I5 vs i7, dual-core vs quad, GHz, GHz, GHz -- what does it all mean?

I'm looking at the mac mini configurations, and comparing with iMac configurations. I'm trying to argue we should go the mini route. I want this to be true for a couple of reasons:
The users are doing page layout or are artists. It's really nice for them to have a BIG screen, but it would be nice to be able to get nice screens and then not replace them as frequently as we replace cpus.
Machines get "handed down" from users who need lots of cpu and memory to users who don't need that so much. Those users might not need all that screen real estate, either, so in the computer "musical chairs" it would make more sense for people to keep the monitor that fits their work needs.
Eventually machines end up running serverish tasks back here in the computer room. (We have a collection of junk back here and it's awesome how well it works. We just retired our last G3 tower a few weeks ago, and we've got lots of old G4s and G5s, too.) Cast-off minis are great for us -- just stack them up and plug them into a kvm switch. Towers are fine, too. But a bunch of 20" or 21.5" iMacs? Yikes!
But looking at the minis, they appear to be underpowered next to the iMacs. The mid-price mini can be ordered with an i7 but it's only dual core not quad. The GHz on the cpus is lower. Is there something I'm missing here? (Like stuffing memory into the machine is more important than the cpu, or that the extra cores aren't going to do any good for my users running InDesign...)
So, help me out here -- how do I justify the mini? It just doesn't seem to have quite the same horsepower as what should be an "equivalent" iMac, at least on paper.

The bottom line depends on what your most intensive
application is. For instance, Photoshop will actually
perform better on a 2.7 dualcore that a 2.0 quad core.
Most of it's operations a singlethreaded (only doing one
thing at a time). But as an example, Hanbrake, which is
a video conversion application, will run 2 to 4 times faster
on a 2.0 quad core vs. 2.7 dual core.
The 2011 Macbook Pro line uses similar processors and
there are many benchmark reports for them.
The other item is graphics rendering. If you have graphics
intensive applications that are graphics chip dependent,
then you will want to opt for the Mini with the discrete
graphics option vs. the integrated Intel option.

Similar Messages

Macbook pro, dual core or quad core?

Hey guys Im getting an early college present and was wondering which Macbook I should look at. This will be my one and only computer while im in college. No photo editing or anything like that, maybe some video editing but it will be almost none. Will be used to surf the web and write documents. My question is should i get the dual core or quad core processor? Will it really matter for what i want it for? One thing I absolutely hate is lag! So the faster of the two the better.

tony477g wrote:
So if I went with the quadcore because you guys say it is faster than the 2.9 ghz dualcore. Would the difference be noticable between the 2.6 ghz and the 2.3 ghz? I noticed the 2.6 has 8 gb to the 4gb and 750gb to the 500 gb.
Well, actually, only one guy said the quad core would be faster, but it is not clear why they said that. You said you were only going to use it "to surf the web and write documents." Well, guess what. You don't need a quad-core for that. You don't need a dual-core for that. I've surfed the web and written documents on my old single-core iPhone. Those tasks are just not that demanding.
So unless there are more things you want to do that you haven't mentioned, there is just about no way it's worth paying for quad-core or a 2.6GHz processor if all you are going to do is surf the web and write documents.
The quad-core is going to speed up operations that specifically benefit from parallel processing, like intensive editing of photo/audio/video, or bulk encoding of audio and video, or specific math apps, stuff like that. And most Mac users would not benefit from choosing the 2.6GHz over the 2.3GHz because the performance of so many common uses depends not only on the CPU speed, but actually on the overall balance of CPU, RAM, and disc. In other words, if you really have a legitimate application for 2.6GHz it usually means you must also install a great deal more RAM and also an SSD to avoid creating a bottleneck that holds back the CPU. But then you would have a machine that is massively overpowered and overpriced for surfing the web and writing documents.
You could surf the web and write documents quite effectively on the least expensive MacBook that Apple sells. But since you do want to keep it throughout all of college, it is a good idea to buy something higher than the bottom of the line. For a Mac for very basic uses that should last four years, I would suggest:
13-inch MacBook Air with 256GB SSD storage and 8GB RAM
13-inch MacBook Pro with 500GB HD storage and 8GB RAM
13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display with 256GB SSD storage and 8GB RAM
(You didn't mention what your budget is)
I suggested 13-inch because it's more portable than the 15-inch but more comfortable for 4 years than an 11-inch. I chose storage sizes that would be appropriate since you said you would do some video. And I chose 8GB RAM because 4GB may not be enough for 4 years, and also because insufficient RAM is often a bigger cause of lag than CPU or disk speed.
If you have a limited amount of money, from this point on you'll need to justify why you would want a bigger screen, a faster CPU, or more cores given the two tasks you said you'd be doing most of the time. Because again, if you didn't actually need a Mac, you could write documents and surf the web on an iPad with the Logitech Ultrathin Keyboard Cover and be done for $600.

How can I tell if I have an i7 dual core or quad core processor?

I just got my brand new (2011 refurbished) MacBook Pro yesterday and it is slow and choppy right out of the box. I checked the "About This Mac" screen and it says I have the "2.2 GHz Intel Core i7". It says nothing about "dual core" or "quad core". I thought I was buying a quad core, but now I'm starting to wonder exactly what I bought.
Does anyone have any insight on this?
Thanks,
Matt
Chicago, IL

You have a quad core.
Number of Cores: 4
Regards,
Captfred

Should I go with a dual core or quad core MacBook?

Hi all,
I am going to be a college student this fall majoring in a science related field. My first question is what processor I should go with. I am looking at either a 13" MBP with a dual core i7 and 8 GB of RAM (750GB HD), 13" MBP w/ a dual core i5, 8GB RAM and 500GB HD, or a 15" quad core i7 with 8GB RAM and 500 GB HD. I plan on upgrading to a SSD once prices come down in a few years and would like to stick with the MBP without Retina Display so that I can upgrade RAM and HD later on.
Will I see a noticeable difference between dual core i5 and i7? From what I have seen, it has not been much of a difference. I only plan to do light Photoshop and doubt I will do any video editing or even 3D modelling for the most part. This will mainly be used for research (web), streaming, and Office. I know that the i5 is more than capable of all of that, but I am looking to make this machine last 4+ years at least. That is why I am considering jumping up to the 15" MBP just to get the quad core and ensure that I will have a longer lasting machine.
Most of the time the laptop will be travelling around, but I will also be plugging this into a Thunderbolt Display for more screen space.
Let me know what you all think! Right now, I am leaning towards the 13" MBP with dual core i7, but this is subject to change. Will it last throughout college?
Thanks,
Sean

seanbrownie wrote:
Screen size set aside since I plan on using a TBD most of the time,
Then you want the more powerful graphics of the 15" with it's dedicated GPU to better/faster drive the external display as it's larger, and larger displays pumps more pixels so you also need the better cooling of the 15"
would adding more RAM solve the OS X upgrade issues over time?
Yes, but more RAM isn't a cure all, processors and graphics also has to be powerful to last longer.
RAM allows one to do more things at the same time, and gives a performance boot with programs with larger files it's working on (like large Photoshop and video files)
Plus, would upgrading the HD to SSD help in making the jump to say OS X 10.11, 10.12 down the road easier?
Not that much really, with the non-Retina 15" you can put in a 1TB SSD when the prices come down further
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100008120%2060041492 0&IsNodeId=1&name=513GB%20-%201TB
It would be nice to save a little on the screen size since I won't be able to utilize the 15" to its maximum potential when I'm working at my desk.
Your on the wrong platform if your looking to save money.
If you compare specs and performance of the hardware Apple offers for sale and equivilent i5/dual cores with Intel HD graphics, you'll find for $1500 buys a Mac and for $400 buys the same in a Windows PC.
Really the best value comes with the 15" as if your in that pro market for such a machine you might as well get OS X with it as PC's cost about the same in that range.
The really best value is a Windows 7 tower, that way it's parts are all upgradable and can last a decade or more on one Widnows OS version.
Several of my friends think I'm crazy spending $10,000 on Mac's in 10 years, they are still on their XP towers and haven't paid much more than $2000 over that same time.
Of course now XP is dead and they have to upgrade to Windows 7 towers, but they really get good value out of their boxes.
Mac's are not for those tight on a budget, I don't advise. A Windows machine will do the job for most people
Perhaps a Windows 3D gaming tower and a iPad?

Dual core or Quad Core

I know elements will run on a "Dual core or Quad Core" system, but will it use the "Dual core or Quad Core" feature

Yes, the Editor will make good use of multiple processors, while the Organizer appears to make somewhat less use of multiple processors. PSE 7 has a severe bug with respect to raw files, but that's fixed in PSE 7.

Mac Pro 1,1 (2006) Upgrade from Dual-Core to Quad (or more)

Sorry if posted before, was unable to find anything. Is it possible to upgrade a Mac Pro 1,1 (2006) Upgrade from Dual-Core to Quad-Core (or more)? If it is, would you mind providing a bit of info on what I would need to do this.
Many thanks.

Do some Google searching and visit XLR8YourMac.

Dual core versus quad core?

Is there a noticeable difference in speed when comparing a dual core versus a quad core iMac where the advertised speeds are essentially the same, say -- 2.7 ghz CPUs, both running the latest Mac OS 10.82, and iLife, iWork, or MS Office suite programs for MAC?

Chances are for the type of work you're doing an i7 iMac would be a complete waste of money. Where you may benefit is 5 years from now if your work flow changes a lot where you use apps that draw on the power of an i7. However none of can look into a crystal ball and decide today what we will need years down the road so if you want to bet safe, buy as much as you can afford.

Upgrading From Dual Core to Quad Core on an MSI 7246 Power Up Edition

Good day folks.
I'm upgrading a dual core Pentium Extreme Edition 955 (3.46 GHz) to a quad core Intel QX6800 Extreme Edition (2.93 GHz) which my MSI-7246 Power Up Edition is supposed to support.
I'm running Windows XP with all the latest patches installed.
Are there any special procedures I need to follow to accomplish this without a hitch? I.E., I certainly do no want to have to reinstall the OS.
I've read a couple of posts which talk about deleting the processor entries which are now correctly listed in Device Manager.
Thanks in advance for any help.

Quote from: Henry on 14-November-08, 13:32:48
I forgot to add, clear CMOS wouldn't hurt before you start it up after the CPU change.
OK. Will do. Sounds like good advice.
Appreciate the tip.
EDIT: As a follow-up the upgrade went smoothly except for loading the drivers for the 2nd, 3rd & 4th cores. It took me a couple of hours but I finally discovered a work around. Basically, I had to try and manually pick a driver. With Windows XP the list presented under Intel did not contain the one I wanted. However, by picking another one and then bailing at the confirmation window it would somehow put the right one in for a given core.
Go figure ....

Dual-core or Quad-core for Premiere, After Effects, and Photoshop CS4?

We are planning to purchase around 25 computers for a computer lab for working with CS4 Production Premium at the high school level. Mainly Premiere Pro, After Effects, and Photoshop. Our budget is, unfortunately, a mere $550-$625 per machine (just the tower though, we have monitors). I've already established that a 64-bit operating system makes a significant difference in the performance, even though Photoshop is the only 64-bit application, and I'm now hung up on whether or not it's worth the cost of a quad-core processor over a dual-core.
I'm discovering the different hardware needs for each application, so I'm trying to find an economic balance that will give me the best performance per buck. It seems that Premiere benefits significantly from more cores (we're editing 1440x1080 AVCHD), and this article over at Tom's Hardware has convinced me that I don't want to compromise with a hyperthreaded dual-core for After Effects.
I'm also struggling with what part the graphics card plays in the mix. Which applications lean on the graphics card, and will it make much difference as long as I meet the requirements (OpenGL 2.0, Shader Model 3.0, Direct3D 10, and 256 Mb Ram)?
I understand I will need to settle for less-than-awesome with my budget, but I'm already making sacrifices to get the number to $625. I would like to make sure that those sacrifices will be worth it for a quad-core system.

I think I may have answered my own question by looking at these charts over at Tom's Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CS4 ,1404.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/Adobe-Photoshop-CS-4,1 387.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/Video-Editing-Adobe-After-Effec ts-CS5,2427.html
I think that the jump to the quad core in Premiere Pro is worth it, even if I don't see as large of an improvement in Photoshop or After Effects. I am still interested in the role of the graphics card in the mix if anyone can shed some light on that. Will an integrated graphics card (like an Intel GMA x4500 or Radeon HD4200) suffice or will I need an actual graphics card to realize the benefits?
Thanks

What the heck is Single Core, Dual Core, and Quad Core Processor Configurat

I am listing an eMac computer on ebay. I have all the information necessary except processor configuration. Do eMacs come with Single, Dual, or Quad processor configurations? Or does it vary? I don't even know what those are really.

Make sure to follow these steps when selling*:
http://www.macmaps.com/selling.html
As was already indicated all eMacs were single core.
Apple didn't start releasing multicore machines until the later G5s.
- * Links to my pages may give me compensation.

Dual core vs Quad Core for mild video and photo editing

I've owned PC's since ever and I'm now contemplating on coming over to the Mac world, my question is would a fully upgraded 13" MBPr Suffice for mild photo and video editing or should I try to shell out the extra cash for a lower end 15" with Quad-Core?
13" specs
2.8GHz Dual-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
16GB 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage
2199$
15" specs
2.3GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.5GHz
16GB 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage
2599$

Sorry, yes it will suffice? if so how many years would I expect this computer to last me? (Sorry I'm really new to apple)

Dual core vs Quad core for a Filmmaker?

Hi, I'm a 14 year-old filmmaker who really wants their next computer to be a mac mini. I am obviously on a tight budget being 14, so I was thinking just buying the standard dual-core processor. But for a filmmaker like myself, is it worth the extra $200 for my heavy-duty video-editing applications? I would use a mixture of Apple Motion 5, and the video-effects program Hitfilm Ultimate. I know quad is faster, but is it worth it for me?
Thanks.

"Hyperthreading" is the key. Hyper-threading enables each execution unit (or core, if you will) to process two threads (tasks) simultaneously. It can do this because not every instruction takes only a single instruction cycle. Sometimes instructions have to wait for a read from memory, which can take many clock cycles. Sometimes multiple instructions can be performed at once -- for example, a floating point addition and an integer multiplication, as long as both instructions already have their operands in registers and store the results in different registers. Hyper-threading enables each processor to handle multiple tasks by allowing one task to work while the other is waiting for a result, or allowing both instructions to be completed at the same time because they use non-conflicting resources.
So, two "hyperthreaded" cores work as fast as four without hyperthreading, or the difference in speed is so negligible, you wouldn't notice it. Since the Mac Mini Core i7 is also hyperthreaded, it works as well as dual quad cores, so if you need inudstry standard speed, then the Core i7 would be your best choice.
As I said though, I can take 1080p video from my Canon Vixia, and edit it with OnLocation or Premiere Pro, and render it with barely a drain on my processor cores (2 or 4). So far, the biggest vid file I've done was about 250Mb, which was about a ten minute shoot. If you're going to work with 2Gb and up, then I'd definitely go with the Core i7 and max the RAM out to 16Gb.

Dual core vs quad core and nvidia vs ati

I'm curious to hear opinions and experiences from both sides...i'm considering purchasing an iMac w/ a quad core and I want to know more about how it performs against a dual core in these areas: Second Life, DVD burning, iMovie, iTunes, Toast, GIMP, Audacity, etc...
I would appreciate any input on this topic...thanks so much!!!

Sorry, yes it will suffice? if so how many years would I expect this computer to last me? (Sorry I'm really new to apple)

AMD dual core 64 X2 and Opteron 1**; what motherboard.

Hi to everybody, my name is Mauro and I am Italian. I have had for many years a lot of mobos MSI that are shown always reliable and with really excellent utility. An example the LiveUpdate that unlike utility of other brand is very comfortable and reliable. Currently I have a system AMD 64 X2 3800+ stepE4 with Asus A8N SLI Premium and memory RAM G.Skill PC4000 (chip Samsung UCCC) F1-4000USU2-2GBHZ PC4000. I have many problems of stability and I would want to return to the brand MSI. I use the PC as Workstation I am not interested to the SLI and I would want soon to pass to the CPU Opteron 1 * * dual core. The customer care G.Skill has reported that the brands of reference for the development of the forms are the MSI and few others. You would know me to suggest a complete mainboard in the endowments, silent and compatible with the CPU from me you quote. How VGA I have both chip ATI X700 Silent Pipes 256Mb or NVIDIA 6600 always silent pipes 256Mb. I am not interested to overclock. I am observing with attention the RD480Neo2 and other mobo with chipset NForce Ultra K8N Neo4 Platinum. Thanks for your share and suggestions.
Mauro

Quote from: Steve F. on 11-January-06, 03:04:05
Skippy, that's changing fast. Probably most major manufacturers are now explicitly supporting the Opteron.
Even MSI is getting there: K8N Diamond Plus
Hi,
To a careful study I have discovered that perhaps my Asus A8NSLIPremium has a problem that Asus is resolving. However I have asked to one friend of mine to make a will the MSI K8N Diamond Plus; in Germany it is already available some exemplary. The fact that the development has been made really with the Ram DDR that I have purchased (the G.Skill PC4000) it is a very important factor for the stability of a system. You introduces then with a good section of feeding to 4 phases it is very important. Certainly I am not interested to the characteristics of overclock but a Ferrari is not purchased only for racing. I have not told you that in so many years I have almost always had 2 brands that have always guaranteed me reliability: Abit and MSI. Objectively now that have tried also a lot of Asuses (5) I are not fully satisfied. For instance the Utility: LiveUpdate2 gave me reliability in the update of the bios (operation that finishes in DOS); the utility AsusUpdate because of a bug in the summer '05 are cost me 3 MB (update that departs in auto and it finishes in Windows). Resulted not could remain without MB I have had to purchase other identical MB. And treating itself of corruption of bios no guarantee. I have also discarded Tyan because it accepts only certified RAM DDR and their support it doesn't guarantee the operation with my DDR G.SKILL. Now that are in game I don't sell certain the DDR!
Mauro

Dual core to quad core

Can it be done? Is there any reason this isn't possible I don't care how or what else needs to be done with in reason of course. I mean I want to do it my self and just drop them in and if I need buy the right ram. But I can't find any info on this subjet anyware.

That 9800 is AGP and only of use in PPC.
Tutorial: http://www.o0o.it/pro/
Intel 53xx keeps improving on its line of chips.
Quad-core and beyond
Your system was configured with PSU for a given load. Apple uses a different configuration for 3GHz 8-core w/ X1900. There are suppose to be at least 3 different system designs.
And there are some excellent chips on the horizon with 45nm Xeon quads due in '08 (except for a 135W 3GHz slated for November and $999 OEM price apiece). Making the "upgrade vs new" Anandtech
They also did the first review of 8-core "upgrade"
Harpertown
I'd wait until 1Q '08.

I5 vs i7, dual-core vs quad, GHz, GHz, GHz -- what does it all mean?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for