7 replies to this topic

[Mister Mumbles]

So it looks like I'm actually in the market for a new Mac sooner than I was originally thinking. Anyway, right now I have my eyes set on a 21.5" iMac - I have no need for the 27" monstrosity. I am looking at the 3.2GHz i3 model, but I am wondering is it worth paying the extra $200 to upgrade it to a 3.6GHz i5 chip? Is it going to make a substantial difference? Also, I'm curious in how effective the i5's turbo-boost really is. Any input is much appreciated.

[The Liberator]

Pegasus, on 22 September 2010 - 12:13 PM, said:

So it looks like I'm actually in the market for a new Mac sooner than I was originally thinking. Anyway, right now I have my eyes set on a 21.5" iMac - I have no need for the 27" monstrosity. I am looking at the 3.2GHz i3 model, but I am wondering is it worth paying the extra $200 to upgrade it to a 3.6GHz i5 chip? Is it going to make a substantial difference? Also, I'm curious in how effective the i5's turbo-boost really is. Any input is much appreciated.

I guess it really depends upon what you are going to be using the iMac for. It seems the only differences you need to think about is whether you want 512 or just 256 MB of VRAM and/or a 3/3.2 GHz i3 or i5 CPU. If you do not need they computer for anything intensive (video/image editing/rendering or graphical work). For good video/graphical work performance you will most certainly want the larger VRAM iMac. If you will only be doing image work, (for what I know) you will only need a good CPU.

Liberator.

[iRolley]

I can't give any comparison, but I've been in the same situation. I ended up with a 3.2Ghz 21.5 inch iMac. A faster hard drive (I'd loooove an SSD) or faster graphics card would have much more impact than a faster CPU.

But frankly, it's the fact that they didn't have the i5 in the store, and that I couldn't hold myself any longer

[Sneaky Snake]

I very much doubt you'll see any difference between 3.2 and 3.6 even in gaming. The only place it would make a noticeable difference would be video rendering

[DrJohnFever]

If this holds any water (although unlikely) and if Apple is thinking of lowering the prices due to this (unlikely to happen quickly) you might want to grab the i5.  Otherwise, grab the i3 for now.  The 0.4GHz improvement isn't worth $200 (unless you are talking about a hex core or higher).

[Mister Mumbles]

Apple and price cuts? Yeah, that's a good one. I'll give myself another week or two to decide. I just wanted to get some opinions about it, but if it really does only provide a minimal amount of difference I suppose the i5 option is overpriced.

[Sneaky Snake]

Pegasus, on 22 September 2010 - 11:35 PM, said:

Apple and price cuts? Yeah, that's a good one. I'll give myself another week or two to decide. I just wanted to get some opinions about it, but if it really does only provide a minimal amount of difference I suppose the i5 option is overpriced.

The thing is that the iMac only has the 5670 512 MB, which means that in any gaming it'll be GPU limited, and as such increasing the CPU speed will give almost zero results, maybe 1 more fps.

You won't notice any difference between 3.2 and 3.6 GHz when your using the OS, and only if your using some pro apps that load up the CPU quite often would the 3.6 GHz start to pull its weight. The only app I use semi-often that loads the CPU up to max is Handbrake, but that's only used probably once a month.

[Mister Mumbles]

So I got myself the 3.2 GHz model, and I'm quite pleased with it. So sexy. It sure beats the old fugly all-white designs.