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

So, i5 upgrade on 21,5" worths or not?

Just when I was satisfied with my decision...

I made the mistake of viewing this thread about Geekbench-results. We haven't been getting any advice from the i5 (dual core) owners but it seems now someone has finally benchmarked his or her 21.5" i5. And guess what? The performance seems to be way more than expected. Let's put it this way: the dual core i5 3.6GhZ seems to beat last year's QUAD CORE i5 2.66GhZ with ease in the 32-bit test. That's pretty impressive.

So let's compare:

32-bit: i3 3.06 Ghz scores 5700, i3 3.2GhZ scores 6000, i5 3.6GhZ scores 6850 and last year's i5 (QUAD CORE) 2.66GhZ scores 6200.

There hasn't been any 64-bit entry yet from the i5 3.6GhZ, but one guy estimated that it could be in the 7400s. In comparison: i3 3.06 Ghz got 6400, i3 3.2GhZ got 6600 and last year's i5 (QUAD CORE) 2.66GhZ got 7450.

I guess the only question is how good a comparison a Geekbench-score is to real-life use. If it is at all a good comparison then I will certainly get the i5 3.6GhZ after all. In fact, I think the difference in scores in Geekbench is so massive that I doubt it is much less in real-life use.

So... I guess I'm going with the i5 after all. :D
 
Tigerman82 said:
Just when I was satisfied with my decision...

I made the mistake of viewing this thread about Geekbench-results. We haven't been getting any advice from the i5 (dual core) owners but it seems now someone has finally benchmarked his or her 21.5" i5. And guess what? The performance seems to be way more than expected. Let's put it this way: the dual core i5 3.6GhZ seems to beat last year's QUAD CORE i5 2.66GhZ with ease in the 32-bit test. That's pretty impressive.

So let's compare:

32-bit: i3 3.06 Ghz scores 5700, i3 3.2GhZ scores 6000, i5 3.6GhZ scores 6850 and last year's i5 (QUAD CORE) 2.66GhZ scores 6200.

There hasn't been any 64-bit entry yet from the i5 3.6GhZ, but one guy estimated that it could be in the 7400s. In comparison: i3 3.06 Ghz got 6400, i3 3.2GhZ got 6600 and last year's i5 (QUAD CORE) 2.66GhZ got 7450.

I guess the only question is how good a comparison a Geekbench-score is to real-life use. If it is at all a good comparison then I will certainly get the i5 3.6GhZ after all. In fact, I think the difference in scores in Geekbench is so massive that I doubt it is much less in real-life use.

So... I guess I'm going with the i5 after all. :D
Click to expand...

I'm interested in this too - I've held off buying the iMac pending seeing some benchmarks and some real world feedback. One thing to note though, the geekbench results for the 3.6 i5 seems to be on a machine with 12GB of ram. I'm not sure to what extent this may have impacted the score.
 
I'm beetwen the New i5 - 3,60 Ghz and a reburb i5 2,66 Ghz (i7 2,8ghz maybe)

Althought the i5 dualcore goes quiet good i think maybe it's a good investment the Quadcore, looking into future.
 
I can only have a 21,5" due to space, so...

Well, finally, I will go with the i5. But I will wait untill tomorrow, to see more benchs.

Next week, it will be here.

:D
 
Tigerman82 said:
I guess the avarage is so low for the i3 because for some reason some folk got scores as low as 5900 (compared to those who got 6600-6700).
Click to expand...

What get most of people? About 6500?

Well...I think that finally we will go for the i3, don't you?

I also think that the differencia will be noticeable only in encoding video or things like that.
 
swajames said:
I'm interested in this too - I've held off buying the iMac pending seeing some benchmarks and some real world feedback. One thing to note though, the geekbench results for the 3.6 i5 seems to be on a machine with 12GB of ram. I'm not sure to what extent this may have impacted the score.
Click to expand...

I have the 3.6 i5 here, but i don't have the money for the 64-bit. I just posted my geekbench score over on my forum. But it posted a 7008- 8gb RAM
 
diegobgr said:
Well...I think that finally we will go for the i3, don't you?

I also think that the differencia will be noticeable only in encoding video or things like that.
Click to expand...

Well luckily I'm buying the iMac within three weeks so I do have time to get a better picture of the situation regarding the i5 680 model. My gut feeling does tell me that it's not worth the extra money but I'd hate to be wrong -- especially since I will be using the iMac for at least four years. On the other hand, at this point the extra $200 begins to feel like pocket change: why stress, why not just get it and have the best performance. I guess I'm a bit more economical nowadays and want the best performance for the buck.

I mean let's think about that guy in Youtube playing Crysis with the i3 550 iMac with the game lagging. What if choosing the i5 680 would let that guy play Crysis (all settings high except shadow) without the lag.
 
JHorstmann said:
I have the 3.6 i5 here, but i don't have the money for the 64-bit. I just posted my geekbench score over on my forum. But it posted a 7008- 8gb RAM
Click to expand...

Thanks for this!

Okey, so we now have scores of 6800 (with 12 gigs of RAM) and 7008 (with 8 gigs of RAM) for the i5 680. I guess the RAM doesn't make that much of a difference (as in the i3 550 Geekbench scores a person with 4 gigs of RAM scored higher than a person with 8 gigs of RAM).
 
these scores don't make any sense, especially considering the i5 has 400mhz faster processor (and next step up) and also supports turbo boost with the i5 which gives it a few extra hundred mhz.

also, does the i5 21.5" support 12gb? all you can order from apple is 8gb.
 
selfdisplaced said:
these scores don't make any sense, especially considering the i5 has 400mhz faster processor (and next step up) and also supports turbo boost with the i5 which gives it a few extra hundred mhz.

also, does the i5 21.5" support 12gb? all you can order from apple is 8gb.
Click to expand...

If I am correct it should unofficially support up to 16GB of ram
 
Are these stock out of the box scores or after the installing Mac OS X v10.6.4 Update that had a graphics card update.
 
i'm glad i spent the extra ~200$ (188$ with companies discount), it's obviously enough faster and it is more futureproof as others have said.
 
I already sealed my fate with an i3 3.2 1TB when I purchase it in 2 weeks. I just got my wife an iPad and I can't justify spending another $200 on top of my $1399 (I get a faculty discount...hopefully).

But if I had the cash I'd get the i5 3.6. Heck, if I had the cash plus a bigger desk with no hutch i'd get a 27" quad core, but enough with the fantasy.
 
NEW iMACs:

32bit

* i3 - 3,06Ghz - 5700 (2 results)
* i3 - 3,2Ghz - 6000 (>10 results)
* i5 - 3,6Ghz - 6850 (2 results)
* i5 - 2,8Ghz - 6711 (>10 results)
* i7 - 2,93Ghz - 9300 (4 results)


64bit:

* i3 - 3,06Ghz - 6400 (1 result)
* i3 - 3,2Ghz - 6600 (2 results)
* i5 - 3,6Ghz - still missing
* i5 - 2,8Ghz - 8000 (2 results)
* i7 - 2,93Ghz - 10700 (1 result)​


Going by those results i would imagine the 3.6 i5 64bit would be about 8500ish i would imagine. So it would be 3.2 i3 6600. So it's quite the difference. just my estimates on this low results so far.
 
selfdisplaced said:
NEW iMACs:

32bit

* i3 - 3,06Ghz - 5700 (2 results)
* i3 - 3,2Ghz - 6000 (>10 results)
* i5 - 3,6Ghz - 6850 (2 results)
* i5 - 2,8Ghz - 6711 (>10 results)
* i7 - 2,93Ghz - 9300 (4 results)


64bit:

* i3 - 3,06Ghz - 6400 (1 result)
* i3 - 3,2Ghz - 6600 (2 results)
* i5 - 3,6Ghz - still missing
* i5 - 2,8Ghz - 8000 (2 results)
* i7 - 2,93Ghz - 10700 (1 result)​
Click to expand...

Well it turns out those numbers are good. I previously mentioned that some i3 550 iMacs got scores as high as 6600-6700 from the 32-bit test. I wondered how it is possible to get those kinds of scores with a model that is scoring 5800-6000 as well in the same test. Anyway, those 6600-6700 scores turned out to be 64-bit test scores.

This means that we can safely say that any i3 550 iMac will get around 5800-6000 points from the 32-bit test and any i5 680 iMac will get around 6800-7000 points. The difference between the i3 processors is about 300 points and the difference between i3 550 and 15 680 is about 1000 points. That would make, at least in Geekbench, i5 a 'bang for the buck' choice in my book.
 
Tigerman82 said:
Well it turns out those numbers are good. I previously mentioned that some i3 550 iMacs got scores as high as 6600-6700 from the 32-bit test. I wondered how it is possible to get those kinds of scores with a model that is scoring 5800-6000 as well in the same test. Anyway, those 6600-6700 scores turned out to be 64-bit test scores.

This means that we can safely say that any i3 550 iMac will get around 5800-6000 points from the 32-bit test and any i5 680 iMac will get around 6800-7000 points. The difference between the i3 processors is about 300 points and the difference between i3 550 and 15 680 is about 1000 points. That would make, at least in Geekbench, i5 a 'bang for the buck' choice in my book.
Click to expand...

What bang for the buck means? Sorry, I'm not English.
 
Thanks.

I can't wait to have my i5 here. It will make a perfect combo with my iPhone.
 
From another thread:

JHorstmann said:
Just got the 3.6ghz i5, 8gig RAM, Radeon 5670.

Runs WoW on Ultra at a consistent 31 fps. Have had no lag problems at all- have been questing for 5 hours tonight.
Click to expand...

EDIT: That is actually a strange result as I found this thread where a guy with 3.2GhZ i3, 8gig RAM, Radeon 5670 seems to get about 50 fps playing WoW on Ultra. Check it out!
 
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