The CPU on a new iMac is less clock speed then my 10 year old laptop. It's still better?

Hello. So I was looking at some budget versions of iMacs. And I looked at the clock speed and the cheapest iMac comes with 2.3GHz dual‑core Intel Core i5 (I believe it's 7th gen made in 2017).

So I looked at the clock speeds of my really old laptop I am using. It's an Intel Core i5 2520M dual core @ 2.5GHz. The CPU is from 2011 (I believe it's 2nd gen).

So I am just trying to understand in which regards this new dual core would be better then my old gen CPU. I couldn't find much info besides the 7th gen having more Cache memory 6MB instead of 4. What other things should I be looking at, is it threads?

I mean doesn't have to be as technical of a response, I would just like to know how in performance would I benefit because everywhere I look the clock speed seems to be a very important factor with the number of cores being right after.

 

The clock speed is not everything. It helps, if you compare one CPU family. But still, CPU may be able to keep rated speed for longer time, or not....

It is better compare several benchmarks for given processors.

What counts more than CPU speed (to certain limit) is number of cores. And also multithreading may help...

 

Yeah I did mention they are both dual core. I understand that clock speed isn't "everything", that's exactly why I am asking about this. I just want to know what exactly am I getting for $1500 in dual core CPU with less clock speed then my dual core CPU in a used laptop I bought years ago for $300. When I searched online most people put clock speed as the top perfoming factor in a CPU with equal number of cores.

I know there are small details like Cache memory and Multi Threading capacity. But I am looking for something that would be "in my face" as far as performance goes because I am having hard time reaching for my wallet to pay $1500 for something that on paper doesn't look better then my old used laptop. Like if someone tells me "Oh dude, it's 10x times faster because of 'this'" ... that way I am like ok I an getting something.

I mean I know MacOS are generally more efficient in using the CPU but I want to stick to concrete things. So far it looks like Apple has been using the same CPU from 2017 as long as possible to maximize profit And that 2017 CPU is only marginally better then previous generations dual core CPUs. A move that probably helped them sink some money into the M1 development. But there is no M1 on iMacs yet (yes they are on Mini, but that's not what my question is about).

So from what it looks buying an iMac now with the CPU that it has now is buying tech that is at least a few years old. Unless I am wrong. I mean I want to be wrong, but this is why I am here to learn. I will actually be happy if I am proved wrong.

 

I overlooked they both are dual core. I guess that in that case the cache is 4 MB, not 6 MB. As it is 6 MB for 4 core i5 and 4 MB for 2 core i5. (At least that is what I found on internet.)

I would not pay $1500 for dualcore computer in 2021. I would better commited suicide. ;-) (I paid $1000 for quadcore i7 NB in 2012. But not Apple.)

In your case there would not be big, if any improvement comparing to what you have. If you can, it would be better to wait for iMac with Apple Silicon. Buying dualcore and possibly even quadcore now is pure waste of money. Especially for that price....

------
The thing is that Intel has quite serious problems past few years. They come with new and new CPUs, but they are not much better than older ones. And sometimes they are even worse..... So, no real harm iMac does not has newer Intels...

 

Yeah I mean, I agree. I sort of came to the same conclusion. But I wanted to hear others. I asked on other forums and yes, there is more then just clock speed a 2017 dual core would be better then a 2011 dual core for sure. but it's hard to say how much better. Twice as good? Three times?

But yeah, buying a 2.4GHz dual core in 2021 is ok for web browsing and simple stuff, but not for $1500, I mean...I can find a quad core i7 PC for $500.

But it's not to say that Apple is bad or anything, I mean their OS is good at utilizing even low power CPUs.

 

It is not twice more powerful by any means. If it does not have multithreading, maybe +10-20%. If it has multithreading, maybe 80-90%. It depends on type of task.

For $400 maybe.... But for $1 500?

 

That's Apple for ya.

They have their budget line with low power processors for the casual user, the Air line for instance where it's more about having the Apple name but paying for that is the thing. It is designed to seem expensive at that price to force you to start looking up the chain and comparing "for a few hundred more I can get a quad i7... a few hundred more I can have an actual usable amount of HDD space.... a few hundred more and I can have some actual RAM too... another $1k and I can put that monitor on a stand...."

You set out with the intent of spending no more than $1500 but end up spending $3000+ because you figure "well if I am going to spend/invest this much I may as well shell out double for those extras and make the thing actually work for more than web browsing, then it will last me 10 years..." only to upgrade it again in about 4 years.

Dual core these days, no matter what the brand or how "efficient" the OS is at running on it, is not for any serious user.

 

Yup, this is why I gave up on Apple years ago. I hated their whole "luxury brand" thing as it made no sense. Usually luxury implies paying more and getting more...well at least in some degree. When my friend got a full on gaming laptop for the price of my Macbook, and could run really fancy 3D graphics and chew up through HD video it made me sad.

But it's not for me, it's for my folks and getting another Apple for them is just less hassle since they mostly use it for web browsing and really light work. But at the same time, I used Apple before they went with intel, and I am confident they will drop support for Intel just as fast and abrupt as they did for PowerPC stuff. First new Logic will only run on Apple CPUs, then Final Cut, etc etc...They've done it before. I am looking at a $600 paperweight that is Logic Pro 7 that I cannot install on any computer past 2010. No upgrade option, no anything, yes Logic is a lot cheaper these days but that's not the point.

 

The future support for Intel based comp.... One more argument not to buy i5 iMac for $1 500 now.

Better to wait for Apple Silicon.

I am happy I have never had to touch Apple. It sounds like living in sort of modern communistic gulag. ;-) We know what is good for you and your only right is to pay the fortune.

 

Ok...wow, slow down. There is no need for saying things like that...

If anything Apple used to be an amazing customer experience. And they are not guilty of anything that other companies don't do. If anything you can put part of the blame on the customers. I mean people get "addicted" and it turns into some kind of ritual "I need a new iPhone, new iMac...this is one slightly better". I have a co-worker who just bought the latest iPhone, and I am sitting next to him browsing the web on an old Samsung Note 4. He started telling me how powerful his phone is and I am telling him that we are literally doing the same thing and he's paying thousands more to have the same websites load maybe 2-3 seconds faster. I mean if it's worth it for someone to have that speed while paying more then sure. Of course the argument everyone makes is that they get the phone for just a few hundreds while they still "need to pay the cell phone plan". But the point still stands, if people are so consumer hungry, that all they want to do is is buy, buy, buy and throw the hardware into the garbage and create more toxic electronic waste. Yes some of them end up in third world countries, but that's only a fraction.

Yes Gulag is bad, but are we that more enlightened now that no matter how much technology advances we are mindlessly just buying stuff and throwing it out to create big waste dumps? And no matter how much companies tell us that they recycle the amount of consumption is still exponentially bigger then anything that they can possibly recycle. Personally I am not proud of our western society being like that, our economy is only sustained by our hunger to purchase goods, we are loosing the ability to actually create and make things. Things that require simple repairs are thrown out... Is it really an advanced society when people can't do simple repairs?

 

But that is gulag. Sort of. Things made on purpose not replacable, repairable. Or the simple repair cost that much that it is better to throw it away... The repair may be only in authorised service. The battery close to not replacable. All chips soldered and not replacable. Almost all accesories are overpriced and must be from the right company..... One makes initial buy and is locked to the company till the end of product. There is no competition...

I grew up in 'communistic' country and it was pretty similar to Apple world. The main difference was, that it did not work well and people hated it. But the sytem was very close to Apple world. The second difference is that in case of Apple one has the choise to escape.

It is amazing what "world" Apple managed to create. As well it is amazing what world communists managed to create. Neither of those worlds are for me.

Do not také me too seriously. Apple is amazing company and it brought many interesting ideas. And if it works, it works OK. But there is some kind of fanatism and blindeness among users. The same existed at the very beginning of communism....