Would I see an appreciable difference between 3.06 ghz C2D vs 3.33 for apps like FCP?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Whackintosh, Nov 21, 2009.

  1. Whackintosh macrumors 6502

    Whackintosh

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal, Quebec
    #1
    Any input from those who've used both would be greatly, greatly appreciated. Also planning on using Aperture and various CS4 programs.
     
  2. J the Ninja macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    #2
    8% difference in speed, not worth it. However, since those are multi-core aware apps, perhaps an i5 machine might be in order?
     
  3. Whackintosh thread starter macrumors 6502

    Whackintosh

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal, Quebec
    #3
    i5 or i7 would definitely be an ideal situation, but my workstation won't accommodate such a large machine (27 inch), sadly.
     
  4. o2xygen macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    #4
    Yeah I wish you could get a i5 in a 21.5" model. then id be set
     
  5. stonemann macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    #5
    Despite the higher cache on the 3.33 Ghz processor, benchmarks still hover around an eight per cent improvement compared to the 3.06 unit (see here for Geekbench 2 results across the current range of iMacs and Mac Pros). That's fairly modest for an extra £160 (UK).

    In the higher models, the jump from an i5 to i7, or from the 3.06 (27") to i5 brings you a lot more processing power for your money.

    If it was me, I'm not sure I'd be willing to pay a premium for the negligible gain that a 3.33 Ghz processor gives you over the standard configuration.

    On the lower models I'd be tempted to put that £160 towards more RAM or better still move up to the ATI4670 card.
     

Share This Page