Which of these two iMacs is better?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by secretpact, Oct 30, 2010.

  1. secretpact macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    #1
    Refurbished iMac 27-inch 3.2GHz Intel Core i3 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 5670 graphics with 512MB memory
    Built-in iSight camera

    Refurbished iMac 27-inch 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5
    27-inch LED-backlit glossy widescreen display
    4GB memory
    1TB hard drive
    8x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
    ATI Radeon HD 4850 graphics with 512MB memory
    Built-in iSight camera


    The i3 has the Radeon HD 5670, and the i5 has the Radeon HD 4850. Which computer is better?
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    2.66GHz i5 all the way. ATI 4850 is much faster than 5670 (aka mobility 5730).
     
  3. Trout74 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    #3
    how is a 4850 faster than a 5670? im not doubting you hellhammer( love that name! ) just going by numbers of the card......48-56.

    thanks,
    trout
     
  4. Sambo110 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    Australia
    #4
    The first number is basically the generation, the last three being the model basically, so higher is better. So the 5670 is one of the low end cards of the 5000 series, whereas the 4850 is one of the higher end models of the 4000 series. The higher end of the last generation will usually be better than the lower end of the latest generation.
     
  5. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #5
    Take the i5 @ 2.66GHz with the HD4850.

    That HD5670 is much slower and has lesser crunching power than the HD4850.
     
  6. iamthedudeman macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    #6
    The main differences are the graphic cards, the SDXC vs SDHC slot, and the 1333 memory. SDHC goes up to 32GB, but can in practice go up to 2tb. But are slower than SDXC cards. I never use these slots and feels it is faster to use a already attached USB cord. Removing a SDXC card repeatedly degrades the copper contacts on the card reducing speed and the longevity of the card.

    The difference between 1066 memory and 1333 memory is not much at all. 21Gbs vs 17Gps. The 2009 i5 will take the 1333MHz memory but the 1066 will have to be removed and you will have to purchase 8gb. I would not bother, personally.

    The i5 quad core is faster than the i3 dual core. The CPU between the two is the most important factor here. The Quad core i5 750 imac is the best deal at any price imac right now. As well as the 2009 i7 860 imac. $1500 and 1700. is a good price for these imacs.
     
  7. mpe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #7
    The quad-core model is much faster out of the box.

    The 2010 3.2GHz model should be considered if you plan to order it with SSD (not possible in earlier models). For many applications the SSD can make the more difference than having twice as much CPU power.
     
  8. secretpact thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    #8
    Ok so say I get a SSD drive for the first config. Then which one is better?


    Refurbished iMac 27-inch 3.2GHz Intel Core i3 processor
    27-inch LED-backlit glossy widescreen display
    4GB memory
    120GB SSD
    1TB hard drive
    8x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
    ATI Radeon HD 5670 graphics with 512MB memory
    Built-in iSight camera

    vs

    Refurbished iMac 27-inch 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5
    27-inch LED-backlit glossy widescreen display
    4GB memory
    1TB hard drive
    8x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
    ATI Radeon HD 4850 graphics with 512MB memory
    Built-in iSight camera
     
  9. mpe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #9
    The iMac with SSD will be much faster for normal apps, office, browsing, etc. It will be much faster in starting apps, booting, switching between apps, etc.

    More CPU horsepower is good for apps that can really use it like video editing, encoding, scientific applications. Games will be also higher on quad-core (particularly due to stronger graphic card), at least the maximum frame rates. On the other hand SSD will improve load times between levels and possibly also help to sustain minimum framerates.

    Unless you are sure that you apps can utilize CPUs at 100% go for the computer with SSD. It will be much better overall computing experience. Obviously ideal combination is quad-core CPU + SSD.
     
  10. mattpreston11 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    #10
    I have the i5 and its great, although I can't compare to the i3 as i never got one.
     
  11. dlewis23 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    #11
    Well if I remember correctly a 5670 is basically a 4670 with some small improvements.

    Thats not saying its bad, but the 4850 is better with the i5.
     
  12. iamthedudeman macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    #12
    http://www.macworld.com/article/153602/2010/08/mid201_corei7imac.html

    Look at the 27 inch with the dual core 3.6 with SSD and the one without. SSD is better but not in most applications tested. Now would a dual core i3 3.2 with SSD be faster in those tasks tested than a quad core 2.66? maybe but maybe not. The quad core 2.66 would be faster in most tasks if we go by just these tests.

    The second is better. Just because it has SSD does not make it automatically faster in everything. You're going to void your warranty by adding a SSD drive? Pay hundreds more if you get it spec from apple for what? And spend more money in the process? And maybe mess up your computer? Good luck with that.

    You can get a new imac 2.66 early 2010 model for between 1500 or 1600. Brand new. Not refurbished. That is the best deal going for any mac, as is the early 2010 model with the i7 which can also be purchased 'new'. For around 1700.
     
  13. mpe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #13
    I have different opinion. Although SSD doesn't shine in synthetic benchmarks like transcoding videos or rendering 3D scenes, the difference between SSD and HD in standard tasks we do a computer every day is dramatic. In fact it is like night and day. For example opening a browser or booting the computer, starting any application, loading data files, saving work, browsing photos, etc. Disk not the CPU is a real bottleneck of todays computers and SSD is magnitude faster. You need to run a very CPU intensive calculation to see the difference between let's say Core i3 and i5 or even i7 in real life. The quad-core Core i7 CPU might be two times faster than i3, but in vast majority of apps we are counting just nanoseconds there. In case of SSD vs HD, we are counting seconds and I bet you'll notice that.
     
  14. SpitUK macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2010
    #14
    Totally agree. Unless you have used one you have no idea.
     
  15. dannyjames8, Nov 4, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013

Share This Page