2017 5k Imac or Imac Pro

[RuffDraft]

I think that a maxed out iMac Pro will be $10 - 11K. I think that a 10 core, 64GB RAM, 2 TB SSD, and max GPU will be $8K.

Easy. I agree.

I just priced up the current Mac Pro with 64GB RAM - an increase of £700+ over the 32GB configuration for RAM of less quality than is in the iMac Pro. I think the increase to 64GB RAM in the iMac Pro could be around £900.

The increase from 8-12 cores in the Mac Pro is another £1000+, so I wouldn't be surprised if the ten core in the iMac Pro is just shy of that, if not the same amount.

I'm really interested as to how much the 16GB GPU will be... I can see myself stuck with the 8GB, even though I'd love to jump to 16.

I'll probably end up spending £6K on it.

Out of interest, for a 4K multi-cam editor and someone using a lot of effect presets in FCPX, would you say 16GB VRAM would be a better option over 64GB RAM? Or vice versa?

 

[cynics]

Out of interest, for a 4K multi-cam editor and someone using a lot of effect presets in FCPX, would you say 16GB VRAM would be a better option over 64GB RAM? Or vice versa?

Don't replace one for the other. For 4k video editing I would want a lot of RAM. For a lot of effects in the 4k edits I would want VRAM.

Apple is drooling for customers like you.

 

[EugW]

Thanks, that is useful information and maybe explains the differences you observed. I have only i7 systems so I can't test the i5. But overall I don't see a huge difference between the 2015 iMac i7 and 2017 iMac i7, except the 2017 is much faster on certain workloads such as FCPX. In other workloads such as Handbrake, it's only about 10% faster, which is roughly the expected CPU difference.

So while the recently-noticed difference in thermal behavior between the 2017 i5 vs i7 iMac seems valid, this is probably nothing new -- it was just recently noticed and generated a lot of comment. The fact I see little difference between the 2015 vs 2017 i7 indicates that difference vs the i5 was always here, just nobody noticed it.

This is supported by Apple's own spec page which shows a 50+ watt difference in max consumption between the i5 vs i7 version of the 2015 iMac 27: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201918

I think for many the sweet spot iMac would have been been one with the 7700 non-K.

The 7700 is an i7 with hyperthreading, but runs at 3.6 / 4.2 / 4.1 / 4.0 GHz. The base clock is a touch lower than the 7600K, but the Turbo speeds are exactly the same as the 7600K. However, the 7700 is also a 65 Watt TDP chip, and in real world testing runs considerably cooler than the 7700K.

Unfortunately, only the 21.5" models get the 7700.

 

[Ethosik]

I think for many the sweet spot iMac would have been been one with the 7700 non-K.

The 7700 is an i7 with hyperthreading, but runs at 3.6 / 4.2 / 4.1 / 4.0 GHz. The base clock is a touch lower than the 7600K, but the Turbo speeds are exactly the same as the 7600K. However, the 7700 is also a 65 Watt TDP chip, and in real world testing runs considerably cooler than the 7700K.

Unfortunately, only the 21.5" models get the 7700.

Yeah I agree. Operating at 4Ghz is incredibly hot! I expect to hear the fans, so it does not bother me.

 

[driftless]

Don't replace one for the other. For 4k video editing I would want a lot of RAM. For a lot of effects in the 4k edits I would want VRAM.

Apple is drooling for customers like you.

Probably drooling for me, too. I am going max the GPU and have at least 64GB RAM.

 

[propower]

I think for many the sweet spot iMac would have been been one with the 7700 non-K.

The 7700 is an i7 with hyperthreading, but runs at 3.6 / 4.2 / 4.1 / 4.0 GHz. The base clock is a touch lower than the 7600K, but the Turbo speeds are exactly the same as the 7600K. However, the 7700 is also a 65 Watt TDP chip, and in real world testing runs considerably cooler than the 7700K.

Unfortunately, only the 21.5" models get the 7700.

After having the 4.2 i7, 3.8 and 3.4 i5s in front of me - I just could not agree more! The absolute clock speed is making almost no difference in use but the sheer power consumption (and heat) is hugely different. The 3.8 turbos to 4.0 under full load. Power goes from 40W CPU to 50W (Turbo OFF to Turbo ON). 5% speed increase - 25% power. Right around 3.8 seems to be where the increase in power for increase in speed really takes off. The small reward for all that extra power starts to make very little sense for this cooling system. The extra cores though for the 7700 non-K would be huge for many workflows.

 

[EugW]

To expedite testing I used a shorter H265 video from that site with the similar characteristics: "Philips Supershop Demo 1". Using this video and the above encoding I got the following performance using Handbrake 1.0.7 to H265 with the Roku 4k/30 preset:

2015 iMac 27 i7, hyperthreading off: 12:21
2015 iMac 27 i7, hyperthreading on: 10:53

2017 iMac 27 i7, hyperthreading off: 11:11
2017 iMac 27 i7, hyperthreading on: 09:53

I took that Philips video and did the same encode on my Core i5-7600, with the same Roku 2160p h.265 30 fps preset. (I hadn't tried that video before.)

2017 iMac 27 i5-7600, no hyperthreading: 12:24

That is very similar to your 2015 iMac 27 i7-6700K with hyperthreading off. That makes sense because that CPU has a multi-core Turbo of 4.0 GHz. The 2017 i5-7600 has a multi-core Turbo of 3.9 GHz.

At max speed with hyperthreading on with the i7 models, here are the results in seconds, with relative performance against the 2017 i5-7600. Obviously, lower is better.

2017 i5-7600: 744 seconds
2015 i7-6700K: 653 seconds (-12%)
2017 i7-7700K: 593 seconds (-20%)

The i5-7600 was maxed out to 397% (!) out of 400% in Handbrake with total CPU usage at 100%. The temps gradually increased and eventually touched 94C a little before the 10 minute mark. There was a gradual mild increase of fan speed to just over 1350 rpm at the 10 minute mark (see screenshot), barely audible. Then the machine eventually settled with temps in the low 90s with the fan speed in the low 1300s at around the 12 minute mark. Max CPU wattage was 60 Watts.

Given that the i5-7600 has a faster Radeon Pro 575 GPU than the one in the 2015 i7-6700K, and also has a faster SSD, and also has QuickSync for both h.264 and up to 10-bit h.265 (the latter in High Sierra), it would seem the i5-7600 would make for a decent video editing machine for those who don't want the fan noise. Alternatively, for those who don't want the fan noise but do want the top of the line GPU, the i5-7600K + Radeon Pro 580 is also an option. But of course, the best of the best is the i7-7700K + Radeon Pro 580, if you're prepared for the fan noise.

I'd be curious about the performance of the 2017 i5-7600K + Radeon Pro 580 vs the 2015 i7-6700K + Radeon R9 M395 in Final Cut. While pure encoding on the 2015 i7 would be faster (with significant fan noise) than the 2017 i5, my uneducated guess as a non-video guy is that the 2017 i5-7600K would overall be a better editing machine for Final Cut because of the vastly improved GPU.

 

[RuffDraft]

Don't replace one for the other. For 4k video editing I would want a lot of RAM. For a lot of effects in the 4k edits I would want VRAM.

Apple is drooling for customers like you.

Haha they have us by the...

Thanks Cynics - helpful to know the basic benefits of each. I think 64GB RAM will be the way to go. 8GB VRAM seems plenty.

Out of more interest, any idea which 8-core processor will be in the iMac Pro? I'm looking at the Mac Pro 8-core and that's 3GHZ. Do we think it'll be a similar config inside the iMac Pro? Around 3GHz?
[doublepost=1500219406][/doublepost]

Probably drooling for me, too. I am going max the GPU and have at least 64GB RAM.

Do you think that's going to cost you $7K?

 

[cynics]

Haha they have us by the...

Thanks Cynics - helpful to know the basic benefits of each. I think 64GB RAM will be the way to go. 8GB VRAM seems plenty.

Out of more interest, any idea which 8-core processor will be in the iMac Pro? I'm looking at the Mac Pro 8-core and that's 3GHZ. Do we think it'll be a similar config inside the iMac Pro? Around 3GHz?
[doublepost=1500219406][/doublepost]

Do you think that's going to cost you $7K?

There are indications in High Sierra (next version of MacOS) the processor socket used in the iMac Pro is Intels new server grade LGA3647. If that is accurate that would be Intels next gen Xeon codenamed "Purley". I haven't done much research on it and don't know what to expect as far as frequency goes. Google search Intel Purley, early rumors and reports look promising if its something you can benefit from.

 

[driftless]

Haha they have us by the...

Thanks Cynics - helpful to know the basic benefits of each. I think 64GB RAM will be the way to go. 8GB VRAM seems plenty.

Out of more interest, any idea which 8-core processor will be in the iMac Pro? I'm looking at the Mac Pro 8-core and that's 3GHZ. Do we think it'll be a similar config inside the iMac Pro? Around 3GHz?
[doublepost=1500219406][/doublepost]

Do you think that's going to cost you $7K?

My guess for the 10 core, 64GB RAM, 2 TB SSD, max GPU is a little over $8,000.00.

 

[Bixxy]

Just wanted to report back.

I ended up going for a 2017 5k Imac i7. Went for 64gb of Crucial ram, 2 tb SSD. So far so good. Haven't fully kicked in the transfer to this Imac yet. First real week of work next week to really test things out. However the only issue is it does get a touch noisy at times which has been reported throughout these forums. I don't think I stress things too much with what I am doing so far but at times you do get the Apache gunship taking off, but then it settles down and all is well. If i had to encode or anything more stressful I think i would have to consider sending it back. At present it happens rarely but enough to notice and slightly irritate.. it whirrrs up and then down, not constant.

The only slightly annoying thing for a designer is the resolution amazing as it is at 5k makes working on web projects tricky as they become super small and out of sync with browsers (Photoshop CC). You can scale things @200% but they are oddly pixelated and not 'real world.' Perhaps some clever folks here have a solution however this does seem to be a downside that I haven't found a fix for after a little investigation. I totally get why things are so tiny at 5k and understand the concept of resolution, this doesn't take away from the fact that they are small and hard to work on even @ 200% as you get odd pixelation and things are not pin sharp. Like i say though i may have missed a setting or a fix somewhere perhaps someone here knows the solution or it may be a Q for another area of MR and don't want to go off on a tangent.

Really happy so far though!

Thanks again guys for all your help and advice.

 

[EugW]

I ended up going for a 2017 5k Imac i7. Went for 64gb of Crucial ram, 2 tb SSD. So far so good. Haven't fully kicked in the transfer to this Imac yet. First real week of work next week to really test things out. However the only issue is it does get a touch noisy at times which has been reported throughout these forums. I don't think I stress things too much with what I am doing so far but at times you do get the Apache gunship taking off, but then it settles down and all is well. If i had to encode or anything more stressful I think i would have to consider sending it back. At present it happens rarely but enough to notice and slightly irritate.. it whirrrs up and then down, not constant.

This is exactly the behaviour I noticed with my machine. With encodes it would quickly go to max fan but even with regular but heavy usage, you can get the fan to spin up momentarily. As you said it's not frequent but it's enough to irritate.

For me that irritation built up over the week and I finally decided to send it back. For others, it's not a significant issue.

It should be noted that for you, if you want a 2 TB SSD, the only other option besides the i7-7700K is the i5-7600K. Fortunately, that i5-7600K has been reported to be quiet as well, despite being rated on paper as the hottest of the three i5 chips available in 27" iMacs.

 

[Ethosik]

This is exactly the behaviour I noticed with my machine. With encodes it would quickly go to max fan but even with regular but heavy usage, you can get the fan to spin up momentarily. As you said it's not frequent but it's enough to irritate.

For me that irritation built up over the week and I finally decided to send it back. For others, it's not a significant issue.

It should be noted that for you, if you want a 2 TB SSD, the only other option besides the i7-7700K is the i5-7600K. Fortunately, that i5-7600K has been reported to be quiet as well.

What I don't understand is, why aren't people expecting this? My 2016 Macbook Pro's fans are SO SO SO loud when exporting from FCPX. But I EXPECT this. The fans sometimes DO kick in when it is doing some light stuff too. Web browsing on an ad-heavy page can make the fans scream too.

When getting the most powerful processor, you should expect this stuff. NONE of my systems are silent. Desktop class Skylake i7, the first to ship with 4Ghz without overclocking, was even known for heat and required a MASSIVE fan to cool it. 4Ghz+ gets VERY VERY VERY HOT.

I prefer faster export times to quieter systems. That is why I decided on the i7. I expect it to be loud, as I deal with hearing my 2016 Macbook Pro fans for hours during exports. In some ways, that system is louder than the iMac.

 

[EugW]

What I don't understand is, why aren't people expecting this? My 2016 Macbook Pro's fans are SO SO SO loud when exporting from FCPX. But I EXPECT this. The fans sometimes DO kick in when it is doing some light stuff too. Web browsing on an ad-heavy page can make the fans scream too.

The laptops are louder because they are laptops. They have a confined space and small fans. iMacs in the past often tended to run considerably quieter even under fairly heavy load, although it depended upon the generation. This was true even for some of the i7 iMacs.

When getting the most powerful processor, you should expect this stuff. NONE of my systems are silent. Desktop class Skylake i7, the first to ship with 4Ghz without overclocking, was even known for heat and required a MASSIVE fan to cool it. 4Ghz+ gets VERY VERY VERY HOT.

I prefer faster export times to quieter systems. That is why I decided on the i7. I expect it to be loud, as I deal with hearing my 2016 Macbook Pro fans for hours during exports. In some ways, that system is louder than the iMac.

For the record, I have a 27" 2010 Core i7 iMac sitting right beside my 2017 27" iMac, and it doesn't go to max fan anywhere near as fast as the 27" 2017 Core i7 iMac.

I was expecting some fan noise under heavy load, but I didn't quite expect the frequency and speed of which it happens with the 2017 i7. It should be noted that my 2010 Core i7 870 is rated for a 95 Watt TDP, which is actually higher than the 91 TDP of the i7 7700K. Yet, the 7700K gets hotter quicker. If the 2017 i7 behaved more like my 2010 i7, I probably would have kept it. But it doesn't, so I didn't.

BTW, my 2010 is no longer functioning as a full-fledged iMac. As mentioned in my dual iMacs thread, it is now in semi-retirement, working only as an external monitor for my iMac i5-7600.

 

[Ethosik]

The laptops are louder because they are laptops. They have a confined space and small fans. iMacs in the past often tended to run considerably quieter even under fairly heavy load, although it depended upon the generation.

For the record, I have 27" 2010 Core i7 iMac sitting right beside my 2017 27" iMac, and it doesn't go to max fan anywhere near as fast as the 27" 2017 Core i7 iMac.

View attachment 708911

I was expecting some fan noise under heavy load, but I didn't quite expect the frequency and speed of which it happens with the 2017 i7. It should be noted that my 2010 Core i7 870 is rated for a 95 Watt TDP, which is actually higher than the 91 TDP of the i7 7700K. Yet, the 7700K gets hotter quicker. If the 2017 i7 behaved more like my 2010 i7, I probably would have kept it. But it doesn't, so I didn't.

BTW, my 2010 is no longer functioning as a full-fledged iMac. As mentioned in my dual iMacs thread, it is now in semi-retirement, working only as an external monitor for my iMac i5-7600.

Is that 2010 system running at 4+ Ghz? The faster the processors, the hotter they become. My desktops are incredibly loud too, as they have 4Ghz processors. It is not just my laptops.

I have an old 2009 iMac. Not even the top of the line processor. It does get VERY LOUD. And yes, I have cleaned it out.

When I got my skylake, out of the box no OC or anything running at 4Ghz, a pretty decent CPU cooler was not able to keep it relatively cool under idle. I had to end up using the Noctua NH-D15 even at the stock 4Ghz when my other one should have handled a processor at that TDP just fine.

A lot of people were having this issue when Skylake JUST came out. There could very well be some firmware issue on the i7 iMacs that make it run hotter than normal.

 

[EugW]

Is that 2010 system running at 4+ Ghz? The faster the processors, the hotter they become. My desktops are incredibly loud too, as they have 4Ghz processors. It is not just my laptops.

4 GHz is not some magic number. Speeds increase over time. My i7 870 was top-of-the-line for its time, and as mentioned, its TDP is actually rated hotter than the i7 7700K.

Furthermore, my i5-7600 Turbo boosts to 4.1 GHz single-core, and encodes with 4-core multi-core at 3.9 GHz. Guess what? It does it quietly even with 100% load. Or at least my last h.265 encode which was 12.4 minutes long was quiet. Fan eventually sped up, but only to 1350 rpm, which is half of the 2700 rpm maximum speed. In contrast, my i7-7700K hits 2700 in tens of seconds, and then stays there for the entire encode. It does the same encode in 20% less time.

I prefer a 12.4 minute encode that is near silent over a 9.9 minute encode that has the fan at maximum for 9.5 minutes.

BTW, the i5-7600K does multi-core max load at 4.0 GHz. Its power characteristics are closer to the i5-7600 than it is to the i7-7700K.

Also, it should be noted that when an i7-7700K throttles, it throttles to 3.9 GHz multi-core, which happens to be the exact same multi-core speed as the i5-7600 natively. Think about that for a minute: When a i7 7700K decides it wants to cool down, it jumps to where the i5 7600 normally happily computes.

Again, 4 GHz isn't some magical number, but if you're set on that threshold, the 7600K achieves that too for multi-core, but is much, much quieter than the i7.

 

[Ethosik]

4 GHz is not some magic number. Speeds increase over time. My i7 was top-of-the-line for its time.

Furthermore, my i5-7600 Turbo boosts to 4.1 GHz single-core, and encodes with 4-core multi-core at 3.9 GHz. Guess what? It does it quietly even with 100% load. Or at least my last h.265 encode which was 12.4 minutes long was quiet. Fan eventually sped up, but only to 1350 rpm, which is half of the 2700 rpm maximum speed. In contrast, my i7-7700K hits 2700 in tens of seconds, and then stays there for the entire encode. It does the same encode in 20% less time.

I prefer a 12.4 minute encode that is near silent over a 9.9 minute encode that has the fan at maximum for 9.5 minutes.

BTW, the i5-7600K does multi-core max load at 4.0 GHz. Its power characteristics are closer to the i5-7600 than it is to the i7-7700K.

Also, it should be noted that when an i7-7700K throttles, it throttles to 3.9 GHz multi-core, which happens to be the exact same multi-core speed as the i5-7600 natively. Think about that for a minute: When a i7 7700K decides it wants to cool down, it jumps to where the i5 7600 normally happily computes.

Again, 4 GHz isn't some magical number, but if you're set on that threshold, the 7600K achieves that too for multi-core, but is much, much quieter than the i7.

Where did I say 4Ghz was a magic number? The faster a processor is, the hotter it is. Compare a 1Ghz to a 4Ghz CPU. The fact that people need to liquid nitrogen cool a processor to achieve 6Ghz too. That was my point. So an i7 is faster than an i5, thus more heat. Having something generate heat, means it needs to run the fans to cool.

The i5 turbo boosts to that (4.2), but the i7 can turbo boost to 4.5.

Like I said, that is fine if you prefer silence over power. I expected the i7 to be loud. And I prefer speed to silence. I just find it shocking that people aren't expecting these to get hot and loud under load. Especially when there is A LOT of evidence that the 2015 5K i7 iMacs are loud. In some reports, even louder than the new ones. My fan RPMs spin up so much whenever I export, even on my desktops. It is not just my laptops that get loud.

 

[EugW]

Where did I say 4Ghz was a magic number? The faster a processor is, the hotter it is. Compare a 1Ghz to a 4Ghz CPU. The fact that people need to liquid nitrogen cool a processor to achieve 6Ghz too. That was my point. So an i7 is faster than an i5, thus more heat. Having something generate heat, means it needs to run the fans to cool.

The i5 turbo boosts to that (4.2), but the i7 can turbo boost to 4.5.

Like I said, that is fine if you prefer silence over power. I expected the i7 to be loud. And I prefer speed to silence. I just find it shocking that people aren't expecting these to get hot and loud under load. Especially when there is A LOT of evidence that the 2015 5K i7 iMacs are loud. In some reports, even louder than the new ones. My fan RPMs spin up so much whenever I export, even on my desktops. It is not just my laptops that get loud.

You keep glossing over the pertinent facts. As mentioned, the 2010 i7 870, a super fast CPU for its time, had a rated TDP of 95 Watts. This was a chip that 8 years ago had a max Turbo of 3.6 GHz and had a 4-core multi-core speed of 3.2 GHz. This was a highly desirable gaming chip (hot) for its time. As mentioned, the i7 7700K in 2017 is actually rated lower at 91 Watts. Yet, the iMac it is in gets loud way, way faster than the 2010 ever did.

You asked why people are surprised. Well, some people are a bit surprised because the behaviour is different than some older model i7 iMacs. It's not that different from a 2015, but most people upgrading in 2017 are not those who own 2015 models (although there are some).

Furthermore, your comparison to a laptop is meaningless, because laptops are a completely different design. They are small portable machines, not 27" desktops.

In fact, I think this is pretty good justification for Apple to rethink their design choices in the iMac... which they have for the iMac Pro. It would be interesting to hypothesize just how quiet a 7700K could be made to be in an iMac Pro chassis.

 

[Ethosik]

You keep glossing over the pertinent facts. As mentioned, the 2010 i7 870, a super fast CPU for its time, had a rated TDP of 95 Watts. The i7 7700K is rated lower at 91 Watts. Yet it the iMac its in gets loud way, way faster than the 2010 ever did.

You asked why people are surprised. Well, some people are a bit surprised because the behaviour is different than some older model i7 iMacs. It's not that different from a 2015, but most people upgrading in 2017 are those who own 2015 models (although there are some).

Furthermore, your comparison to a laptop is meaningless, because laptops are a completely different design. They are small portable machines, not 27" desktops.

In fact, I think this is pretty good justification for Apple to rethink their design choices in the iMac... which they have for the iMac Pro. It would be interested to see just how quiet a 7700K could be made to be in an iMac Pro chassis.

I have a 2009 iMac that gets incredibly loud, probably close to my laptops noise. I don't think it is at 95 TDP either. 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo. I find it hard to believe your 2010 iMac is silent. Not even my parent's base iMac 21" from 2014 (with SSD upgrade instead of HDD or fusion) is silent.

Again, I didn't say JUST my laptop gets loud. NUMEROUS times I have stated that my desktops get incredibly loud too. Having two fans in that iMac alone will make it louder than the other iMacs.

 

[EugW]

I have a 2009 iMac that gets incredibly loud, probably close to my laptops noise. I don't think it is at 95 TDP either. 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo. I find it hard to believe your 2010 iMac is silent. Not even my parent's base iMac 21" from 2014 (with SSD upgrade instead of HDD or fusion) is silent.

Again, I didn't say JUST my laptop gets loud. NUMEROUS times I have stated that my desktops get incredibly loud too. Having two fans in that iMac alone will make it louder than the other iMacs.

I didn't say the 2010 Core i7 is silent. I just said it stays quiet for far longer than the 2017 Core i7. BTW, the Core 2 Duos of that era were known to be hot.

And I also said that if the 2017 Core i7 iMac were like the 2010 Core i7 iMac in terms of fan noise, I probably would have kept it. But the 2017 i7 gets very hot, very quickly and the fans go to max way faster, so I returned it. One of the big issues though was not just video encoding. It was the fact that I could be doing the stuff I regularly do and the fan would spin up. This just didn't happen with the 2010. With the 2010 it really took very heavy load for some time before the fan would spin up to max.

Meanwhile, the i5-7600 is way faster than my old 2010 i7 obviously, yet stays quiet for everything I do, while powering that glorious 5K screen.

 

[Ethosik]

I didn't say the 2010 Core i7 is silent. I just said it stays quiet for far longer than the 2017 Core i7. BTW, the Core 2 Duos of that era were known to be loud.

And I also said that if the 2017 Core i7 iMac like the 2010 Core i7 iMac in terms of fan noise, I probably would have kept it. But the 2017 i7 gets very hot, very quickly and the fans go to max way faster, so I returned it. One of the big issues though was not just video encoding. It was the fact that I could be doing the stuff I regularly do and the fan would spin up. This just didn't happen with the 2010. With the 2010 it really took max load for some time before the fan would spin up.

Meanwhile, the i5-7600 is way faster than my old 2010 i7 obviously, yet stays quiet for everything I do.

Again, I am not saying you need the i7. You value silence for speed and that is fine. I am the opposite and I found it obvious that the i7 would be louder than the i5. Especially with my heat issues with the Skylake CPU I got

It could be just an issue with the processor. Skylake had heat issues initially at launch. Looks like there might be more issues with the new processors too. Here - https://www.extremetech.com/computi...g-issue-cluelessly-suggests-stop-overclocking. Even though something is close to the same TDP, there are other issues to factor in. Some reports from the Skylake issues were the motherboard configurations were set to auto voltage for the processor sending it more voltage than required making it hotter than normal - even higher than the reported TDP which cause a lot of people to recommend the big Noctua CPU fan as a safe measure.

 

[EugW]

Again, I am not saying you need the i7. You value silence for speed and that is fine. I am the opposite and I found it obvious that the i7 would be louder than the i5. Especially with my heat issues with the Skylake CPU I got

It could be just an issue with the processor. Skylake had heat issues initially at launch. Looks like there might be more issues with the new processors too. Here - https://www.extremetech.com/computi...g-issue-cluelessly-suggests-stop-overclocking. Even though something is close to the same TDP, there are other issues to factor in. Some reports from the Skylake issues were the motherboard configurations were set to auto voltage for the processor sending it more voltage than required making it hotter than normal - even higher than the reported TDP which cause a lot of people to recommend the big Noctua CPU fan as a safe measure.

I think it's just because Intel hasn't been able to ramp their processes as quickly as before. So now they're trying to wring every last bit of performance from each node to keep up appearances. And unfortunately, with the 7700K (and last year's 6700K too), it's starting to show.

It will be interesting to see how low they have to go with with their clock speeds for their 6-core models next year. Will there be such a thing as a cool 6-core? Or will they behave closer to the 7700K in terms or power utilization?

 

[Ethosik]

I think it's just because Intel hasn't been able to ramp their processes as quickly as before. So now they're trying to wring every last bit of performance from each node to keep up appearances. And unfortunately, with the 7700K (and last year's 6700K too), it's starting to show.

It will be interesting to see how low they have to go with with their clock speeds for their 6-core models next year. Will there be such a thing as a cool 6-core? Or will they behave closer to the 7700K in terms or power utilization?

There is also this - https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/05/intel-dismisses-concerns-over-core-i7-7700k-temperature-problems/

Spiking 30 degrees to open a website is "normal" according to Intel? Really? I hope A LOT of people are complaining about this. We need some kind of firmware or driver update or something.

 

[propower]

Yes - there is a known issue with the thermal bonding compound in the 7700K (quantity and fill I believe since folks who delid and refill are claiming success in mitigating most of this. Firmware will not help - IMO. I have had the 2017 iMac with the i7, i5 3.4 and i5 3.8 on my desk and they all have that issue to varying degrees. Spiking on the 7500 is the smallest . spiking on the 7700K is much more sever than the 3.8 7600. I assume that is the combo of higher clock - Turbo and Hyperthreading.

Running a 4 minute iMovie export twice in a row
The 3.4 turbos to ~3.67 with all cores loaded - never hits more than 70degC.

The 3.8 hits 95% CPU and ~45W on the 580
Turbo On 4.0GHz 58W CPU 90+degC
Turbo OFF 3.8GHz 43W 75degC
I don't have the i7 here right now but it hit full fan in 30 seconds Turbo ON or OFF.

The test clearly shows where the cooling system as designed must increase fan speed (a lot) to keep things safe. It also shows the clear barrier for extracting more GHz from this CPU. 5% speed increase 25% power increase. The cooling system could have been designed to keep the i7 at 70degC max. Larger heatsinks - more surface area for heatsinks - better outflow path - larger internal fans for more CFM at same rotation --- etc etc. But it wasn't .

Sure the i7 could be expected to run hotter and in this case spin the fans much more. This either matters to the user or it doesn't. In my case - it does. I could really use the cores - not the speed. If I could down clock the i7 to 3.4GHz I would take it in a heartbeat. Since I can't - can I do enough with the i5? Of course I can - but I may have to modify my workflow. Today I am actually thinking the i5 3.8 with Turbo OFF may be the best choice. Would run 3.8GHz at controlled temps - run slightly cooler than the Turbo'd 7500 (3.9GHz) but 8.5% faster than the non-turbo'd 7500 - yet still have the ability to tap the 4GHz horsepower if needed... Yes - I am a "recovering" engineer

PS - but still considering the i7....

 

[EugW]

Sure the i7 could be expected to run hotter and in this case spin the fans much more. This either matters to the user or it doesn't. In my case - it does. I could really use the cores - not the speed. If I could down clock the i7 to 3.4GHz I would take it in a heartbeat. Since I can't - can I do enough with the i5? Of course I can - but I may have to modify my workflow. Today I am actually thinking the i5 3.8 with Turbo OFF may be the best choice. Would run 3.8GHz at controlled temps - run slightly cooler than the Turbo'd 7500 (3.9GHz) but 8.5% faster than the non-turbo'd 7500 - yet still have the ability to tap the 4GHz horsepower if needed... Yes - I am a "recovering" engineer

Turbo 7500 is 3.6 GHz.
Turbo 7600 is 3.9 GHz.
Turbo 7600K is 4.0 GHz.

All multi-core Turbo speeds I mean.