# Is the upgrade from i5 TO I7 worth it?



## mrfoofoo (Aug 16, 2009)

For the Imacs, It's ether get an I7 and stick with 4 gigs of ram or get 8 gigs of ram and go with an I5. My budget will not allow me to do both.

What should I do?


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

You can upgrade to 8GB or more later. You can't upgrade to the i7 later.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

I've been away, has Apple come out with 15 and 17" iMacs while I was gone.


----------



## hbp (Apr 18, 2007)

jamesB said:


> I've been away, has Apple come out with 15 and 17" iMacs while I was gone.


lol, thread is talking about i5 and i7 (not 15,17)


----------



## l84toff (Jul 27, 2008)

I believe you'd get more bang for your $ with the RAM (after market of course and a DYI)...but hey, that's just my thought.


----------



## JustAMacUser (Oct 21, 2007)

I agree with l84toff. You'll likely see better improvement with the RAM than the i7. However, definitely go aftermarket (a place like Crucial.com often provides competative pricing). Apple seriously marks up the cost of RAM upgrades when you're customizing a system. Who knows, maybe with cheaper RAM you'll also be able to get the i7!


----------



## meall (Aug 15, 2007)

It may depends on the tasks you plan to do with it. You'll get better performance with the i7 only if you programs can take advantage of multiple core and hyperthreading. That is, then, only if you use professionnal applications such as (maybe) FinalCut Pro or Compressor.

Personally, I'm going the i5 way and upgrade the RAM a bit. I have two 1 Gb stick I removed from my MacBook Pro, I hope they will fit in it and give me 6 Gb of RAM!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The biggest downside to an iMac is its general lack of upgradability. You can update the hard drive and RAM later but the screen, graphics card and processor are not upgradable. The latter is also not upgradable on other Macs (which is a shame). The extra $220 for an i7 processor will get you a measly 5% clock speed increase but, as meall points out, also induces hyperthreading to allow the 4 cores to run as virtual 8 cores - with appropriate software. OS 10.6 includes software technologies like Grand Central Dispatch that allow the OS to take better advantage of multiple cores so even if the application is not very multicore-aware, there is more efficient use of the power of the cpu.

It all depends on what software you want to run. The i7 processor is a bit more future-proof and you are paying for that ($220). There again, RAM tends to get cheaper over time and you'll be hard pushed to see a huge benefit of 8 Gb over 4Gb of RAM unless you are using pro design software - in which case, the hyperthreading tech might be more applicable to you in any case.

I think I'll go for the i7 sometime in the New Year and 4 Gb of RAM with the intent of eventually upgrading to 16 Gb when I have the opportunity (first to 10 then 16 by adding a pair of 4 Gb sticks at a time - assuming the four slots allow this). I tend to keep my Macs a long time though (which is why the 27" screen is also important). This will replace a G5 tower (with 4Gb RAM). I don't use high end graphics apps but do use Aperture and sound editing apps.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

RAM goes down in price, generally, and is user-upgradeable. Go with the i7 and get more RAM later. It may not take that long for the RAM to be affordable.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

John Clay said:


> You can upgrade to 8GB or more later. You can't upgrade to the i7 later.


+1; go with the i7.


----------



## mkolesa (Jul 22, 2008)

i asked the same question when the new models were announced. well, almost the same questions, i asked whether it was worth upgrading the processor for a typical home user (i was planning on bumping the ram to 8 regardless). someone pointed me to a review of the various intel processors in this line which said that the i5 gave the most bang for the buck and the i7 only had a modest boost in speed. based on that and the fact that i'm not running any pro apps i thought the i5 would probably do the trick. having said that i do think i'll wait the week or two for some benchmarks to be published. after all, unless you need the computer today waiting a couple weeks won't make any difference. and i have to believe that the first computers off the line are a riskier bet in terms of reliability than ones produced later...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sensible approach - we are interested in the i7 against the Quad Nehalem and against the Quad Xenon ( used ). The latter has some good flexibility and we want to see how they compare.

The 8 processing threads should mean the Nehalem is still far superior.

I'm more interested in when this comes to the MacBook Pro.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

personally I would go with i7, it will be cheaper and easier to upgrade the ram latter.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

A lot depends on how long you're planning to keep this machine, and what you do with it. Things are going to change A LOT over the next five years.

If you do "basic" stuff primarily, or know you'll be getting a newer machine in 2-3 years, I'd go with the i5 and lotsa RAM.

If you do pro-level work and/or plan on hanging on to this machine for as long as possible, I'd go with the i7 and invest in lotsa RAM on down the line when it will become more important.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Some benchmarks have been posted: 
Core i7-Based 27" iMac Benchmarks Show Significant Improvements - Mac Rumors

Of course, benchmarks don't necessarily reflect your particular use, but the improvement of i7 over i5 looks significant (35%).


----------



## meall (Aug 15, 2007)

Saw that, and I must admit it is tempting to buy the i7. But since I'm not using it as a production unit (personal usage) I still think the i5 should be enough. 

The problem so far is that we saw only benchmark, not real usage applications. For instance, does an i7 be faster on Handbrake, or iDVD, or iMovie encoding than an i5? Not sure. In Aperture, I suspect it will be relatively the same. Even a new version of Aperture should not give that much impact. And if Apple comes out with an optimize version of FinalCul Express, maybe that will help. I'm planning to move that way anyway. 

And knowing myself, maybe in 3-4 years I will want the new thing available from Apple. So will the i7 maybe help me keep it longer? I'm not sure of that. At some point, Apple will release something different, just just new power horse, that I will want or require (USB3?, FW1600?, Light Peak?). So even if the power is there, I may want to change for other reason. The iMac behind not very upgradable, a computer change maybe require.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

meall said:


> The problem so far is that we saw only benchmark, not real usage applications. For instance, does an i7 be faster on Handbrake, or iDVD, or iMovie encoding than an i5? Not sure. In Aperture, I suspect it will be relatively the same. Even a new version of Aperture should not give that much impact. And if Apple comes out with an optimize version of FinalCul Express, maybe that will help. I'm planning to move that way anyway.


The i7 will definitely be faster on things like Handbrake, iDVD/iMovie encoding. How *much* faster is evidenced in the Benchmarks. Overall scores are ~35% higher (7100 vs 9600) for the i7 versus the i5. IMHO, that's gonna translate into some decent speed savings for processor-intense stuff like rendering.

As MacRumors points out - the Geekbench scores of the i7 iMac are around the level of the Quad-Core 2.93Ghz MacPro at over $1100 Price-savings (and the MacPro doesn't have a 27" IPS screen on it!)

iMac 27" i7 = $2319

MacPro 2.93Ghz Quad = $3499

As has been said on these boards before - this means Apple will pretty much definitely have to update/lower the price on the MacPro in early 2010. I know the Tower is more expandable, but for a $1100 price savings (+at least ~$500 more for a 27" IPS Screen) the cost-performance ratio is hugely out of whack.


----------



## meall (Aug 15, 2007)

fyrefly said:


> The i7 will definitely be faster on things like Handbrake, iDVD/iMovie encoding. How *much* faster is evidenced in the Benchmarks.


I totally agree with you, but since those tasks won't be done that much often for me, is it worth the $200+ price for the upgrade! 

For someone that plans to buy a Mac Pro, I would consider the i7 for sure. But for a personal usage, I do not think it is worth the difference.


----------



## JustAMacUser (Oct 21, 2007)

meall said:


> I totally agree with you, but since those tasks won't be done that much often for me, is it worth the $200+ price for the upgrade!
> 
> For someone that plans to buy a Mac Pro, I would consider the i7 for sure. But for a personal usage, I do not think it is worth the difference.


I'm with you on this. I was initially planning to get an i5 but when I saw these benchmarks for a moment I had second thoughts. However, even though I do rendering once or twice a week, my present encoding times (on my early 2006 MacBook Pro) are more than sufficient so an i5 would give me that much more headroom. Unless someone really needs that extra power, it makes more sense to save the $200 and get an i5. That's what I'm planning.


----------



## meall (Aug 15, 2007)

JustAMacUser, you got me right at my tip there. Like I said, if my job 8 hours a day was to encode video, I would jump on the i7. But since my encoding can wait (most of the time I do it at night), an i5 will be more than enough.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

I would still say that if you can somehow squeeze out the extra money - get the i7. The rule with computers is buy when you need and buy the best possible computer you can afford. Then it'll last the longest. 

Tho, if you are a user that typically upgrades every 1-2 years, the i5/i7 thing will be less of an issue.


----------



## meall (Aug 15, 2007)

Personally, like I said, if I was using my Mac as a production unit, yes all the way to i7.

For the few times I use really CPU intensive tasks, I'm not sure it will pay that much.

Other than that, I need to renew my MobileMe subscription, another $129. 

And I also have a MacBookPro I just bought, that makes lots of money! And I'm not even talking about my new iPhone and monthly plan... And I must consider the price I will sell my white iMac. Based on last negotiations, it is worth a few hundreds dollars less than what I was expecting (around 800$). 

So I think my budget is for an i5, and in 2-3 years, i7 will be the base iMac model if all goes well! And for less money!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Meall, don't pay $129 for a MobileMe subscription. Get it on-line. Lot's of places offer it for less than $100. Amazon has it for US$64.

Amazon.com: mobileme renewal


----------



## meall (Aug 15, 2007)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Meall, don't pay $129 for a MobileMe subscription. Get it on-line. Lot's of places offer it for less than $100. Amazon has it for US$64.
> 
> Amazon.com: mobileme renewal


I'm talking about the family pack. So far, I'm not seen better price than the $129 when you buy a new Mac.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

True (also, you need a US mailing address for Amazon.com).


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

meall said:


> I need to renew my MobileMe subscription, another $129.


It's $79 if you buy it with a Mac. $109 otherwise.

EDIT: Oh wait, perhaps you are talking about the family pack? It's $129.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

My ancient Rev A G5 dualie scores 1755. :-(


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Where does a quad core 2.66 Xeon ( original 2.66 not current ) score on that?


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

This Link:
Mac Pro : Geekbench Result Browser

Says the MacPro1,1 Xeon 5150x2 gets a 5272 - or just barely above the Dual Core 3.33Ghz iMac


----------



## meall (Aug 15, 2007)

The Doug said:


> My ancient Rev A G5 dualie scores 1755. :-(


A graph that tell a lot, for sure


----------



## laserbluemini (Oct 6, 2009)

i7, more ram later.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

i7 all the way!! Not even a question for me. Keep the standard 4GB Apple gives you which I believe is divided into 2x 2GB dimms with the other two free. Then add your own 2x 2GB dimms as the 4GB dimms are much too expensive still and will be for at least a year or so. 

iMac Core i7 versus other Macs



> "Gap Spanner"
> The iMac Core i7 (quad-core) finally gives us an "all in one" Mac that can "run with the big dogs." It is just a few steps behind the 2.93GHz quad-core Mac Pro and significantly faster than the fastest dual-core iMacs -- at least when running "MP aware" software. With memory expansion up to 16GB, drive options up to 2TB, Radeon HD 4850 graphics, and a 27" LED display, there is very little else you would want if you are a fan of "all in one."
> 
> Considering the fact that a four-core Mac Pro 2.93GHz with 8GB of RAM, 1TB HDD, Radeon HD 4870, and 24" LED Cinema display costs $4448, the iMac Core i7 2.8GHz with 8GB of RAM, 1TB HDD, Radeon HD 4850, and 27" LED display at $2399 is a huge bargain.
> ...


----------



## emalen (Oct 10, 2004)

I picked up an i5 at yorkdale on Monday but have yet to to open it as I'm debating returning it and favor of an i7.


----------



## meall (Aug 15, 2007)

I've been talking to a friend recently, and he convince me that the i7 is the way to go. As simple as this: it cost $200 now, you have the best performance right away, and even if you keep the computer only 2 years, that makes it less than 10$ a month. Convincing, hey?


----------



## JustAMacUser (Oct 21, 2007)

meall said:


> I've been talking to a friend recently, and he convince me that the i7 is the way to go. As simple as this: it cost $200 now, you have the best performance right away, and even if you keep the computer only 2 years, that makes it less than 10$ a month. Convincing, hey?


If one can afford it; sure, why not? But I would hazard a guess that the majority of people in the world simply don't need the power an i7 provides. That's $200 saved, or $300 if one puts it on their mortgage. 

I just read a review on Macworld.com that had the i5 and i7 beating certain Mac Pro's. Their comment was that Apple hasn't blurred the line between consumer and professional systems, they've all but erased it. That gives us quite an idea of just how fast these machines are.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Good point, JustAMacUser: power users (like most of us) want/need the i7, but the i5 is waaaaaay more than the average Mac users needs. All this talk is fine (and accurate), but people reading this thread shouldn't get the impression that the i5 is trash. It's more powerful than ANY consumer-level computer you're using now, and if three of your main apps are "Facebook, Office and Mail," any Macintosh is going to handle that like kids handle candy.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

chas_m said:


> It's more powerful than ANY consumer-level computer you're using now, and if three of your main apps are "Facebook, Office and Mail," any Macintosh is going to handle that like kids handle candy.


If this is the case, PC makers including Apple will simply die. These companies need to make compelling cases for hardware upgrades and they do this by making the OS and applications more hardware intensive. Of course, Microsoft manages, somehow, to "upgrade" its Office apps to require better hardware for essentially no gain in utility. I swear Office 2008 has little extra true utility over Office 98 (I am not a power user of Office apps and find Powerpoint so unintuitive now that I solely use Keynote). Remind me why I still have Office installed?


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

chas_m said:


> Good point, JustAMacUser: power users (like most of us) want/need the i7, but the i5 is waaaaaay more than the average Mac users needs. All this talk is fine (and accurate), but people reading this thread shouldn't get the impression that the i5 is trash. It's more powerful than ANY consumer-level computer you're using now, and if three of your main apps are "Facebook, Office and Mail," any Macintosh is going to handle that like kids handle candy.


If that's the reasoning, then save yourself another $300 and get the C2D 3.06. 

The OP said:


> For the Imacs, It's ether get an I7 and stick with 4 gigs of ram or get 8 gigs of ram and go with an I5. My budget will not allow me to do both.
> 
> What should I do?


I and others are merely saying that it is a better bang for your buck to invest the $200 into a CPU as that's the better performance gain and waiting for the 4GB DIMM prices to come down.


----------



## alienanxiety (Oct 21, 2009)

Would there be a marked difference though between the i5 and i7 running final cut studio 3 and adobe master suite CS4? those are my most often used apps.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

alienanxiety said:


> Would there be a marked difference though between the i5 and i7 running final cut studio 3 and adobe master suite CS4? those are my most often used apps.


I would say yes. In FCP Compressor can utilize all the cores, and if nothing else Snow Leopard's Grand Central will distribute the processing and speed up all rendering/batch-type operations.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

As my most intensive app is Lightroom, I'm going for the i5 (quad core + better graphics) and 4 Gigs of RAM. when LR3 comes out I'll probably add some RAM


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

JustAMacUser said:


> I just read a review on Macworld.com that had the i5 and i7 beating certain Mac Pro's. Their comment was that Apple hasn't blurred the line between consumer and professional systems, they've all but erased it. That gives us quite an idea of just how fast these machines are.


*Older MAC Pros not the Nelham*, the Nelham quad are still faster and the 8 core just kicks ass, but when you factor in a monitor, the i5/i7 are the best bang for your buck.


----------



## doglips (Feb 28, 2001)

*Might want to have at look at this:*

MacNN | Core i7-based iMacs suffer cracked screens, DOA failures


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

jeepguy said:


> *Older MAC Pros not the Nelham*, the Nelham quad are still faster and the 8 core just kicks ass, but when you factor in a monitor, the i5/i7 are the best bang for your buck.


Nope. I dunno how MacWorld Benchamrked them, but on their "SpeedMark 5 Suite", both the i5 and i7 iMacs bested both the 2.66Quad and 2.26Octo Nehalem MacPros.










Of course, if you wanna get the 2.66 Octo into the mix, it still beats the i7 iMac, but at more than double the cost - and without a 27" IPS screen.

2.66Octo - $5479 CAD

i7 iMac - $2319 CAD.

Yet more proof that Apple has *got* to upgrade the MacPros in the New year... the price/performance ratio is getting ridiculous!


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

fyrefly said:


> Yet more proof that Apple has *got* to upgrade the MacPros in the New year... the price/performance ratio is getting ridiculous!


The price difference between the iMac and the Mac Pro is not entirely dictated by performance but rather the cost of parts used to produce it. SL and most software today is not optimized to take a full performance advantages of quad or octo cores. I tend to believe that Apple will focus on refining the software rather then the hardware chase to again define a clear performance line between the two moving forward. 

I always thought the performance blend between an iMac and a Mac Pro/PowerMac has been possible in the past if Apple was able to integrate or chose to use higher end desktop class processors in iMacs instead of mobile class ones. If anything, a faster iMac will probably truly define the Mac Pro as a workstation for those that need it's power and expansion on a professional level or some that just want to choose their own monitor and be able to expand it. That line is very clear. And Apple knows this. It's also probably the reason why Apple never released a mid sized tower, as it would also blend the performance gap too much and provide the much sought after expandability some wanted - which would of really hurt Mac Pro sales.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

You make good points MACinist, but even for a professional, save the $1500K+ on a MacPro and buy an iMac and update it in a year, rather than having to expand your MacPro in a year.

PLus Intel is releasing the new Nehalem EX (Codename Beckton) Processors with up to 8 cores on a single chip and Integrated Memory Controllers in Q1 2010. Apple's gonna probably use those in new MacPros in Early 2010. (Apple seems to get first Dibs on Xeon processors lately)



tomshardware.com said:


> Intel's Nehalem EP, now available in Mac Pro workstations, is the latest line of x86 server chips designed for workstations and servers that consist of one or two processors, with up to four cores on a single processor. The Nehalem EX architecture takes the design one step further and supports servers with four or more processors. Not only will they have up to eight core on a single chip, but will feature support for Intel's QuickPath Interconnect technology and utilize an on-chip memory controller.


more here:
Intel Hints at Octa-Core CPUs this Year - Tom's Hardware


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

fyrefly said:


> You make good points MACinist, but even for a professional, save the $1500K+ on a MacPro and buy an iMac and update it in a year, rather than having to expand your MacPro in a year.
> 
> PLus Intel is releasing the new Nehalem EX (Codename Beckton) Processors with up to 8 cores on a single chip and Integrated Memory Controllers in Q1 2010. Apple's gonna probably use those in new MacPros in Early 2010. (Apple seems to get first Dibs on Xeon processors lately)
> 
> ...


No doubt about the hardware updates but until they optimize SL and software, it doesn't matter how many cores they stick in there, the performance gap vs price difference will still land in favour of the iMac. And sure, some PRo's that don't need expandability and don't care about the glossy monitor will choose an iMac.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

MACinist said:


> No doubt about the hardware updates but *until they optimize SL and software*, it doesn't matter how many cores they stick in there, the performance gap vs price difference will still land in favour of the iMac.


Two things:

1. Grand Central. I thought they already optimized the software for multiple cores? At least the finder and core OSX apps.

2. As far as I know, Unoptimized software will run just as slow on an iMac with SL as it will on a MacPro with SL, especially if it can only take advantage of one or two cores, will it not?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fyrefly said:


> ... Apple has *got* to upgrade the MacPros in the New year... the price/performance ratio is getting ridiculous!


This is the scuttlebutt:



> The next Mac Pro might be using Intel's six-core Gulftown (Core i9) processor, possibly in a 12-core configuration, but'll have a custom motherboard that'll support 8GB and 16GB RAM modules (for up to 128GB), along with 10Gbps ethernet.



Gizmodo - The Next Mac Pro Sounds Like a 12-Core Hellbeast
Hardmac - Future Mac Pro: Apple to Enjoy Short-Term Exclusive Use of Future Xeon CPU?

If it comes to pass the latest iMacs won't even benchmark close...


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

Fyrefly: which core OSX apps were optimized? I've heard of rumors of iLife and iWork going 64bit finally in the next version but have not heard anything about having mcpu support. GCD's benefit will only be realized when Apple's software (like FCP, iLife, iWork, Aperture etc..) and Developers software start utilizing the technology. It merely being there as part of the OS without threaded apps will not make anything much faster. 



> As far as I know, Unoptimized software will run just as slow on an iMac with SL as it will on a MacPro with SL, especially if it can only take advantage of one or two cores, will it not?


It depends who you ask.... a Mac Pro owner may tend to agree with your statement, but an iMac owner will rather say that "Unoptimized software will run just as *FAST* on an iMac with SL as it will on a MacPro with SL."

Agreed, the unoptimized software is where the performance blends the two. 
With the right apps and the right tasks, even the current Mac Pro's will show their worth. For most things, a current gen Mac Pro is overkill. And it's for those most things that the new iMac is blending the gap. So the extra price tag will be justified for those that can realize it's value in demanding tasks and optimized software.


----------

