 i7 REFURB yesterday. After setting it up and installing everything... my GeekBench clocked in around the 10800s with the stock 4GB RAM. My other 8GB from OWC comes today for a total of 12GB.

I was too on the fence with 2010 vs 2011 (3.4ghz i7)... the 2010 was too good of a deal to pass up.
Click to expand...

Agreed man, were you running it in 64bit mode?
 
phantomsd said:
Just got my 2010 2.93 i7 REFURB yesterday. After setting it up and installing everything... my GeekBench clocked in around the 10800s with the stock 4GB RAM. My other 8GB from OWC comes today for a total of 12GB.

I was too on the fence with 2010 vs 2011 (3.4ghz i7)... the 2010 was too good of a deal to pass up.
Click to expand...

I did exactly the same thing. I think its just an awesome deal. The monitor I got was flawless too. I dont pay too many games to make use of the GPU .. for me the i7 was the deal breaker.
 
No to Final Cut Pro X

Get the 2010 (I just ordered mine) but Final Cut X looks like crap. Let me explain, no, let me sum up:

1. No way to export audio for work in programs like Pro Tools. IE, no collaboration.
2. No support for proper DVD encoding. You can buy compressor separately. It looks like the same old dog it always was -- for fifty bucks more.
3. No proper DVD authoring software.

No support for many video codecs, and by many reports, many, many bugs including some that destroy original media!

If you are a student/faculty you can get a great deal on Adobe Production Premium with Photoshop, After Effects, Encore (compression), Audition (sound) and more -- tightly integrated for around $350. It's a no brainer.

Avid is also a possibility, but is not yet 64 bit and not as tightly integrated. Final Cut Pro 7 doesn't take advantage of multiple cores, memory beyond 4GB and is not 64 bit nor does it support DSL-R footage natively. Final Cut is dead to me.
 
Had the same issue come up for me recently and I went with the i7. I mainly do PS work and some video so it works perfectly. Hell, I got a 2TB HDD instead of a 1TB as stated so I am a happy camper. Flawless screen btw.
 
Sirmausalot said:
Get the 2010 (I just ordered mine) but Final Cut X looks like crap. Let me explain, no, let me sum up:

1. No way to export audio for work in programs like Pro Tools. IE, no collaboration.
2. No support for proper DVD encoding. You can buy compressor separately. It looks like the same old dog it always was -- for fifty bucks more.
3. No proper DVD authoring software.

No support for many video codecs, and by many reports, many, many bugs including some that destroy original media!

If you are a student/faculty you can get a great deal on Adobe Production Premium with Photoshop, After Effects, Encore (compression), Audition (sound) and more -- tightly integrated for around $350. It's a no brainer.

Avid is also a possibility, but is not yet 64 bit and not as tightly integrated. Final Cut Pro 7 doesn't take advantage of multiple cores, memory beyond 4GB and is not 64 bit nor does it support DSL-R footage natively. Final Cut is dead to me.
Click to expand...

I kinda do feel your pain, I'm moving from iMovie and my content are 100% digital so these don't really apply to me. I still can't imagine FCP7 users moving to FCPX, FCPX just feels so prosumer.

going with the 2010 now. Should be arriving in 7 days hopefully.
thanks guys for the help
 
NutsNGum said:
Agreed man, were you running it in 64bit mode?
Click to expand...

Yup. 64.

Also happy to report a flawless screen... no yellow issues. <-- happy web/graphic designer.

ZtevenX, congrats man!

Sidenote: Refurb owners, did your unit come wrapped only in the styrofoam paper or was there the plastic screen film as well? Mine only had the styrofoam paper.
 
ZtevenX said:
I kinda do feel your pain, I'm moving from iMovie and my content are 100% digital so these don't really apply to me. I still can't imagine FCP7 users moving to FCPX, FCPX just feels so prosumer.

going with the 2010 now. Should be arriving in 7 days hopefully.
thanks guys for the help
Click to expand...

I was very excited to work with the new features in Final Cut Pro X. I never imagined they would dump essential features we all use every day. I need to deliver on DVD, soon on Blu-ray and of course for digital download as well. I also need to work with other professionals -- motion, sound, sometimes colorists. I'm stunned, as I think many in the editing community are, at Apple's approach to this app which creates a closed eco system.

They have treated it as a 1.0 app. Fine, I get that.

But then they also orphaned Final Cut Pro 7 (and the studio) with out a significant upgrade in years. Apple seems to be abandoning the computer/software user in favor of iOS. This makes me apprehensive about my computer purchase.
 
clyde2801 said:
A bit slower than the 2011's, which helps explain the benchmarking differences between the two models.

The i7 with hyperthreading makes it close to an octo mac pro. The pro may not have the biggest, baddest video card on the planet, but can serve a very specific purpose for programs designed to take full advantage of multiple cores.
Click to expand...


The imac he is comparing is the 2010 i7 to is a 2011 2.7 i5 27, not a 3.4 27. The imac 2010 i7 says a 5750 but is actually a 5850 with 1GB of Ram. The 5850 with 1GB of ram is faster than the 6770 with 512 of ram. So the 2010 model has the better GPU as well as CPU.

And it's cheaper, win win in my book.
 
phantomsd said:
Yup. 64.

Also happy to report a flawless screen... no yellow issues. <-- happy web/graphic designer.

ZtevenX, congrats man!

Sidenote: Refurb owners, did your unit come wrapped only in the styrofoam paper or was there the plastic screen film as well? Mine only had the styrofoam paper.
Click to expand...

Chalk another flawless screen. I have one as well. No yellowing or stuck or dead pixels. No blemishes or scratches. Flawless machine.

I got the SSD version quiet, no noise at all. No plastic screen film? That is weird. Mine was packaged exactly as a new one, no different?
 
Received my second iMac i7 2.93 refurb this morning, happy to report that there is no hair under the glass and that the screen is in very good nick. It's also quite fast.

A wall mount is calling, methinks.
 
iamthedudeman said:
The imac he is comparing is the 2010 i7 to is a 2011 2.7 i5 27, not a 3.4 27. The imac 2010 i7 says a 5750 but is actually a 5850 with 1GB of Ram. The 5850 with 1GB of ram is faster than the 6770 with 512 of ram. So the 2010 model has the better GPU as well as CPU.

And it's cheaper, win win in my book.
Click to expand...

I think, according to the benchmarks, that the 2.93 i7 in the iMac is not as good (by about 10%) than the Sandybridge 2.8 i7.

Still, a great deal. Mine comes today. Revised benchmarks below

iMac Benchmarks
Mac Performance
iMac (27-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i7-2600 3.4 GHz (4 cores) 11648

iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i7-2600S 2.8 GHz (4 cores) 10248

iMac (27-inch Mid 2010)
Intel Core i7 870 2.93 GHz (4 cores) 9123

iMac (27-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i5-2400 3.1 GHz (4 cores) 8357

iMac (27-inch Late 2009)
Intel Core i7 860 2.8 GHz (4 cores) 8335

iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i5-2500S 2.7 GHz (4 cores) 7890

iMac (27-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i5-2500S 2.7 GHz (4 cores) 7844

iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2011)
Intel Core i5-2400S 2.5 GHz (4 cores) 7241

iMac (27-inch Mid 2010)
Intel Core i5 680 3.6 GHz (2 cores) 6934

iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2010)
Intel Core i5 680 3.6 GHz (2 cores) 6828

iMac (27-inch Mid 2010)
Intel Core i5 760 2.8 GHz (4 cores) 6726

iMac (27-inch Mid 2010)
Intel Core i3 550 3.2 GHz (2 cores) 5922

iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2010)
Intel Core i3 550 3.2 GHz (2 cores) 5854

iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2010)
Intel Core i3 540 3.07 GHz (2 cores) 5681

iMac (Late 2009)
Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 3.33 GHz (2 cores) 4647

iMac (Late 2009)
Intel Core 2 Duo E7600 3.06 GHz (2 cores) 4221

While the improvements aren't as dramatic as with the Sandy Bridge MacBook Pros,
 
I had a similar issue. I needed something that can run FCP for the next 2 or 3 year.

I decided to go with the 2010 Refurbished iMac 27-inch 2.93GHz Intel Quad-Core i7 processor
27-inch LED-backlit glossy widescreen display
4GB memory
1TB hard drive
8x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
ATI Radeon HD 5750 graphics with 1GB memory
Built-in iSight camera


The 2010 units is about a good $430 less than the 2011 with the i5 core. If wanted the i7 then difference is $630. The only negative is that i dont have the thunderbolt port.

Ill be here next week..
 
CIMA said:
The 2010 units is about a good $430 less than the 2011 with the i5 core. If wanted the i7 then difference is $630. The only negative is that i dont have the thunderbolt port.

Ill be here next week..
Click to expand...

How about Facetime HD and SATA 6Gbps?
 
AbeFroman77 said:
How about Facetime HD and SATA 6Gbps?
Click to expand...

I can live without seeing my ugly face in High Definition.

Realistically, the average user will notice nothing from the SATA upgrade, unless they plan on getting an SSD, in which case the SSD would already be a dramatic step up from a standard Hard Disk, which in turn sort of makes the SATA upgrade irrelevant anyway, again.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A306 Safari/6531.22.7)

iamthedudeman said:
clyde2801 said:
A bit slower than the 2011's, which helps explain the benchmarking differences between the two models.

The i7 with hyperthreading makes it
close to an octo mac pro. The pro may not have the biggest, baddest video card on the planet, but can serve a very specific purpose for programs designed to take full advantage of multiple cores.
Click to expand...


The imac he is comparing is the 2010 i7 to is a 2011 2.7 i5 27, not a 3.4 27. The imac 2010 i7 says a 5750 but is actually a 5850 with 1GB of Ram. The 5850 with 1GB of ram is faster than the 6770 with 512 of ram. So the 2010 model has the better GPU as well as CPU.

And it's cheaper, win win in my book.
Click to expand...

What do mean that gnu is 5850.....on apple website it is clearly stated that is 5750 on 2010 27" iMac i7
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back