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.
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)
[URL]
vs.
Core i3 330m 2.13GHz (~3472)
[URL]
Core 2 Duo P8800 2.66GHz (~3700)
[URL]
vs.
Core i3 350m 2.26GHz (~3680)
[URL]
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?
View 15 Replies View RelatedJust in case Apple surprise us with a Sandybridge Quad core, and even if they don't I was wondering the following.
1 ) During sustained use in 3D gaming does a Quadcore with lower clock speeds beat a dual core with higher clock speeds.
2) Can the quoted turbo speeds be achieved in sustained use (ie 3D gaming where maximal load can be applied for a couple of hours).
[URL]
i7-2630QM
Base Frequency 2.0GHz
Max SC Turbo 2.9GHz
Max DC Turbo 2.8GHz
Max QC Turbo 2.6GHz
i7-2620M
Base Frequency 2.7GHz
Max SC Turbo 3.4GHz
Max DC Turbo 3.2GHz
Max QC Turbo N/A
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.
View 8 Replies View RelatedI do alot of photography with a canon dslr, I also plan to edit short HD videos as well as some photoshop and flash animation work.
Will I benefit greatly from the Quad Core Imac over the Dual Core Imac?
I have an opportunity to get a single 3.0 GHz quad core Clovertown.
Should I go for it? There's no advantage to having two cores in two sockets versus having four cores in one socket, right?
I'm one of the many many people who are juggling mac pro options in my head.
is the 3.33GHz Westmere worth the extra 640? Probably not, but now much faster will be it? 20%....30%?
I think I'm set on either of these two options, mainly using FCP and photoshop and a bit of motion. maybe a bit of gaming
Also I can max out them four RAM slots and get a 5870 with the extra cash.
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??
So I was talking to my friend about the new MPs and that they should have two 6 core processors in it.
I plan on getting one for rendering scenes with Maya and doing stuff on AE, FCP, and the CS5 master collection. We were talking about his computer, which is one quad core processor.
He was saying that render times on Maya wouldn't be very different when comparing a quad core versus two hexa cores. I don't agree with him but would like someone elses opinion on this.
I am looking to purchase my first Macbook Pro. I am having a difficult time deciding between a $1749 17" from Amazon that is the older 2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo and the $2298 17" (w/ student discount and tax... have to include tax) from Apple that is the newest model. The price difference is $549.
Some things I'm curious about:
1. Intel HD card? Does it really cause that much lag? How is it compared to the nVidia 9400m? I don't mean benchmarks, I mean real life performance.
2. Battery life? Is the battery life in the newest model much better than previous gen?
3. Heat? Is there a difference in heat production between them?
I don't care about gaming, so the 512 300m vs. 512 9600m is no concern.
Does the newest 17" justify the $549 price difference? Are there any other things that I should know between the two?
I see the numbers of everything from Core 2 Duo, to the slightly faster and cooler Core i3, to the supposedly faster core i5s and i7s. The benchmarks go up accordingly, but I found this does not always equate in a faster experience on most tasks.
Here's my experience so far on processor upgrade:
In one computer trade school re-certification class I am in, we are working with Windows Server 2003 on a Quad Xeon platform and it's incredibly slow.
But in a previous class we had the previous generation server edition on older Xeons, and while not fast, it was much better. On paper the newer multi-core Xeons should have made a difference, but could 2003 server software be that much more bloated than the previous Windows server edition that it would stall like that and make us wish we had the older setup?
I am going to try out the Adobe CS lab and put the new high end Dells to the test there and see if they work better than when we had an older CS version on older Xeon equipped Dells.
I don't know if this is something to do with Dell, or if Apple's increasing processor bumps/generations are going to similarly not make a difference in the speed things appear to go at, whether it's Adobe stuff, server stuff, or anything else that needs power.
I know somebody who plans on a Core 2 Duo, i5 or i7 MBP and I was wondering if the higher end processor is worth it in that case (iMovie being the main program of use).
Which one performs faster?
[URL]
[URL]
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)
I'm holding out for a supposed 13" i3 mbp.
I've got a Windows machine with a Pentium D 2.3ghz and 3g ram.
Using Photoshop or video editing software, what type of performance gains, if any, should I see with a .26ghz core 2 duo and 4g ram? What about with the i3 and 4g ram?
http://www.dailyanswers.com
Has anyone that know if it's possible to upgrade MacPro Nehalem 2.26 to 2.66 Ghz Westmare with the following processors : Intel Hexa Core Xeon? Processor X5650 12M Cache, 2.66 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel? QPI part #:BX80614X5650 ? Could you help me telling if it?s possible to upgrading MacPro Nehalem octa core 2.26 Ghz to Mac Pro Westmare hexa core 2.66 Ghz ?
View 5 Replies View Relatedis 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.
[URL]
What you say guys?
I know the same article is on main page
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?
i'm sure someone has experience here, but how does powermac G5 dual core 2.3 compare to MBP CD 2.16... and how does Mac Pro 2.66 compare to them?
i'm especially interested in processing photographs... not necessarily in photoshop as the CS2 comparison is kinda biased, and CS3, well, if you have those data, it's very welcomed.
i'm sure MacPro 2.66 will out perform the former two by far, but by how far? and will PMG5DC out perform MBP CD 2.16 or the other way?
I know other threads exist, but they don't have responses specific to me so what's the harm in one more?
So, I am going to be selling my late 2008 15" MacBook Pro this week to get a new 27" iMac and I just need some legitimate advice from those "in the know" on processors.
I plan on having this iMac for about 3 years to do the following tasks:
1.) Record and edit HD cable (1080i) from an Elgato EyeTV HD - will include some encoding of 2+ hour sports game recordings
2.) Some light editing of 720p iPhone 4 clips in iMovie
3.) Surf the web, iTunes, iPhoto, Mail, and all the other standard stuff
Assuming budget is an issue, would you recommend me spending the extra money for a Quad Core i5 iMac or would I be ok based on the info above just going with the base Dual Core i3 model?
Like, will there be a considerable difference in the two machines (factoring in processor and graphics card) that will really be worth the extra $300 - $400 for 3 years of use?
I have been offered a 2008 3.2GHz 8 Core with 10GB RAM, ATI 4870, 320HD, no warranty/applecare left.
Or, I can buy a new 2009 2.93GHz 4 Core, 3GB RAM, 640HD, GT120
Both about the same price: $2850.00 USD
Which would you choose, and why?
I've upgraded my iMac 4,1 to a core 2 duo processor in order to install Lion although I still get a message from App Store saying that Lion cant be installed on my computer - I have all the basic system requirments - RAM - free space - latest version of Snow Leopard and processor ...
Info:
iMac
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.
I decided to run a few geekbench tests on my Early 2008 Octo 2.8ghz Mac Pro w/ 16gb of RAM against my daughter's Core i7 920 DIY Hackintosh with 6gb of DDR3 RAM. Both are running Leopard 10.5.6 with nothing else running.
View 24 Replies View RelatedIn 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?
View 11 Replies View RelatedThe first Core i7 and Core i5 benchmarks are available. Quite amazing to see how much faster the Core i7 is even compared to the Core i5. (via digg) I'll definitely go for the Core i7 now that I've seen these results.
View 20 Replies View RelatedThey're both Intel Xeon Westmere's, but I was planning on buying the 8-core today. However, another commentator mentioned the 3.33GHz 6-core Westmere being a faster/better choice than the 2.4GHz 8-Core Westmere. Is this due to the 1 6-Core processor versus 2 Quad-Core processors and how the system utilizes threading, etc of each?
View 8 Replies View RelatedIf you have the guts and a few thousand dollars, why wait for Apple to release it?
[URL]
