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

Discussion in 'iMac' started by ZtevenX, Jun 21, 2011.

  1. ZtevenX macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    #1
    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.
    [​IMG]

    sources:
    http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/06...ormance-improvement-over-previous-generation/
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1146818
     
  2. aliensporebomb macrumors 68000

    aliensporebomb

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN, USA, Urth
    #2
    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.
     
  3. ZtevenX thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    #3
    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?
     
  4. clyde2801 macrumors 601

    clyde2801

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Location:
    In the land of no hills and red dirt.
    #4
    Since you're using one of the few programs built to take full advantage of multiple cores, the choice is easy, the i7.

    If you were a regular consumer schlub like me (and not the prosumer that you are), the 2011 i5.
     
  5. ZtevenX thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
  6. clyde2801 macrumors 601

    clyde2801

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Location:
    In the land of no hills and red dirt.
    #6
    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.
     
  7. NutsNGum macrumors 68030

    NutsNGum

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    #7
    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.
     
  8. phantomsd macrumors 6502

    phantomsd

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2006
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #8
    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.
     
  9. NutsNGum macrumors 68030

    NutsNGum

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    #9
    Agreed man, were you running it in 64bit mode?
     
  10. caughtintheweb macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    #10
    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.
     
  11. Sirmausalot macrumors 6502a

    Sirmausalot

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    #11
    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.
     
  12. KSource macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    #12
    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.
     
  13. ZtevenX thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    #13
    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
     
  14. phantomsd macrumors 6502

    phantomsd

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2006
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #14
    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.
     
  15. Sirmausalot macrumors 6502a

    Sirmausalot

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    #15
    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.
     
  16. iamthedudeman macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    #16

    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.
     
  17. iamthedudeman macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    #17
    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?
     
  18. NutsNGum macrumors 68030

    NutsNGum

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    #18
    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.
     
  19. clyde2801 macrumors 601

    clyde2801

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Location:
    In the land of no hills and red dirt.
    #19
    plus the i7, it's win, win, win
     
  20. Sirmausalot macrumors 6502a

    Sirmausalot

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    #20
    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,
     
  21. NutsNGum macrumors 68030

    NutsNGum

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    #21
    True, but I reckon for most people the 27" screen and superior GPU would trump the 1000 or so Geekbench points. It certainly did for me!
     
  22. CIMA macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2011
    #22
    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..
     
  23. AbeFroman77 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    #23
    How about Facetime HD and SATA 6Gbps?
     
  24. NutsNGum macrumors 68030

    NutsNGum

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    #24
    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.
     
  25. penduboy, Jun 22, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2011

    penduboy macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    #25
    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)

    What do mean that gnu is 5850.....on apple website it is clearly stated that is 5750 on 2010 27" iMac i7
     

Share This Page