2019 iMac - i5 vs i9? Cooling and Throttling?

[Rockadile]

What about people who just need the power of an i9 and macOS, while not necessarily wants an AIO? Apple isn't offering that option, and in that context, this i9 iMac is limiting the potential that you can get out of the chip. This i9 iMac is a great *Mac*, especially among the lineup in recent years. But if it requires further leashing just so it can fit inside a power & thermals limited chassis designed years ago, then we are not getting the best we can get.

Okay so lets stick with AIOs. And in the case of the iMac, there is literally a better thermally designed iMac Pro right there. Why is that the i9 could reach as high as 140w consumption in order to be unleashed, but Apple felt it is ok to not utilize the iMac Pro cooling which incidentally is rated at 135w?

Those people using hackintosh.
Why Apple doesn’t offer that option is likely linked to not making shareholder’s bank account bigger at their wanted rate.

Apple doesn’t want to cannibalize entry iMac Pro. They want an upsell option.
[doublepost=1554346747][/doublepost]

Apple definitely is going to release a consumer tower with an i9

Do you know something we don’t know?

 

[Chancha]

So thank you, instead of ousting users that demand more power out of his Mac, we can go back to admit the real problem is Apple offering choices with questionable limitations here and there.

I myself have been using a maxed out 2017 i7 iMac since day 1, and have been annoyed by how easy it is to fire the fans up which is really noisy for my small room. This i9 iMac seems like a pretty ideal solution, but it doesn't mean I don't question if I am getting the most out of the machine if upgrading to it. I also don't particularly need an AIO, but in 2017 the iMac was clearly the most performant Mac I could get so I went with it (compared to Mac Pro 2013, mini 2014, Skylake MBP 2016). At this point I will most def wait until WWDC to see what's up with the modular Mac Pro before buying anything.

 

[Rockadile]

So thank you, instead of ousting users that demand more power out of his Mac, we can go back to admit the real problem is Apple offering choices with questionable limitations here and there.

I myself have been using a maxed out 2017 i7 iMac since day 1, and have been annoyed by how easy it is to fire the fans up which is really noisy for my small room. This i9 iMac seems like a pretty ideal solution, but it doesn't mean I don't question if I am getting the most out of the machine if upgrading to it. I also don't particularly need an AIO, but in 2017 the iMac was clearly the most performant Mac I could get so I went with it (compared to Mac Pro 2013, mini 2014, Skylake MBP 2016). At this point I will most def wait until WWDC to see what's up with the modular Mac Pro before buying anything.

What? No.

The problem is people expecting the i9 iMac to perform like a non-AIO i9.

i9 iMac is the best performer in the consumer AIO segment. You can’t really demand more when it already leads its class.

 

[Chancha]

What? No.

The problem is people expecting the i9 iMac to perform like a non-AIO i9.

i9 iMac is the best performer in the consumer AIO segment. You can’t really demand more when it already leads its class.

The iMac Pro is also an AIO; so what if the i9 is put inside the iMac Pro chassis then, with apparently more efficient cooling? The extra premium of the Pro over the regular iMac seems to mostly come from Xeon CPU and ECC RAM, I don't imagine the dual-fan system being not suited for the "consumer" iMac for any reason that is not cost related. In fact if Apple ever update the regular iMac design, it will likely inherit some pass-down features from the iMac Pro chassis. It doesn't happen now simply because Apple felt they don't have to do it yet. And as you implied, the i9 iMac is sufficiently powerful for a lot of folks, which is what most care, but it does not automatically mean it is unrealistic to expect more from the same chip, even within the AIO context.

And more importantly, back to the original intend of this thread: we know that the i9 is somewhat running at sub-optimal performance, therefore it is a legit question to ask if the i5 configs could out-do the i9 in some tasks, given the fact they share the same thermal ceiling with the same chassis. This may seem silly at first but it did happen with the 2018 i7 vs i9 MBP.

 

[Rockadile]

The iMac Pro is also an AIO; so what if the i9 is put inside the iMac Pro chassis then, with apparently more efficient cooling? The extra premium of the Pro over the regular iMac seems to mostly come from Xeon CPU and ECC RAM, I don't imagine the dual-fan system being not suited for the "consumer" iMac for any reason that is not cost related. In fact if Apple ever update the regular iMac design, it will likely inherit some pass-down features from the iMac Pro chassis. It doesn't happen now simply because Apple felt they don't have to do it yet. And as you implied, the i9 iMac is sufficiently powerful for a lot of folks, which is what most care, but it does not automatically mean it is unrealistic to expect more from the same chip, even within the AIO context.

Yeah...an AIO with workstation parts, different segment.

You haven’t thought this through. If they transplant with the iMP chassis, price shoots up. No more fusion drives and user friendly RAM changes. I know the latter will disappoint a lot of buyers judging by the number of people that bought 3rd party RAM for their new iMac.

Maxed out 2019 iMac is already in the price realm of an entry iMac Pro. They will lose the upsell of cooling if they change for iMac.

You want a Mac? Pick two of the following: lower price, higher performance, less noise.

 

[Chancha]

Yeah...an AIO with workstation parts, different segment.

You haven’t thought this through. If they transplant with the iMP chassis, price shoots up. No more fusion drives and user friendly RAM changes. I know the latter will disappoint a lot of buyers judging by the number of people that bought 3rd party RAM for their new iMac.

Maxed out 2019 iMac is already in the price realm of an entry iMac Pro. They will lose the upsell of cooling if they change for iMac.

You want a Mac? Pick two of the following: lower price, higher performance, less noise.

I actually agree with your perspective, we more or less have to play with Apple's hand since they are the sole provider of macOS running computers unless we count hackintosh. The i9 iMac is clearly the best that Apple is *willing* to do. But a theoretical i9 iMac with higher thermal ceiling could also exist, which is what was being explored by some in this thread.

 

[joema2]

...Why does Puget System's i9 achieve a roughly 15–20% better Cinebench R15 score than the iMac....In summary, the i9 iMac is up to 20% slower than other 9900K i9 equipped machines...

I'm not sure this is correct -- for comparable machines. That means pre-built air-cooled business-class machines, not liquid-cooled gaming machines, nor self-built machines.

It seems likely that Puget System's i9 was a bench test not a shipping system. They did not state what case, fan, cooler or anything. Puget told me personally they adhere to the 95W TDP on their air-cooled business-class i9-9900k machines. When run in this mode Techspot reported i9-9900 Cinebench R15 results about equal to the 2019 i9 iMac: https://www.techspot.com/review/1744-core-i9-9900k-round-two/

So far I haven't see any clear proof that Lenovo, Dell, HP, Acer or Asus ship air-cooled business-class machines with an unrestricted i9-9900k. Maybe some do but I haven't found any. Some of them have gaming divisions and specialized liquid-cooled machines that are factory-overclocked and fully supported. But neither those nor a home-built gaming machine are the proper comparison.

If mainstream PC manufacturers don't generally ship air-cooled business-class i9-9900k machines configured for unrestricted thermal mode, how is that any different from Apple? OTOH if any do this, post the specifics, I'd like to see that. Maybe one of them makes a regular non-gaming machine with a Noctua NH-D15, and maybe that could reliably support an unrestricted i9-9900k under sustained heavy load.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

The iMac Pro is also an AIO; so what if the i9 is put inside the iMac Pro chassis then, with apparently more efficient cooling? The extra premium of the Pro over the regular iMac seems to mostly come from Xeon CPU and ECC RAM, I don't imagine the dual-fan system being not suited for the "consumer" iMac for any reason that is not cost related.

I’m having trouble parsing your triple negative, but the most likely reason Apple chose not to use the iMac Pro’s cooling system in the iMac is that it leaves no room for a spinning hard drive (which would mean no Fusion Drive, either). That would raise the price of 2TB of storage by US $1,100.

If you wanted more than 2TB of storage, the difference between Apple’s price for a 3TB Fusion Drive and a 4TB SSD (they don’t offer a 3TB SSD) is $2,800! Do you want Apple to charge their customers an extra $2,800 just to get more than 2TB of internal storage in a consumer machine?

If they transplant with the iMP chassis, price shoots up. No more fusion drives and user friendly RAM changes.

Exactly.

 

[Bboble]

You've got to be joking...any AIO with a 9900K inside would be a direct competitor.

Puget System benchmark is irrelevant, data was not compiled from testing in AIO's. Stop deflecting to it.

Once again, show us a direct iMac competitor that has a 9900K doing all-cores @ 4.7GHz.

Don't give us the runaround until you do.

The joke is on Apple.

I don't believe another manufacture is foolish enough to put the exceptionally hot 9900K in an AIO and claim it has an i9. That'd be an engineering feat, now wouldn't it!? But wait, had Apple implemented their already designed / tested / validated iMac Pro cooler, they could actually have an i9 AIO. Apple should be ashamed of this misstep. Again, AnandTech found that a 95W restricted i9 performs similarly to the i7 multithreaded. While restricting power isn't going to have an impact on single-threaded performance, I don't think I'm stepping far from the trunk to say someone interested in buying a 16-threaded-machine is more interested in the performance of those 16 threads than a single one.

What’s more, the 9900k iMac is actually restricted to ~85 watts, and sometimes less as shown from AdamJackson. His frequency plot also shows the processor dangerously close to dipping below the "2018 MBP i9 throttling" threshold.

The fact of the matter—for the purposes of this thread—is the i5 boosts to the higher end of its frequency potential, while the i9 is hovering over the lower end. The so-called i9 is also effectively restricted to i7 performance levels. What these tidbits mean to a prospective purchaser is up to them, their intended workload, and how they want to invest their money.

Bboble, show us where either Apple or Intel ever promised an all-core boost at 4.7 GHz.

While it's been my understanding that Intel doesn't release this information to the public, I was able to easily find these two sheets to confirm the AnandTech reporting:

Links, please. Show us evidence of other all-in-one systems equipped with the Core i9-9900K outperforming the i9-equipped 2019 iMacs.

I don't believe I ever made this claim, did I?

i9 iMac is the best performer in the consumer AIO segment. You can’t really demand more when it already leads its class.

From what I've gathered, it's the only one in its class. Not hard to lead a segment when you're the only one in it. It's disheartening to see Apple back in the prosumer market. Apple nearly went bankrupt following this model in the 90s before Steve came back to rescue Apple.

Competition drives innovation.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

I don't believe another manufacture is foolish enough to put the exceptionally hot 9900K in an AIO and claim it has an i9. That'd be an engineering feat, now wouldn't it!?

What chip would you have preferred that Apple put in the 2019 27-inch iMac?

But wait, had Apple implemented their already designed / tested / validated iMac Pro cooler, they could actually have an i9 AIO.

It sounds to me like what you want is an iMac Pro, not an iMac.

If Apple had used the iMac Pro’s cooling system in the iMac, there would be no room for a spinning hard drive (not even for a Fusion Drive), which would have limited internal storage to 2TB and would have raised its price by US $1,100 (or Apple could have added the option of a 4TB SSD in the 2019 iMac, which would have raised its price by US $2,800 compared to an iMac with a 3TB Fusion Drive).

Do you really expect Apple to do that in a “prosumer” machine?

While it's been my understanding that Intel doesn't release this information to the public, I was able to easily find these two sheets to confirm the AnandTech reporting:

Thank you for posting those, but since, as you say, Intel did not release those test results to the public, that hardly counts as advertising or promising those clock speeds.

I don't believe I ever made this claim, did I?

That’s what it sounded like to me:

Nevertheless, it also seems to be the consensus that other "business class" machines are not allowed to run "unrestricted," yet, they STILL all run much faster.… In summary, the i9 iMac is up to 20% slower than other 9900K i9 equipped machines.

 

[Rockadile]

Bboble, if you've actually read all the recent post (not surprised you didn't), you would know why we can't just use the iMac Pro chassis.

There's no competition in the segment hence no innovation, so you can't fault Apple on their decision to keep iMac chassis the same. They can do as they please with no one in the rearview mirror. Milk as much profit with the least R&D cost...business 101.
You need to email Tim Cook if you think what they're doing is a joke, this is a user-to-user forum.

But you finally realized there is no other i9-9900 AIO.
I'm glad you did your homework now instead of in the beginning
Here I thought you were genuinely confused by bringing up apples-to-oranges Anandtech & Puget Sound i9 benchmarks and throwing up a pitchfork because the i9 iMac can't do the same speed as a PC with better supporting components.
[doublepost=1554360529][/doublepost]

What chip would you have preferred that Apple put in the 2019 27-inch iMac?

Here's a freebie for Bboble.

The i7-9700. However like the iPhone storage space, they omit the mid range to inflate the difference.

Apple marketing team really is evil

 

[JacobHarvey]

[doublepost=1554360529][/doublepost]
Here's a freebie for Bboble.

The i7-9700. However like the iPhone storage space, they omit the mid range to inflate the difference.

Apple marketing team really is evil

The i7-9700 definitely would have been a better fit seeing as the i9 can't reach its full unrestricted potential in this iMac. This reminds me of how they used to have 16GB and 64GB Storage options (with no 32GB option in between) in the iPhone 6 days to encourage purchasers to move up one tier in options.

However, unlike the 16GB iPhone 6, the i5s are a great choice as they are still very fast CPUs while the i9, although not able to reach its full unrestricted potential, is undoubtedly the fastest CPU in a 'regular' consumer mac and a good step up from the i5 for those who need the extra power in multi-threaded workloads.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

…the i9, although not able to reach its full unrestricted potential, is undoubtedly the fastest CPU in a 'regular' consumer mac and a good step up from the i5 for those who need the extra power in multi-threaded workloads.

Hmm, thinking about the i9 not being able to reach its full unrestricted potential is starting to make me angry that Apple don’t offer a liquid-helium-cooled 128-core gaming rig with 64 interleaved Nvidia Titan RTXs driving a wall-sized 240 Hz G-Sync Retina display with a 24-bit/192-kHz Hamasaki 22.2 channel surround sound sytem.

Just think of all the performance they’re leaving on the table!

 

[Bboble]

What chip would you have preferred that Apple put in the 2019 27-inch iMac?


It sounds to me like what you want is an iMac Pro, not an iMac.

If Apple had used the iMac Pro’s cooling system in the iMac, there would be no room for a spinning hard drive (not even for a Fusion Drive), which would have limited internal storage to 2TB and would have raised its price by US $1,100 (or Apple could have added the option of a 4TB SSD in the 2019 iMac, which would have raised its price by US $2,800 compared to an iMac with a 3TB Fusion Drive).

Do you really expect Apple to do that in a “prosumer” machine?

This is not about my preference of chip. It's my preference that Apple delivers i9 level performance from an i9 labeled machine. I expect Apple to sell consumer and pro level products. I expect them to stop blurring the lines and bloating their offerings. Is this too much to ask or expect?

Thank you for posting those, but since, as you say, Intel did not release those test results to the public, that hardly counts as advertising or promising those clock speeds.

Fair point. Do you have information to the contrary? I'd be curious to see it.

I should also note, that these values have been verified by many who have entered into the bios of any 9900K equipped machine. The bios contained core frequency table is in line with everything I've posted. It's my understanding this is being read from the CPU. Perhaps those aren't genuine Intel silicone? Perhaps we need to check the SKU of the processors to verify?

That’s what it sounded like to me:

Normally when someone refers to a consensus by quoteing terms, they're quoting the consensus of others, not their own thoughts.

Bboble, if you've actually read all the recent post (not surprised you didn't), you would know why we can't just use the iMac Pro chassis.

There's no competition in the segment hence no innovation, so you can't fault Apple on their decision to keep iMac chassis the same. They can do as they please with no one in the rearview mirror. Milk as much profit with the least R&D cost...business 101.
You need to email Tim Cook if you think what they're doing is a joke, this is a user-to-user forum.

But you finally realized there is no other i9-9900 AIO.
I'm glad you did your homework now instead of in the beginning
Here I thought you were genuinely confused by bringing up apples-to-oranges Anandtech & Puget Sound i9 benchmarks and throwing up a pitchfork because the i9 iMac can't do the same speed as a PC with better supporting components.

I can fault Apple however I want.

Here I thought you were for the people, and not the profit in a user-to-user forum. I apologize for misconstruing.

Here I thought Apple was deceiving the user by marketing i9 level performance, but really delivering i7 performance.

Turns out, some users are deceiving themselves.

 

[JacobHarvey]

Hmm, thinking about the i9 not being able to reach its full unrestricted potential is starting to make me angry that Apple don’t offer a liquid-helium-cooled 128-core gaming rig with 64 interleaved Nvidia Titan RTXs driving a wall-sized 240 Hz G-Sync Retina display with a 24-bit/192-kHz Hamasaki 22.2 channel surround sound sytem.

Just think of all the performance they’re leaving on the table!

Hehe I still find it impressive that it hits and maintains 3.8GHz with all 8 Cores and 16 Threads in such a compact enclosure. 900 MHz lower 8-Core turbo compared to a 'less than pretty' (ugly) giant PC box is a relatively small price to pay. That said a redesigned cooling system plus power supply changes would have likely helped reduce this gap, but it was probably way too much effort for a computer they'll probably redesign completely in the next few years.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

Fair point. Do you have information to the contrary? I'd be curious to see it.

No, of course I don’t. You’re asking me to prove the non-existence of something (specifically, of promises or advertisements by Apple or Intel). How could I do that?

You’re the one who has alleged that Apple have promised performance that they’re not delivering. The burden is on you to provide evidence of those promises or advertisements.

Normally when someone refers to a consensus by quoteing terms, they're quoting the consensus of others, not their own thoughts.

Now I understand you.

What you wrote was ambiguous. It could have been taken to mean:

…it also seems to be the consensus that other "business class" machines are not allowed to run "unrestricted," yet the consensus is that they STILL all run much faster.​

Which I now see is what you intended, or it could just as easily have been taken to mean:

…it also seems to be the consensus that other "business class" machines are not allowed to run "unrestricted," yet the fact is that they STILL all run much faster.
​

Which is how I took your meaning.

 

[Rockadile]

This is not about my preference of chip. It's my preference that Apple delivers i9 level performance from an i9 labeled machine. I expect Apple to sell consumer and pro level products. I expect them to stop blurring the lines and bloating their offerings. Is this too much to ask or expect?



Fair point. Do you have information to the contrary? I'd be curious to see it.

I should also note, that these values have been verified by many who have entered into the bios of any 9900K equipped machine. The bios contained core frequency table is in line with everything I've posted. It's my understanding this is being read from the CPU. Perhaps those aren't genuine Intel silicone? Perhaps we need to check the SKU of the processors to verify?



Okay, I realize it's late, otherwise I'd say you just lost several IQ points. Normally when someone refers to a consensus by quoteing terms, they're quoting the consensus of others, not their own thoughts.




I can fault Apple however I want.

Here I thought you were for the people, and not the profit in a user-to-user forum. I apologize for misconstruing.

Here I thought Apple was deceiving the user by marketing i9 level performance, but really delivering i7 performance.

Turns out, some users are deceiving themselves.

The 9900K blurs the line between top-end consumer and entry HEDT (like I already said before that you probably didn't read). There was bound to be a time when consumer and pro chip levels met. So you want Apple to omit more chips on purpose to differentiate the level more?

 

[Chancha]

The iMac is covering too wide of a spectrum then, if the bottom barrel Fusion-equipped models become a constraint on how high the top end config can be. I think when we take away the Xeon CPU and ECC ram out of the iMac Pro package, just the cooling system and even the motherboard with rather decent TB3 I/O together must not be that much more costly than what's in the regular iMac. I just think the current iMac with a re-design much needed but still hasn't happened is putting the i9 config at a compromised state.

 

[Bohemien]

What’s more, the 9900k iMac is actually restricted to ~85 watts, and sometimes less as shown from AdamJackson. The fact of the matter is the i5 boosts to the higher end of its frequency potential, while the i9 is hovering over the lower end.

Hm-if we were talking about cars, I'd say the i9 would still make more sense to get as it's not constantly operating at its limit, while in total being faster than the i5-9600K (in almost all scenarios I can think of). I have no clue however if this translates to Silicon too.

The i7-9700. However like the iPhone storage space, they omit the mid range to inflate the difference. Apple marketing team really is evil

Heck, I'd even be happy if they included the i7-8700 in the 27" lineup (as I wrote before). That would be the perfect "middle ground" between low TDP and high performance for me.

I can't understand the reason why Apple didn't give us that option other that they let the intern decide on the specs for the "early 2019" lineup because all the grown-ups are working on the Apple-CPU iMac and the MacPro... (*Sarcasm*!)

Joking aside, these are very capable machines in a (still) beautiful form factor, I just have to decide how high I need to spec it to be happy with it for the next 8 years...

 

[iPadified]

There is a rather nice continium in performance between the lowest end iMac, highest end iMac and lowest end iMP. Performance roughly correlates with price. Rather simple.

Two processor choices: standard and best - nice and simple. The average customer do not need more choices than this.

If i9 has higher performance than i9 in the iMac chassi, go for the i9. Imagine the complaining some here would have if Apple "only" put an 6C/12T processor when and 8C/16T exists!

 

[quagmire]

The i7-9700 definitely would have been a better fit seeing as the i9 can't reach its full unrestricted potential in this iMac. This reminds me of how they used to have 16GB and 64GB Storage options (with no 32GB option in between) in the iPhone 6 days to encourage purchasers to move up one tier in options.

However, unlike the 16GB iPhone 6, the i5s are a great choice as they are still very fast CPUs while the i9, although not able to reach its full unrestricted potential, is undoubtedly the fastest CPU in a 'regular' consumer mac and a good step up from the i5 for those who need the extra power in multi-threaded workloads.

Limiting Cinebench to 8 threads( mimicking the 9700K now) saw a speed of 4.2 Ghz and score of 3391. Not sure what clockspeed the 9700K sees going full tilt, but if the software could take advantage of hyperthreading, the 9900K would still be 20% faster than the 9700K if Cinebench correlates.

 

[Bboble]

The 9900K blurs the line between top-end consumer and entry HEDT (like I already said before that you probably didn't read). There was bound to be a time when consumer and pro chip levels met. So you want Apple to omit more chips on purpose to differentiate the level more?

I want Apple to build the best computers they can. I would expect other users to agree. I'm fully aware Intel has blurred the line, but, that doesn't translate into Apple having to do the same. As I've stated many times, the i9 is a screamer. On paper, it should always outperform the i5. However, given Apple's implementation, it's possible there are use cases in where it doesn't. How they compare watt for watt, I am curious. The intention of this thread is to unmask these questions. The closest users have (AFAIK) to that information is the AnandTech testing in where they restricted the i9 to 95 watts. Until someone with both machines can readily run tests for customers, AnandTech can run another suite of benchmarks with the i9 limited as per we're seeing in iMac, or a more comprehensive test comes out, this is where we're at.

If you and Colonel Blimp can't accept the max operating frequency of the 9900K at full tilt, all-core to be 4.7GHz, or provide evidence to suggest otherwise, I can't help you. I came on here to put down fact, not be attacked. Does Apple promise 4.7GHz full tilt? No, they do not explicitly. What they promise explicitly is an i9. This translates into them having to conduct their own testing and making sure they're able to sustain i9 levels of performance. If they knowingly give i7 levels, but charge and market for an i9, this is a problem. Though, in fairness, Intel changed their marketing, adding the i9 tier, and removing hyper-threading in the i7. What all this means to the prospective purchaser is up to them. The "i9" may still be the choice for them, but, they should be armed with the facts to make an informed decision.

Limiting Cinebench to 8 threads( mimicking the 9700K now) saw a speed of 4.2 Ghz and score of 3391. Not sure what clockspeed the 9700K sees going full tilt, but if the software could take advantage of hyperthreading, the 9900K would still be 20% faster than the 9700K if Cinebench correlates.

Thank you for all this work. The 9700K max boost is 4.6GHz. I'm not sure how scaling is in Cinebench R20, though I'd be curious to know the shape of the curve with more data points—specifically wattage and 6 threads and under, and if someone with a 9600K could do the same. In theory, the results should be similar due to the binning process, but this may uncover more into the implementations of each chip.

So far for the 9900K:

1 thread 4.7–4.8 GHz
6 threads 4.5 GHz 2749
8 threads 4.2 GHz 3391
12 threads 4–4.1 GHz 3829
16 threads 3.8–3.9 GHz 4069
[doublepost=1554398706][/doublepost]

The iMac is covering too wide of a spectrum then, if the bottom barrel Fusion-equipped models become a constraint on how high the top end config can be. I think when we take away the Xeon CPU and ECC ram out of the iMac Pro package, just the cooling system and even the motherboard with rather decent TB3 I/O together must not be that much more costly than what's in the regular iMac. I just think the current iMac with a re-design much needed but still hasn't happened is putting the i9 config at a compromised state.

I agree. Hell, they could even brand the i9 iMac a Pro, lower the entry price into that "category," and this would be a marketing masterpiece. Though, the extra TB3 I/O is due to the extra PCI-e lanes of the x299 chipset. Nevertheless, they could ditch the HDD as they so hastily did with the floppy and optical drive and put the i9 in that system easy. They may even be able to relocate the HDD. The average user replaceable ram is nice, though. But, with ram prices currently falling as fast as they are, perhaps they could price their BTO more reasonable, and it wouldn't be such an issue.

 

[Ethosik]

I want Apple to build the best computers they can. I would expect other users to agree. I'm fully aware Intel has blurred the line, but, that doesn't translate into Apple having to do the same. As I've stated many times, the i9 is a screamer. On paper, it should always outperform the i5. However, given Apple's implementation, it's possible there are use cases in where it doesn't. How they compare watt for watt, I am curious. The intention of this thread is to unmask these questions. The closest users have (AFAIK) to that information is the AnandTech testing in where they restricted the i9 to 95 watts. Until someone with both machines can readily run tests for customers, AnandTech can run another suite of benchmarks with the i9 limited as per we're seeing in iMac, or a more comprehensive test comes out, this is where we're at.

If you and Colonel Blimp can't accept the max operating frequency of the 9900K at full tilt, all-core to be 4.7GHz, or provide evidence to suggest otherwise, I can't help you. I came on here to put down fact, not be attacked. Does Apple promise 4.7GHz full tilt? No, they do not explicitly. What they promise explicitly is an i9. This translates into them having to conduct their own testing and making sure they're able to sustain i9 levels of performance. If they knowingly give i7 levels, but charge and market for an i9, this is a problem. Though, in fairness, Intel changed their marketing, adding the i9 tier, and removing hyper-threading in the i7. What all this means to the prospective purchaser is up to them. The "i9" may still be the choice for them, but, they should be armed with the facts to make an informed decision.



Thank you for all this work. The 9700K max boost is 4.6GHz. I'm not sure how scaling is in Cinebench R20, though I'd be curious to know the shape of the curve with more data points—specifically wattage and 6 threads and under, and if someone with a 9600K could do the same. In theory, the results should be similar due to the binning process, but this may uncover more into the implementations of each chip.

So far for the 9900K:

1 thread 4.7–4.8 GHz
6 threads 4.5 GHz 2749
8 threads 4.2 GHz 3391
12 threads 4–4.1 GHz 3829
16 threads 3.8–3.9 GHz 4069
[doublepost=1554398706][/doublepost]

I agree. Hell, they could even brand the i9 iMac a Pro, lower the entry price into that "category," and this would be a marketing masterpiece. Though, the extra TB3 I/O is due to the extra PCI-e lanes of the x299 chipset. Nevertheless, they could ditch the HDD as they so hastily did with the floppy and optical drive and put the i9 in that system easy. They may even be able to relocate the HDD. The average user replaceable ram is nice, though. But, with ram prices currently falling as fast as they are, perhaps they could price their BTO more reasonable, and it wouldn't be such an issue.

Apple did not blur the line. Look at the actual Intel spec sheet. It says the same thing that we are observing on our tests. 95w TDP, 3.6 GHz base and up to 5Ghz turbo boost. Nowhere in their spec sheet lists a high TDP and a base clock speed of 4.7Ghz.

 

[joema2]

Apple did not blur the line. Look at the actual Intel spec sheet. It says the same thing that we are observing on our tests. 95w TDP, 3.6 GHz base and up to 5Ghz turbo boost. Nowhere in their spec sheet lists a high TDP and a base clock speed of 4.7Ghz.

The situation can be confusing because of how motherboard manufacturers may enable unrestricted thermal mode on the i9-9900k, which is different from how a PC manufacturer configures a "turnkey" air-cooled general-purpose machine.

It appears that some motherboard mfgs may enable unrestricted thermal mode by default. However that's just the mobo, not the entire system. Any comparison of the i9 iMac is to an air-cooled business-class PC from a major manufacturer, not to some motherboard on a test bench.

Unlike a motherboard or self-built PC, a mainstream manufacturer like Dell or HP must support the entire PC. Dell alone ships 10 *million* desktop PCs per year. They don't put a Noctua NH-D15 in their business-class air-cooled PCs. They don't want service calls or warranty claims because they shipped i9-9900k air-cooled machines with unrestricted thermal mode enabled and then somebody ran Prime95 AVX (or equivalent app) for two days.

What the i9-9900k *chip* is capable of vs what a PC manufacturer ships are two different things. To my knowledge most PC mfgs do not ship air-cooled i9-9900k business-class machines in unrestricted thermal mode, just like they don't ship them overclocked.

You can definitely buy a boutique PC configured like that and the mfg will support it. E.g, Digital Storm sells a liquid-cooled i9-9900k PC with all cores at 5.1Ghz, and they support that. It costs $4,353: https://www.digitalstorm.com/configurator.asp?id=2074086

The proper comparison to the i9 iMac is a machine like the Puget Systems Spirit. They have an i9-9900k config equipped with a Noctua NH-U12S, and with a 27" monitor it is about $3,200, not too different from a similarly-equipped i9 iMac. It's a good machine from a great company and it has a nice big air cooler -- but it does not ship in unrestricted thermal mode, just like the i9 iMac does not: http://puget.systems/go/150380

 

[Rockadile]

I want Apple to build the best computers they can. I would expect other users to agree. I'm fully aware Intel has blurred the line, but, that doesn't translate into Apple having to do the same. As I've stated many times, the i9 is a screamer. On paper, it should always outperform the i5. However, given Apple's implementation, it's possible there are use cases in where it doesn't. How they compare watt for watt, I am curious. The intention of this thread is to unmask these questions. The closest users have (AFAIK) to that information is the AnandTech testing in where they restricted the i9 to 95 watts. Until someone with both machines can readily run tests for customers, AnandTech can run another suite of benchmarks with the i9 limited as per we're seeing in iMac, or a more comprehensive test comes out, this is where we're at.

If you and Colonel Blimp can't accept the max operating frequency of the 9900K at full tilt, all-core to be 4.7GHz, or provide evidence to suggest otherwise, I can't help you. I came on here to put down fact, not be attacked. Does Apple promise 4.7GHz full tilt? No, they do not explicitly. What they promise explicitly is an i9. This translates into them having to conduct their own testing and making sure they're able to sustain i9 levels of performance. If they knowingly give i7 levels, but charge and market for an i9, this is a problem. Though, in fairness, Intel changed their marketing, adding the i9 tier, and removing hyper-threading in the i7. What all this means to the prospective purchaser is up to them. The "i9" may still be the choice for them, but, they should be armed with the facts to make an informed decision.



Thank you for all this work. The 9700K max boost is 4.6GHz. I'm not sure how scaling is in Cinebench R20, though I'd be curious to know the shape of the curve with more data points—specifically wattage and 6 threads and under, and if someone with a 9600K could do the same. In theory, the results should be similar due to the binning process, but this may uncover more into the implementations of each chip.

So far for the 9900K:

1 thread 4.7–4.8 GHz
6 threads 4.5 GHz 2749
8 threads 4.2 GHz 3391
12 threads 4–4.1 GHz 3829
16 threads 3.8–3.9 GHz 4069
[doublepost=1554398706][/doublepost]

I agree. Hell, they could even brand the i9 iMac a Pro, lower the entry price into that "category," and this would be a marketing masterpiece. Though, the extra TB3 I/O is due to the extra PCI-e lanes of the x299 chipset. Nevertheless, they could ditch the HDD as they so hastily did with the floppy and optical drive and put the i9 in that system easy. They may even be able to relocate the HDD. The average user replaceable ram is nice, though. But, with ram prices currently falling as fast as they are, perhaps they could price their BTO more reasonable, and it wouldn't be such an issue.

I have a Windows PC with a 9900K that's able to go 5.1GHz at "full tilt". I've been well aware the whole time it is able to go stock all-cores 4.7GHz in the right environment.

You've mistaken me for profit over people. We are not Apple reps. Your issue is better emailed to Tim Cook. We cannot help you make changes to the product line.

Reviewers have been pleasantly surprised and actual owners have posted delight. That is what matters. The Mac ethos isn't about max performance. Now do you understand us?