Just curious as to how much of an improvement in performance I would see upgrading my system as it states above, since my 2006 machine is 3 years old and getting close to the end of my apple care, figured I would trade it in and upgrade.
I scanned the posts and didn't see this question, but honestly I didn't read all 20K + messages.I bought in late 2005 a dual 2.3 G5, about 6 months before the Mac/Windows combination came out. Does anyone know if I can upgrade or is it too costly to do so compared to buying a new machine.
Information: PowerPC G5 Dual 2.3 Mac OS X (10.4.11)
is it even possible to upgrade an old dual core powermac g5 to a quad core or even an 8 core.
I have a dual core one and i really need to upgrade to a quad or even 8 but it is so expensive to buy a whole brand new one and i was wondering if there was a way to just get a new processor and more ram or what not.
I'm buying a new MacBookPro but can't decide, due to lack of knowledge, wich one to choose and if there's a noticeble difference between, 15.4" MacBook Pro Notebook Computer 2.2GHz Intel Core i7 Quad-Core4GB of DDR3 RAM500GB 5400rpm Hard DriveAMD Radeon HD 6750M 512MB Graphics15.4" LED-Backlit Glossy Display1400 x 900 Native ResolutionSlot-Loading SuperDrive802.11a/b/g/n Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 2.1+EDRFaceTime HD Camera, Built-in MicrophoneMac OS X 10.7 Lion (64-bit)
and the 13.3" MacBook Pro Notebook Computer 2.8GHz Intel Core i7 Dual-Core8GB of DDR3 RAM (2x4GB)750GB 5400rpm Hard DriveIntel HD 3000 Graphics13.3" Glossy Widescreen Display1280 x 800 Native ResolutionSuperDrive, Secure Digital Card SlotFaceTime HD Camera, Omnidirectional Mic802.11n Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 2.1+EDRMac OS X 10.7 Lion
Besides the screen size, one would be considerable faster?
I use Photoshop and beeing a photographer I deal with large files.
Info: MacBookPro 2.66GHz 4GB 1067MHz DDR3, Mac OS X (10.6.2)
The ivy bridge processors are coming out soon (or may already be out). I have heard that macbook pro 13" models might be able to use the new processers due to their lower energy useage. I presume that I will be able to take my mac to an apple store and have it installed. Is this information true?
Info: MacBook Pro (13-inch Early 2011), Mac OS X (10.7.4)
As I see the new Speedmark 6.5 test scores come out, I''m taken back somewhat.
I'm buying an iMac for my office which is used for internet, email, heavy excel and word. I like to get 4 to 5 years out of my computer so I'm switching to an iMac. That being said I'm buying a refurbished unit, but am wondering if it's worth the extra 4-500 bucks to upgrade from the 3.06 Core i3 to the 2.66 Quad-core i5??
I was taken aback by a recent review of the new iMac that has the dual-core i5 upgrade. There were claims that the dual-core i5 (i5-680 @ 3.6GHz) is still faster in quite a few applications than the quad-core i5 (i5-760 @ 2.8GHz)... Isn't Turbo Boost supposed to take it up to 3.33GHz? (yes, I know, it will only kick in if the temps allow it and it's still slightly less than 3.6 but you get my point)
Then, there was another article which claimed that even the Core i3-550 @ 3.2GHz is supposedly faster than the quad-core i5 @ 2.8GHz in a few scenarios. I realize that the Core i3 does not have Turbo Boost, but it does have Hyper-Threading which OS X sees as 4 (virtual) cores. The Core i5 does not have Hyper-threading, but it has 4 "actual" cores, and it also has Turbo Boost. Hmmm...
I have to take my iMac in because of a hardware issue and I was planning on upgrading to the Quad-core i5 for $275 extra ($300 minus student discount). I'm even contemplating jumping all the way to the i7 for another $180. Should I do this or just get another one w/ Core i3 3.2GHz? Towards the end of the article, Macworld even suggests not getting the Quad, unless "...you can take advantage of the few programs that exist today that can take advantage of the extra cores."
Future-proofing is not that important in my case, as I switch computers too often. Otherwise, quad-core would be the obvious choice, although we've been hearing the whole "Well, maybe not today, but in a year or two from now, you'll appreciate the fact that you got a Quad...", etc. since...well, almost 2 years ago.
So the older Mac Pro's from 2008 have 2 2.8ghz Quad Core Intel Xeon processors, without hyperthreading, for a total of 8 cores, and the top of the line iMac has a Quar Core i7 2,8ghz with hyperthreading for a total of 8 (virtual) cores.
With the ghz being the same but less "real" cores, but probably newer CPU architecture, which CPU will actually be faster?
In my quest for a Mac Pro ...I have now found a 2008 8 core 3.2ghz that is in the price range of what you can buy a 2.93ghz quad core for now ....if there is any minus other than the warranty to considering that 2008 8 core 3.2ghx 8 core over the 2.93 Ghz quad?
Will I see an improvement in the finder and for daily use (I don't play games) if I replace the Geforce GT120 by the new ATI Radeon 5770 or 5870? I do video editing with iMovie and I often use Photoshop.
I currently have a 24" iMac with a 2.8 Ghz Dual Core but I'm looking at buying a Mac Pro.I have been looking at the 2.26 Ghz Dual Quad, will this be faster than the iMac? I'm not really all that hot on clock speed vs cores, could someone with the relevant knowledge inform me which is better?
I have a Macbook Pro Core Duo that I use Compressor and it literally takes forever to compress FCP files. I know an upgrade to a Mac Pro would make the compression go faster and I know the 8 Core would make it go extremely fast, but can I do just as good with a Quad Core 2.66ghz. Would that cut my compression time down? An 8 core is a little out of my price range, but i'm pulling toward a Quad Core.
There's a lot of people wondering if the 13" MBPs would have been a lot better with a Core i3 processor, but everything has been just hangups over perceived old vs. new technology, and really the only thing the Core i3 adds is Hyper-Threading, but it doesn't have Turbo Boost, which helps the Core i5/i7s tremendously. Let's compare using Geekbench since it is cross-platform and one of the few available sources of info...
Core 2 Duo P8600 2.4GHz (~3362)
Core i3 330m 2.13GHz (~3472)
Core 2 Duo P8800 2.66GHz (~3700)
Core i3 350m 2.26GHz (~3680)
As you can see in both cases, the difference is pretty minimal indeed, and in single threaded applications, the C2D will easily outdo the Core i3 which lacks Turbo Boost and runs at lower clock rates.
And you get a 320M instead of Intel HD graphics with the new 13".
The Geekbench results from the old 15/17" to the new 15/17" are quite an order of magnitude better.
So unless people are expecting Core i5 processors in the 13", sticking to the C2D was actually a good decision, and given the differences between 2.4 and 2.53 isn't so large, one is far better buying the base 13" and then putting the money saved towards a good 7.2k HDD or SSD.
Note - I took averages of the 32-bit numbers and added them.
Note 2 - The C2D Pxxxx are 25W TDP processors, which are more efficient than the Core i3 which are 35W TDP processors. Less heat, better battery life from C2Ds.
I've been debating whether or not to upgrade my 3 year old 15" Macbook Pro that has a 2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo (Santa Rosa) to the new 13" 2.4Ghz Macbook Pro. FYI... My current system also has 4GB of RAM. Since both systems are Core 2 Duo, what kind of speed bump am I going to see? Would this be a substantial upgrade?
I am looking to get another mac to do some basic video editing and encoding. All the editing is going to be done in the mpeg4 format and once the video has been edited I am going to encode the video into H.264. My question is which will be better A Power Mac Dual 1.8Ghz G5 or a Mac Mini Core 2 Duo?
I am looking for stable set up that can handle encoding video for a few hours at a time. I am leaning towards the Power Mac Dual G5 because of how much more cooling it has however that said a Mac Mini with a Core 2 Duo running at 1.66 Ghz would also probabley work well.
first, I didn�t know if this thread should be here or in Buying Tips, but anyway. My doubt is about the brand new 27� iMac�s processor, If I should buy a more GHz one, but with only two cores, or should I buy little bit less GHz one, but with four cores.
It really worth pay $200 more? It really worth the four cores? My main needs are run CS4, some Final Cut, maybe Logic Studio, and switch between different OS's (OS X, Windows, and Linux). I think even a 21.5� model would be more than enough, but I just wonder If Quad Core gonna give me more power (I hope so).
Although i'm hardly impressed by the prices and specs of these 'new' machines I need one so I'm buying!
Just need to know before I make the plunge. Is the i7 variant with the extra GPU ram really worth it? I would use the extra power in my work but I honestly need to know if I'd notice any difference as for a few seconds less waiting it would hardly justify the price.