Questions on CPU/GPU performance and whats best for a buyers needs

[ScaryFatKidGT]

So I work at an Apple reseller I guess is the best way to describe it, not the Apple corporate store but another 3rd party vendor.

Anyway I sell Mac's to people, most people just get the in stock base models, however I have had a few people order 3.0GHz i7 13" MBP's and such. The MBP's and Air's I have my head wrapped around pretty good but the iMac's I'm a little more confused about. Normally I tell people that are looking into iMac's that the processor upgrades wont do much for just using Pages and Numbers and surfing the web and tell them, if they aren't planning on walking out with a machine right now to custom order a 21.5" or 27" base model but with a SSD.

Now while I know this is 90% true, I'll admit I'm kind of just going by what I have heard others say to me and a bit of common sense mixed with BS.... I don't like doing this, I feel like a Best Buy employee just talking out my ***. I always figured if someone really needed the power of an optioned up 27" iMac or the quad core in the 15" MBP (not just for the screen size or GPU) they would know it but that isn't always the case. I think a lot of people here just have money to blow, want the 13" MBP over the 15" for portability and then throw on 16gb of ram and the 3.0 i7 because they want the best even tho they never even touch a hyper-threaded application.

I would like to be more knowledgeable about real world performance.

First question would be on the 21.5" is the first jump from the $1099 machine to the $1299 machine worth it for just normal computer use? Obviously if someone needs the 1TB HDD vs the 500GB one they are getting a deal on what seems like a much faster processor too, but how big of a difference is the 1.4GHz dual core i5 to the 2.7GHz i5? I mean its base clock is as high as the lessor's boost and it has double the cores, it seems to me like going from a MBA processor to a 15" MBP, is it really that big of jump? Would someone just using the computer for just e-mail, internet and online flash games notice a difference?

Then the next processor upgrades (2.9 and 3.1 quad cores) seem like much more conventional upgrade paths that I would only suggest if someone is using video/photo editing, DAW or gaming soft ware. Obviously a dedicated GPU is included at these prices. When should I really be recommending that $1299 computer and telling people the $1099 computer will not work for them?

The 27" is pretty easy i5 or i7, do you need hyper threading?... if you don't know what that is then stick with the i5.

2 more shorter questions 1. Is a GPU needed for anything other than gaming? Obviously if someone is into gaming and wanting a 21.5" I would highly recommend the $1499 model with the 750M, but I have had customers ask me if it would be used for anything other than gaming and I usually just say hi-end video editing, but to be honest I really don't know. Does photo shop or light room or anything else use a GPU?

and 2. Will a higher clocked upper end processor have better gaming performance than a lower one if they both have the same integrated graphics? Like I guess this doesn't really pertain to iMac's as going from the $1099 to the $1299 machine jumps over iris and gives out iris pro and then the $1499 machine has a dedicated GPU, but lets say someone does some casual gaming like Mindcraft, Sims or the occasional first person shooter but wants a 13" MBP where every model has Intel iris graphics, will stepping up the processor speed = more FPS?

 

[ScaryFatKidGT]

No one?

 

[rubaiyat]

I'll chip in. The i7 is not even much use to gamers, except those willing to eek out even the tiniest advantage at any cost.

The i7 accelerates certain Photoshop filters (not all) and even that is problematic on the Mac where a lot things that Apple talks up don't actually do anything in practice.

You can check if the i7 gets used by applications like Handbrake which generally will use all resources available. But then I wouldn't buy a Mac based on how Handbrake works, instead something that is core to your work. Rendering 3D, videos, certain imaging work and coding would benefit from a faster computer but if you are after that kind of performance what are you doing with a Mac?

Clock speed is good but always comes with heat.

Over all just check out the Macworld benchmarks or Geekbench scores.

I always point out to users that the slowest thing on a computer is you. Get something that speeds up your interaction with the computer.

Larger screen/s so you can see all your work. More RAM so that there is less paging. A better mouse and functional software that does what you want without stuffing around and "fixes".

 

[ScaryFatKidGT]

I'll chip in. The i7 is not even much use to gamers, except those willing to eek out even the tiniest advantage at any cost.

The i7 accelerates certain Photoshop filters (not all) and even that is problematic on the Mac where a lot things that Apple talks up don't actually do anything in practice.

You can check if the i7 gets used by applications like Handbrake which generally will use all resources available. But then I wouldn't buy a Mac based on how Handbrake works, instead something that is core to your work. Rendering 3D, videos, certain imaging work and coding would benefit from a faster computer but if you are after that kind of performance what are you doing with a Mac?

Clock speed is good but always comes with heat.

Over all just check out the Macworld benchmarks or Geekbench scores.

I always point out to users that the slowest thing on a computer is you. Get something that speeds up your interaction with the computer.

Larger screen/s so you can see all your work. More RAM so that there is less paging. A better mouse and functional software that does what you want without stuffing around and "fixes".

Thx

Yeah games are not very multi threaded and goes more on clock speed than threads but I was just wondering about integrated graphics, do they get a bump up in faster processors or are they separate?

And I was specifically wondering about the dual core vs quad core i5's in the $1099 and $1299 21.5" iMac's, seems like a huge jump but I am wondering how this applies to real world situations.

 

[rubaiyat]

Multi core chips work well in OSX which flexibly uses a core for each app open or will use all the cores (or as many as it can get) for a single process in apps like Handbrake.

iMacs and the Pro laptops have their own small graphics cards. Only the low end Mac mini and Air have integrated graphics to my knowledge. You can always check Apple's website for the individual specs.

Integrated graphics has really improved in recent years but a separate graphics card will always beat it by a handsome margin. Partly because the integrated graphics uses the same RAM as the CPU, whereas the separate Card has its own VRAM.

A graphics card is really a dedicated computer optimised for processing digital patterns, so having it take that task away from the CPU frees it up for other tasks.

Peter

 

[ScaryFatKidGT]

Multi core chips work well in OSX which flexibly uses a core for each app open or will use all the cores (or as many as it can get) for a single process in apps like Handbrake.

iMacs and the Pro laptops have their own small graphics cards. Only the low end Mac mini and Air have integrated graphics to my knowledge. You can always check Apple's website for the individual specs.

Only the optioned up $2500 15" MBP has a GPU and the two lower models of the 21.5" iMac have integrated too.

Integrated graphics has really improved in recent years but a separate graphics card will always beat it by a handsome margin. Partly because the integrated graphics uses the same RAM as the CPU, whereas the separate Card has its own VRAM.

Yeah I'm aware of Intel iris and iris pro's benefits (they are actually extremely powerful compared to how much power they use) and the fact that my GT 650 is still better, I was just wondering if, like a 2.8GHz i5 with iris would run more FPS than a 2.6 i5 with iris, or of it would be the same as the graphics are the limiting factor not the clock speed, or does the higher clock boost the graphics too?

 

[rubaiyat]

Better to ask a Metal Head PC assembler these questions, but the clock cycle is for the CPU. The GPU would have its own.

They might sync but I don't think one boosts the other, nor can see how it could.

 

[chas_m]

The one thing I will add to this is that the lower-rated processors you mention in your post all "boost" to higher speeds when needed, so between that and OS X's more intelligent management of resources such as RAM and GPU handoff, I'm not sure that it's wise to say that "this" machine's spec sheet is obviously better than "that" spec sheet. The way Apple seems to be approaching this is VERY dependent on how the machine is going to be used by the user rather than just stuffing a box with X amount of power.

MOST users, let's bear in mind, are not computer nerds like us. Their #1 app is Facebook or other light-duty apps that make no serious demands on any processor. Thus you get the MBAir, for example, which is a completely awesome portable for easily 80 percent of typical notebook buyers but "only" has a "1.4GHz dual-core Intel Core i5" but with a (Turbo Boost up to 2.7GHz when needed, with 3MB shared L3 cache).

So in fact it's a quite powerful machine, but extremely energy-efficient (thus, a typical 10-to-12-hour battery life in a computer so thin and light, with no fan noise etc).

Photoshop artists, gamers and other people who lean on their CPU and GPU pretty hard aren't going to like the MBA very much, but that's really a far smaller percentage of users than I think most of us power-users (being that we surround ourselves a lot with like-minded compatriots) realise.

What I'm getting at is that the spec sheet only goes so far in helping you figure out what's right for each customer: really getting to know their skill level and expected needs is probably a better approach. It's not just about framerates or GPU RAM, it's how it will be used and what provides the best bang for that particular person's buck.

 

[rubaiyat]

The other thing, pretty much as Chas says is that the CPU's speed is raised and lowered in response to temperature and demand.

There is a top speed but that is only used infrequently and will raise the temp and get the fan going, all of which chew up power which both Intel and Apple are working to keep down to make any battery last as long as possible. And to keep the noise down.

PC builds open up the bowels of Belzebub then flush all the wasted energy out with fans and cooling systems. Hang the wasted energy! Full steam ahead!! It's all about framerates and GAMES, the only conceivable use for a computer.

 

[ScaryFatKidGT]

The one thing I will add to this is that the lower-rated processors you mention in your post all "boost" to higher speeds when needed, so between that and OS X's more intelligent management of resources such as RAM and GPU handoff, I'm not sure that it's wise to say that "this" machine's spec sheet is obviously better than "that" spec sheet. The way Apple seems to be approaching this is VERY dependent on how the machine is going to be used by the user rather than just stuffing a box with X amount of power.

MOST users, let's bear in mind, are not computer nerds like us. Their #1 app is Facebook or other light-duty apps that make no serious demands on any processor. Thus you get the MBAir, for example, which is a completely awesome portable for easily 80 percent of typical notebook buyers but "only" has a "1.4GHz dual-core Intel Core i5" but with a (Turbo Boost up to 2.7GHz when needed, with 3MB shared L3 cache).

So in fact it's a quite powerful machine, but extremely energy-efficient (thus, a typical 10-to-12-hour battery life in a computer so thin and light, with no fan noise etc).

Photoshop artists, gamers and other people who lean on their CPU and GPU pretty hard aren't going to like the MBA very much, but that's really a far smaller percentage of users than I think most of us power-users (being that we surround ourselves a lot with like-minded compatriots) realise.

What I'm getting at is that the spec sheet only goes so far in helping you figure out what's right for each customer: really getting to know their skill level and expected needs is probably a better approach. It's not just about framerates or GPU RAM, it's how it will be used and what provides the best bang for that particular person's buck.

Yeah, I am aware of most of that, for most people I tell them they wont notice the difference and about the only thing I say between the Air and Pro is the retina display and battery life. The main thing that made me make this thread were the base model iMac's, the base clock of the $1299 computer is as high as the boost clock of the $1099 computer, plus it has 2 more cores, will that run Facebook or iTunes or surf the internet faster? Or would they still be better off throwing a SSD in the $1099 machine?

The other thing, pretty much as Chas says is that the CPU's speed is raised and lowered in response to temperature and demand.

There is a top speed but that is only used infrequently and will raise the temp and get the fan going, all of which chew up power which both Intel and Apple are working to keep down to make any battery last as long as possible. And to keep the noise down.

PC builds open up the bowels of Belzebub then flush all the wasted energy out with fans and cooling systems. Hang the wasted energy! Full steam ahead!! It's all about framerates and GAMES, the only conceivable use for a computer.

lol, what I was talking about with gaming is lets say my customer is a collage student, might do photo or video editing but they aren't an architect or engineering major but they do play Sims, or League of legends or World of Warcraft or what not ocationally. So were already on the 13" MBP not the air but would the 2.8 i5 or 3.0 i7 offer any better performance in those over the 2.6 i5 or do they really need to be doing hard core photo editing, 3D rendering, file converting and stuff?