Hi,

I use Aperture, iMovie, etc. for most of may photo/video processing. I'm drooling over the 27" iMac, and I'm not sure if the i5 or i7 processors are worth an extra $300-$500 over the Core 2 Duo.

I'm shooting with a 5DII, and the 21MP files are definitely a bear for Aperture to process on my current iMac with 2.16 ghz Core 2 Duo with 1GB of RAM. The 1GB of RAM may be part of the problem, but I'm also highly motivated to get the new 27" display and perhaps 2TB of onboard hard disk space. I also shoot the occasional HD home movie, etc.

Anyway, I'm not all that tech savvy, and I'm wondering if any Mac users out there might advise on whether the i5 ($2000) or i7 ($2200) processors would likely provide noticeable functional improvement over the 3 ghz Core 2 Duo version ($1700) for Aperture, etc.

What do you think? Thanks!

Jim

4 cores will be worth it, and so will the GPU

thanks Matthew

I'm not a Mac user but I upgraded from a Core 2 Duo 2.4 ghz to an i7 920 with 12 gb of memory and the change is quite remarkable. I have a 50D and a 5D II, which both produce large files.

Go for the i7, you won't regret it. Also get as much memory as you can but not from Apple.

Agree on the RAM, 8GB would be a good sweet spot if you are tight on cash. - get the ram from OWC - macsales.com.

Or if you buy the imac from a place like Expercom - the ram bundled is actually cheaper:
http://www.expercom.com/product_detail.html?p=632032

2TB of on board space? Wouldn't you be better off with that as external for when you need to migrate to a new machine. Better still a NAS or Drobo?

Gordon

the new chips are full blown desktop chips the previous core2duo are mobile chips. for imovie and aperture get a big video card.

anyone know when the quad cores will be released?

According to a report on AppleInsider, some of the i5s shipped on the weekend.

flash wrote:
2TB of on board space? Wouldn't you be better off with that as external for when you need to migrate to a new machine. Better still a NAS or Drobo?

Gordon

You're probably right - is there any speed degradation working from an external drive? Do most of you use an external drive for processing? Or for backup?

I'll have to get familiar with "NAS and Drobo".

Thanks for your thoughts.

Jim Woidat wrote:
flash wrote:
2TB of on board space? Wouldn't you be better off with that as external for when you need to migrate to a new machine. Better still a NAS or Drobo?

Gordon

You're probably right - is there any speed degradation working from an external drive? Do most of you use an external drive for processing? Or for backup?

I'll have to get familiar with "NAS and Drobo".

Thanks for your thoughts.

I would probably process them on the internal drive and then save them to the external drive.

flash wrote:
2TB of on board space? Wouldn't you be better off with that as external for when you need to migrate to a new machine. Better still a NAS or Drobo?

Gordon


do keep in mind that with newer cameras and the amount we shoot that 2tb isnt that much space.

as an example we shoot 35-40 weddings a year and 50-100 portrait sessions. we shoot raw and this year alone we hit 2.9 tb of images. so 2tb on board is a good way to go.

If time is money... get the i7. It chews through encoding tasks with ease. Much faster clock for clock doing encoding versus the core2duo. The i5 is not bad either... however no hyperthreading and more likely your motherboard will support 6 core cpus in the future with the i7.

Gotta have this one dig at apple though... $300-500 for an upgrade For that price you can buy a complete motherboard and cpu. Okay ..feel better now.

dan727 wrote:
If time is money... get the i7. It chews through encoding tasks with ease. Much faster clock for clock doing encoding versus the core2duo. The i5 is not bad either... however no hyperthreading and more likely your motherboard will support 6 core cpus in the future with the i7.

Gotta have this one dig at apple though... $300-500 for an upgrade For that price you can buy a complete motherboard and cpu. Okay ..feel better now.

The difference between the core2 and the true quad core or more processors is a quantum leap. With Snow Leopard and as more programs go 64 bit (read Aperture) this will translate in to productivity. The most video card you can afford is always a good idea.

As for the $500 premium, I'll stand at the front of the line to bash Apple's pricing but Intel's bump in price on these processors is substantial.

Robert

http://timon-royer.com/en/35/apple-27-imac-late-2009-core-i5-and-core-i7-benchmarks-are-out/
the i7 looks the dogs danglies.

Here are the first benchmarks for the quad core:

http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/11/12/quad.core.imac.near.3x.faster.than.past.gen/#


Now, there really seems to be a big improvement over an iMac C2D 2.4 with 4GB ram, up to 2.5/3 times better when all cores used. And that is only with the i5 so expect the i7 to be somehow better.


EDIT: someone was a bit faster than me

I usually get a 3100 points in geekbench for the 32 bits test. My iMac 24" 2.16 with 4GB ram and GT7600 is not that bad.

wondering what it would be if I tried the 64 bit test.

Now...9600 for the i7...that's sweet!

might have to pawn off my core2 27" and get the i7

Get the iMac 27" i7! It is fast, fast... no techy benchmarks here just practical experience. All my apps run faster and the large desktop leaves lots of room for images and tool pallets.

2.8GHz with 8GB RAM and I T HD.

Get the i5... there's no point is getting the i7 for iMac. Why? Because the two major things i7 offers that i5 doesn't is Triple Channel RAM and the ability to SLi 3 video cards. The two issues are that Apple RAM is dual channel and the iMac doesn't have room for extra video cards. Hence, you really don't get anything from the i7 over the i5 "in the iMac". Now, if you're making your own computer and can hook it up in many ways, then the i7 has benefits over the i5.

Also, try to find an anti-glare matte filter for the glossy iMac screens.