i5 vs. i7 Quad Core for Diva...

[Phase47]

Desperately need to upgrade my production rig. For things like Diva specifically, that are CPU hungry:

2.3 Quad-core i7 in the new Mac Mini or 2.9 Quad-core i5 in the new iMac.

What's the big difference here between the i5 and the i7, and I'm assuming clock speed is less of an issue here? (Could very easily be wrong w/ that...)

EDIT: They're both quad-core, but (In further reading) the i7 offers hyper-threading, effectively doubling the cores (so says marketing speak.) How important is this stuff in Diva-land?

[TwoToneshuzz]

Desperately need to upgrade my production rig. For things like Diva specifically, that are CPU hungry:

2.3 Quad-core i7 in the new Mac Mini or 2.9 Quad-core i5 in the new iMac.

What's the big difference here between the i5 and the i7, and I'm assuming clock speed is less of an issue here? (Could very easily be wrong w/ that...)

EDIT: They're both quad-core, but (In further reading) the i7 offers hyper-threading, effectively doubling the cores (so says marketing speak.) How important is this stuff in Diva-land?

I'm using a iMac 3.1 Ghz i5 processors no real problems here, the multithreading modus on Diva spreads the load out over the 4 cores. Hyperthreading is not implemented in a lot of audio applications as it's present state is not time optimized so the saving with hyperthreading are not as great as with ordinary multithreading. Hyper threading might give an advantage of up to 30% in applications that support it.

The next generation chip called Haswell is going to have some on chip improvements that will make hyperthreading much more beneficial generally and for audio applications..

[fmr]

I'd say that hyperthreading makes a lot of difference in the OS behaviour (at least in Windows it does), but I agree that you will not notice that much in specific applications, specially in those that work in real time, like synths.
That said, the clock speed does make a big difference in these, so, I would go for the iMac (2.9 vs 2.3).

[emasters]

I went with an iMac Quad i5 3.1 Ghz -- doesn't break a sweat running audio apps/DAWs. Purchased from the Apple refurbished shop (same warranty as in-store purchase, just shipped from Apple warehouse in plain box). Also picked-up 16GB memory for $100 from 3rd party vendor. Overall, it's been reliable and runs audio apps well.

[Phase47]

Unless I hear v. quickly from der 'mann to the contrary, I'll roll with the higher clocked i5.

Thanks for replies all!

[xh3rv]

Desperately need to upgrade my production rig. For things like Diva specifically, that are CPU hungry:

2.3 Quad-core i7 in the new Mac Mini or 2.9 Quad-core i5 in the new iMac.

What's the big difference here between the i5 and the i7, and I'm assuming clock speed is less of an issue here? (Could very easily be wrong w/ that...)

EDIT: They're both quad-core, but (In further reading) the i7 offers hyper-threading, effectively doubling the cores (so says marketing speak.) How important is this stuff in Diva-land?

The Mac Minis use a mobile chipset which may also differentiate the options a bit, dunno what goes in the new iMacs. Hyper-threading is a bit marketing - in some cases it's nice but not Diva IIRC. I linked a couple of threads on Diva performance here: http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=364719 but not sure the processor models are represented. I think the sites that do CPU speed metrics with lots of bar graphs and such should be relevant, especially some of the multimedia benchmarks.

[TwoToneshuzz]

From what I understand there are programs especielly in video editing/rendering that work better with hyperthreading. Actually I just noticed in the program by Adobe, colorrazor or something like that it REQUIRES an i7 processor. This is highend colour adjustment for video type tool. It's the first time that I've seen this specification required. This is not audio though.

Maybe in the not to distant future it will become the norm though.

I'd consider something like an iMac to have a lifetime of about 3-4 years. So in my opinion unless your really well funded no need to stress the old pocket book with something that gets outdated so quickly..A year/one notch behind/below the most advanced model is a much cheaper place to be in my opinion. Also on the Mac platform that BTO upgrade is pretty expensive. I go with the standard top model. Maybe even a used one like I did this time. Or if possible a refurbished one. Not possible in Denmark though.

I still have my 2007 2.4 Ghz core duo iMac, and it can still run lion and works with some programs a bought recently. So that's five going on 6 years, but the number of high end plugs it can run simulaniously is fairly low. Also there's many presets in Diva that it can't play in Devine modus.

So it makes sense in my mind that when you fund your computer you should look at your monthly budget and see how much you realistically can afford spread out over three years. I paid around $2200 for a used mid 2011 27" 3.1 Ghz i5 imac in Denmark. over 36 months that works out to $61 a month. It was paid for in one shot, but still I feel that's a legitimate way to see how your budget is affected by computer upgrades..