Why i5/i7 difference so downplayed?

[AppleGoat]

With respect to the two 13-inch models, why do many advise against the higher model? The difference in their Geekbench scores is equivalent to the difference between the 2010 base 13" 2.4ghz C2D and my mom's 2009 iMac 3.06ghz C2D. Last year, had the 13-inch offered a 3.06ghz Core2Duo, I feel many would have shelled out the extra $300 without reservation.

I have the i5 model. Fantastic and snappy. However, kinda regret not going for the faster model for some unjustifiable reason. I'm still within the exchange period. Please knock some sense in to me.

 

[ramo]

The reason why people recommend the i5 is because the 300 dollar price difference is large for maybe a 10% increase in speed. Most people would recommend the jump to the quad core i7 15" instead.

 

[Naimfan]

+1 to what ramo said. Exactly correct.

$300 for a slightly faster processor gets awfully close to the base 15", which offers a quad core processor and a larger screen, as well as substantially improved graphics, etc.

Given the leap the i5 13" represents over almost all of the prior MBPs, the i7 13" just does not strike me as offering particularly good value. If you need the increased processing power of the i7, you are almost certainly better off moving to the base 15".

As always, YMMV.

 

[Pballer110]

yea for 300 the difference you see is not that worth it.

 

[datniceguy]

The reason why people recommend the i5 is because the 300 dollar price difference is large for maybe a 10% increase in speed. Most people would recommend the jump to the quad core i7 15" instead.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/3

Much higher maximum clock speed, both single and dual core. Bigger L3 cache. AES support is critical on its own on the i7 since the i5 doesn't support that instruction set at all. It's totally worth the extra $300. IF you're gonna utilize the extra horsepower and features, that's a way different question. But in terms for more bang for buck, $300 gets you much more.

I wouldn't recommend the quad core unless you're doing something multithreaded, as you really won't tell the difference in the 13" and 15" procs when one or two cores are on (regular usage).

I don't think the differences in the i5 and i7 is downplayed - I just think the people who would utilize the extra power would find the info.

Given the leap the i5 13" represents over almost all of the prior MBPs, the i7 13" just does not strike me as offering particularly good value. If you need the increased processing power of the i7, you are almost certainly better off moving to the base 15".

As always, YMMV.

No way. The base 15" doesn't even meet the single core and dual core clocks of the 13" i7. It lacks some virtualization instructions sets and it lacks AES. The 13" i7 would trump the base 15" in pure processing speed - it only ones up in terms of available cores and threads (2/4 vs. 4/8).

 

[Benjamins]

No way. The base 15" doesn't even meet the single core and dual core clocks of the 13" i7. It lacks some virtualization instructions sets and it lacks AES. The 13" i7 would trump the base 15" in pure processing speed - it only ones up in terms of available cores and threads (2/4 vs. 4/8).

If the OS (or program) is not optimized for multicore then yeah, 13" i7 will probably be faster than 15" base, but with Grand Central Dispatch, I highly doubt 2 Cores can out run 4 cores.