new technology, and really the only thing the Core i3 adds is Hyper-Threading, but it doesn't have Turbo Boost, which helps the Core i5/i7s tremendously. There's a lot of people wondering if the 13" MBPs would have been a lot better with a Core i3 processor, but everything has been just hangups over perceived old vs. Had I been in your shoes (and my present knowledge of Macs) I'd have saved some money and got the C2D.MacBook Pro :: 13" MBPs - Core 2 Duo Versus Core I3 Processors Apr 18, 2010 The only question is how much you'd like to spend on a computer.
Both computers can run Lion OS so they are future-proofed However, my mates run Photoshop on even slower C2D machines - one of them is a semi-professional photographer. Where you'll notice C2D is slower is when you import your CD library or process very large RAW files or heavy batch jobs in Aperture. If you're looking into exporting 1080p videos even the i3 will be ridiculously slow (it took it 30 minutes to export a 3 minute slideshow in Aperture). I think either of the computers you're offered would do. It is safe to assume that the 2012 base iMac Ivy Bridge will be ~20% faster than 2011 base Sandy Bridge (and twice faster than C2D) and so on. IMac (21.5-inch Mid 2011) Intel Core i5-2400S 2.5 GHz (4 cores) - 7257Īnd the base 2011 Sandy Bridge appears to be ~27% faster than the i3 and ~72% faster than the C2D. On the other hand, here is the score of the base iMac 21.5-inch 2011: The i3 appears to be ~35% faster than C2D. (32 bit performance, higher score is better)
Speaking of raw processor + RAM speeds, here are the results both machines you're interested in scored: (source: ) Neither of those programs require fast processing speeds. From the list of programs you've provided I guess you are getting the computer for home usage (iTunes, iPhoto/Aperture, watching videos, browsing the Internet and so on).
0 kommentar(er)
