2.4Ghz i5 or 2Ghz i7?

It's hard to answer your question without knowing what you're going to use it for. Most consumers would be just fine with the 2.4GHz i5. But if you use certain kinds of software like video editing or games or scientific analysis, the i7 would be worth it in that case.

The fastest i7 option is usually not worth it for most people.

AnTsMoOrE wrote:

I would be using the laptop for web browsing the majority of the time. Along with word processing, and watching movies. Very occasionally I would be using photoshop or Illustrator but nothing intensive.

Those uses are considered very light, these days you could buy the cheapest computer available and you would be fine even for occasional Photoshop/Illustrator use. Web browsing, word processing, and movie watching wouldn't even stress out a tablet.

An i5 will be fine. For your uses, getting the i7 would be over-buying and over-spending. Which is fine if you have lots of money. But the i7 is really intended for far more intensive professional activities than the ones you listed.

OGELTHORPE wrote:

Only if the application is designed to take advantage of the additional cores.

Even if it doesn't, there is OS X and other programs that will use the other cores, thus maximizing the cores use for the intended purpose.

Apple has a lot of crap running in the background now, the more cores the better.

Also you tend to forget that the dual core machines come with Intel HD 3000-to-5000 processor based graphics, so that's even more the dual core has to do.

The processors also has to decode WPA2 and Filevault (if enabled)

The quad core i7 15" MBP comes with a dedicated GPU that's more than twice as powerful as the Intel HD 3000-5000.

A more powerful machine lasts longer and can do more.

OGELTHORPEyou need to see this.

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5188222?answerId=22549257022#22549257022

ds store wrote

OGELTHORPEyou need to see this.

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5188222?answerId=22549257022#22549257022

It took me a long time to figure that one out. But before I did, no one could give me a solution. It certainly was not that the ASC was hacked. It for me is now a non-issue.

Ciao.

get the newer of the models.

ds store wrote:

Quad core i7 is faster than a dual core i5, even if the clock speed is slightly slower.

More cores = more productivity.

Only if the application is designed to take advantage of the additional cores.

Ciao.

Photoshop and Illustrator perform better and longer on a more powerful hardware with plenty of RAM.

Also since using those programs also requires doing a lot of other things on the machine at the same time (like listening to iTunes or surfing the web for images) and switching between them (like doing something else while rendering) the more processor cores and RAM the better.

Apple is mainly a consumer products company, the newer dual core machines are catering to that markets wants for just a basic surfing, watching video machine.

Professional users need a bit more punch and since the quad core with it's stronger graphics will last longer with the high costs of that sort of software, the less hardware turnover the better.

The dual core is underpowered for your intended use and will require a new machine in a shorter time, which in turn will require newer versions of upgraded software which is more money.

If you really want to save money, then get a MacPro when it comes out and then a light dual core laptop for general/Internet use and keep the MacPro offline except for updates and verification.

That way you can use the MacPro for 7-10 years easy and not even have to upgrade software if you don't wish.

OGELTHORPE wrote:

Only if the application is designed to take advantage of the additional cores.

Not only that but if the majority of the time will be spent web browsing and word processing, well I have Safari and Word open on my quad-core i7 and I'm looking at my CPU right now and it's 96% idle. Ninety-six percent. Who needs four cores when not even one core is close to maxed?

(I have a quad i7 because I use Photoshop and other graphics/video apps many hours per week.)

ds store wrote:

Even if it doesn't, there is OS X and other programs that will use the other cores, thus maximizing the cores use for the intended purpose.

Apple has a lot of crap running in the background now, the more cores the better.

The funny thing is my 96% idle figure does take all of Apple's background processes into account because they're obviously running at the moment.

Network 23 wrote:

I have Safari and Word open on my quad-core i7 and I'm looking at my CPU right now and it's 96% idle.

The web page is rendered and displayed on your screen, your Word program is in the background and not doing anything, so of course your CPU has nothing to do. 😁

I have a quad i7 because I use Photoshop and other graphics/video apps many hours per week.

Didn't the OP mention that they intend to use Photoshop as well?

Perhaps they also are going to use "other graphics/video apps" just like you are.

So your recommending something to them that you won't use yourself just based upon two lightweight programs of Safari and Word?

Seems to me like your trying to discourage competition in your graphics field by recommending the OP get a underpowereed machine. 😁

Enjoy yourself.

I did a crude but valid test between my 2010 2.66 i7 MBP and my 2011 2.5 i7 MBP running the same program twice on each MBP. The final result was a virtual tie. The respective benchmarks for the two are 5509 vs. 10652. So much for benchmarks and the number of cores if they are not utilized.

I smell a lot of smoke in the neighborhood. 😀

Ciao.

Personally, I would avoid Ebay for such an item and

shop locally where you can actually get hands on with

what you get.

Quad core i7 is faster than a dual core i5, even if the clock speed is slightly slower.

More cores = more productivity.