3.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo or 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5?

I'm guessing you may be doing some 3D Graphics renderings, if so then I'd go with Quad-Core. If you most of your work is 2D then the 3.33 GHz machine would be a nice solution too and serve you well.

Regards,

Roger

S_eye, the bottom line is that Core Duos are yesterdays technology and come mid 2010 you'll it will be very hard to find computer build around this platform.
BTW; Go with i7 (money permitting) because i5 will be slowly fazed out as well 😉

Luca,

First your welcome.

Because the i5 & i7 have not begun shipping yet no benchmark tests have been done so no one knows for sure how the 3.06 & 3.33 machines will compare to the i5 & i7 performance. At this point in time it's all speculation. Frankly because the 3.33 is less than 9% faster than the 3.06 and costs $200 more I'd probably opt for the 3.06 and spend the $200 upgrading the graphics card and upgrading RAM to 8 GB using OWC memory. At that point you would still have a very nice machine that would perform well today and for the next several years into the future. Would it be slower than an i5 probably yes but not by orders of magnitude.

If you have the need today then get started and buy what's available, if you can wait until December (enough time for benchmark tests to be completed) then wait for the i5 to come out and see how much faster it really is.

Regards,

Roger

What did you end up doing? I had the same choice to make (today) and went with the dual core. I am bumping the RAM up to 8 gb. For what I know this system FLYS. Sure the i5, and i7 are nice, but I figure that in a few years I'll be ready to buy a new machine, and I'll get the "newest" thing then.

The extra 300 (for the i5) or the extra 500 (for the i7) just wasn't worth it for a "normal" family. I use iMovie, iPhoto, and maybe a little photoshop elements - but that all will run GREAT on the dual core.

I can upgrade the RAM for less then 100 bucks, so for 1699 (with my student discount) I get a super fast machine, bumped up to 8 GB of RAM. Which will work great for at least 4-5 years!

By the way - this screen is AMAZING! I just want to sit and stare at it. It's just so nice!

by the way - what did you end up doing?

The geekbench results are out now and the i5 appears to outperform the 3.33G dual core at almost everything. And seeing as the i7 looks to offer another 30% boost for just £160 extra, I think anyone getting anything other than the i7 is either a. out of their mind or b. not concerned with performance.

Sure, it out preforms it, but it doesn't take into account upping the ram to 8gb on the dual core.

Also it is 500 dollars to go from the 27 inch dual core to the i7 - I don't think 500 dollars is worth what you get for the typical consumer. Don't get me wrong, the i7 is a great machine - but when you go from 1599 to 2100 - you're talking about a pretty big jump.

I'm using the dual core right now and it runs GREAT! (especially if you were to put 8gb of RAM in it.) The small amount of time I'd "save" by programs opening up faster, or photos importing in, isn't worth the 500 dollars it would cost to go there.

Personally, I went for the i5 based iMac over the dual core machine and here's why:

Dual Core is very capable and runs up to 3.33GHz. This for everyday tasks should be more than adequate and reasonably fast. I looked at the dual core in my local Apple shop and was impressed at how 'nippy' the whole thing responded, but I still opted for the i5 Quad core.

The i5 is running slower at 2.66GHz, but with Turbo Boost, can run up to 3.2GHz when only one or two cores are effectively being used. This is almost on a speed par with the Dual Core you are considering. However, the i5 architecture is way better than the Core Duo architecture, so accessing memory directly is faster, which overall means a much more responsive machine even running at the default 2.66GHz speed.

The benchmarks out there already show the i5 to be twice as fast as the 3.06GHz based iMac, so in general use should be much faster than the 3.33GHz upgraded Core Duo machine you are thinking about.

Quad Core or rather multi core is the future. If the two machine you are considering are around the same price, I would go (I do go) Quad Core so that your machine will last that bit longer before software eventually becomes so bloated it slows your system down and it needs replaced.

Intel are likely to follow the Nehalem route for around 2 - 3 years before the next 'big thing' comes out. Core Duo is using old technology. The i5 is using the latest technology for roughly the same sort of money. I would much rather have a machine that exceeds my needs (so my needs can continue to grow) rather than a machine which just meets my current needs.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Having played with the iMac i5 over the weekend, I only bought it Friday, I can say wow. This is an incredible machine and the display is wicked. Whichever one you decide on you will love it.

Good luck with your decision and enjoy your new machine

Thanks for your feedback. I agree with much of what you said. However in regards to the benchmarks you have to be careful what you compare it to. You say that the benchmarks show the i5 to be "twice as fast" as a 3.06 dual core - this isn't 100% true. In fact, not by a long shot. If you look at the benchmarks there are few things that show a 2x speed increase. In fact, on many tasks the increase isn't anywhere near that sort of speed increase.

Also in regards to what you mentioned about the "day to day functions being much faster" - this isn't the case at all. In fact, if you look at the bench marks you'll see that there isn barely any difference in "day to day" stuff, rather processor intensive tasks is where one would notice the increase in speed.

Opening up webpages, checking mail, running office, iwork, even browsing iphoto, isn't that much different at this point between machines. Now getting into final cut, adobe programs, etc - you will see some speed increase, but as I said, for me it isn't really worth the extra 500 dollars it would cost.

The machine runs great (And will run great) for several years to come.

Like you said, all of the current machines are very, very nice.

It's true benchmarks don't tell the whole 'real' story, but they are a fair representation of capability. While most applications are (becoming) dual core aware, with Grand Central in OS X Snow Leopard, more updates to applications will become Multi Core aware so more benefits of Quad or more cores will start to really make more of an impact.

From my spending time on the 3.06GHz machine in the shop and comparing it to the i5 in front of me now, the i5 is noticeably 'nippier' (is that a word?).

The bottom line is you have to make the decision that is right for you. My needs require more than 2 cores (HD encoding) so my quandary was i5 or i7. The applications I use for encoding don't recognise Hyper Threading so the overall benefit of the i7 would be lost. The i5 is a lovely machine to use and I am very happy with it - actually I don't mind being stuck in front of it, it's a very nice place to be stuck (if you get my drift).

As a direct price comparison, the option of 3.33GHz Dual Core with the ATI HD4850 card, costs more than the default i5 (at least here in the U.K £1629 for 3.33GHz DC vs £1599 for the i5). That to me is a no brainer. i5 wins.