Hello, I use always Final Cut, Motion and Compressor, in according to you, which setup is ideal for me? In the shopping bag I have: 512 gb ssd, 8 gb ram, Vega 48 and then? i5 or i9?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2019 iMac - i5 vs i9? Cooling and Throttling?
- Thread starter Black Diesel
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hello, I use always Final Cut, Motion and Compressor, in according to you, which setup is ideal for me? In the shopping bag I have: 512 gb ssd, 8 gb ram, Vega 48 and then? i5 or i9?
The Puget Systems person I spoke to *did* dig into the settings used during their manufacturing process and said they specifically set the BIOS to the i9-9900k default TDP. He said they don't ship the "Puget Spirit" system with BIOS configured above the default TDP.
This can be confusing, since what is the "default TDP" -- Intel's default spec of 95W for the i9-9900k or the motherboard vendor's default settings? I asked Puget specifically about the 95W default setting for the i9-9900k, and his answer was in that context.
I think they used the smaller single-fan Noctua NH-U12S. Noctua's spec for the LGA-1151 socket used by the i9-9900k is 95W TDP max: https://noctua.at/en/tdp-guide_copy
Motherboard vendors often configure their products to overclock or disable TDP limitations by default. Noctua discusses this here: https://noctua.at/en/how-can-i-dete...lt-and-deactivate-this-automatic-overclocking
Just because the mobo vendor does this doesn't mean the PC system vendor leaves it that way. A vendor like Dell or HP has to support millions of machines and they don't put a Noctua NH-D15 in their business-class PCs.
Regardless of what any PC mfg says, if CineBench R15 produces over 2,000 on an i9-9900k, the CPU is probably not configured for Intel's 95W TDP default. If the R15 score is about 1,700, it is probably running at the 95W TDP default.
Yes, Dell offers this in the "Special Edition" XPS 8830. Here are some interior shots showing the cooler in various Dell XPS 8830 towers, including the "Special Edition". I doubt that Dell ships these with the 95W TDP disabled: https://joema.smugmug.com/Computers/Dell-XPS8830-CPU-Coolers/n-2325LV
I haven't seen Cinebench R15 scores on the Dell XPS with i9-9900k, so I don't know for sure. But if Dell doesn't disable the 95W TDP on the XPS big box, I don't see what Apple does on the i9 iMac as any different.
I am seriously confused by this entire thread. Are people saying the i9 performance is horrible and the i5 is better? Or is the complaint still not reaching sustained 5 GHz turbo boost?
I thnk that i5 is cheaper and reach 4,2 ghz (with six core) and i9 works about 3,8 ghz (with 8 core), so many people have doubt between i5 and i9
That was insinuated due to the 95W cap on the i9 and only running 8 cores at 3.7 while the i5 could run all 6 at 4.2.
It's by far worse than the i5. It can run circles around the i5 with the 8 cores 16 threats even if the frequency is slower, so if you want power, I9 is the race car.
I concur with all points highlighted, and those of your previous post.
I guess what the real issue comes down to is something we haven't seen before. It's my understanding, that up until recently all processors could obtain and sustain turbo frequencies within their stated TDP, plus or minus a few percent. As such, we didn't have this issue we're now facing. The 9900K, left to do what it wants to do, will clearly pull way more power than 95watts.
Now, there are two approaches on how to deal with this. On the one hand, what Apple is doing by restricting the i9 (below the TDP, mind you) and not cooling it adequately, they're effectively sending the message to Intel to say, "No, we're not going to tolerate this mislabeling of your processors." While Apple has always throttled their processors to some degree as they're always pushing the thermal envelop, this (I believe) is the first time they're throttling to this degree of potential. AnandTech's comprehensive testing shows that at 95watts, between 8–28% performance is left on the table, but, Apple is throttling the i9 to more like 80–85watts. Apple is sending a powerful message to Intel. And, frankly, if they're working to develop their own processors, they have every right to nab at Intel. I'm sure Apple's processors will blow us all out of the water when we hear what they're capable of.
On the other hand, one could glean at the situation and say, okay, times change, but, the TDP rating hasn't changed because the TDP is set for different tiers of the processor market. With respect to this, manufactures such as Puget had this to say about TDP:
My personal opinion - and I think it aligns pretty closely with our company policy, though I wouldn't want to speak for that without consulting other folks here - is that reaching the turbo speeds prescribed by the CPU manufacturer (either Intel or AMD) is not overclocking, so long as voltage is left at default settings.
In other words, I don't care about the TDP
We use CPU coolers which can handle heat far in excess of the TDP on the 9900K, and other models, even for extended periods of time. Because of that, what I want to see is processors reaching and maintaining the turbo clock speeds appropriate for however many cores are currently active. Thermal throttling as a last-ditch protection is fine and good (in case a fan fails, for example) but I don't want to see my processors throttling because of some artificial power draw limitation.
To me, actual overclocking is when you run part of a CPU (the core clock, the memory controller clock, etc) at a speed above what the manufacturer has rated it for. For example, using memory above 2666MHz on the 9900K - or setting it to run at 5.0GHz turbo across all cores, rather than when just 1-2 cores are under load. Overvolting is similar, but instead of changing clock speeds it involves increasing voltage to the CPU - and it is often required in order to enable overclocking to succeed. Both of those push a CPU beyond what the manufacturer has rated it for, though, whereas allowing higher wattage operation (at default clocks and voltages) isn't exceeding any performance specs, it is just allowing more heat to be generated. As long as that is handled responsibly - with a good CPU cooler and plenty of airflow through the system - then I think it is just fine and the "best practice" in my opinion.
Granted, as this response is dated, I'll be reaching out to them for their current clarity on the topic. What side of the field is right, I guess time will show.
[doublepost=1554479357][/doublepost]
The i9 in iMac throttles significantly more than the i5. With that, they both seem to be performing fairly equivalent thermally, and the i9 is still shown to outperform the i5. However, depending on the workload and how the i9 is loaded (and thusly throttled), it may effectively have lower clock speeds to the equivalently loaded i5. As some applications benefit from higher clock speed, the i5 may edge out.
In other words, while the i9 should always be faster than the i5, there may be use cases where this isn't so due to it throttling ~80% of it's potential clock speed boost vs ~20% for the i5. Time and benchmarks will continue to follow and paint the picture clearer.
Last edited:
Use cases for where the i5 with higher clock speed will be faster is where using software that does not use more then 6 cores.
The i5 does not do hyper threading so is 6 cores / 6 threads, vs 8 Cores / 16 threads.
So for instance handbrake which will use the extra cores/threads would see a nice boost on the i9.
Software that not able to use the extra cores will be better off with the i5 and the extra speed per core.
The complaint here still is that not going to get 4.7ghz turbo which systems with much much bigger cooling solutions are hitting.
Blame the people that bitched about the i7 in the 2017 valuing quiet over performance. Also blame the people hitching about the t2 as to why minimal upgrade. Next system with better cooling/chassis board going to have the tx chip and I bet soldered storage like he mini.
In terms of final cut, motion and compressor, then I use the fcp x and compressor and depends upon what you are doing.
For instance the YouTube gen that edits short vids and exports to h.264 then fcp x and compressor can use the quick sync feature in the cou’s to export quickly. Is why a 2013 mbpro can export h.264 quicker then a 12 core Mac Pro 2013.
The i5 and i9 should also do quick sync for h.265/hevc as well so again exporting shouldn’t be hugely different.
If on other hand are exporting master file then the i9/vega should do better then the i5/580x combo as use the extra cores and power to render and export.
If then encoding with handbrake then the i9 should be quicker then the i5.
Really depends upon how long the videos that are working with are though as the longer the video the more noticeable the differ nice would be.
The i5 does not do hyper threading so is 6 cores / 6 threads, vs 8 Cores / 16 threads.
So for instance handbrake which will use the extra cores/threads would see a nice boost on the i9.
Software that not able to use the extra cores will be better off with the i5 and the extra speed per core.
The complaint here still is that not going to get 4.7ghz turbo which systems with much much bigger cooling solutions are hitting.
Blame the people that bitched about the i7 in the 2017 valuing quiet over performance. Also blame the people hitching about the t2 as to why minimal upgrade. Next system with better cooling/chassis board going to have the tx chip and I bet soldered storage like he mini.
In terms of final cut, motion and compressor, then I use the fcp x and compressor and depends upon what you are doing.
For instance the YouTube gen that edits short vids and exports to h.264 then fcp x and compressor can use the quick sync feature in the cou’s to export quickly. Is why a 2013 mbpro can export h.264 quicker then a 12 core Mac Pro 2013.
The i5 and i9 should also do quick sync for h.265/hevc as well so again exporting shouldn’t be hugely different.
If on other hand are exporting master file then the i9/vega should do better then the i5/580x combo as use the extra cores and power to render and export.
If then encoding with handbrake then the i9 should be quicker then the i5.
Really depends upon how long the videos that are working with are though as the longer the video the more noticeable the differ nice would be.
Only in the (completely hypothetical) rare case that this software runs at the same time with some other software using up the rest of the available threads, forcing the i9 below 4 GHz.
As was shown earlier on this thread (this is summing up Cinebench R20 results):
So when using a program that can't use more than 6 threads, the i9 would run somewhere between 4.2 and 4.5GHz, still finishing the task faster than the i5, in my understanding.
Seriously, I can't imagine a real-life scenario other than someone is trying to render two files at once on the i9 vs. the i5 rendering one file after the other, but I guess still then the i9 would be faster when looking at the total time needed to render both files.
To quote another post from way up the thread:
IMHO, we've seen the benchmarks, so it's very simple now: Apple offers you a choice of "A" at a price of X vs. a choice of "B" at a price of Y (vs. not buying from them). Your call.
Last edited:
The odd chance of i5 out-performing i9 at certain tasks was a legit enquiry. Though unlikely, but given the 2017's thermal and fan behavior, on top of the i7 MBP 2018 almost equaling the i9 version, all of these fuelled the suspicion.
Of course we now have enough field tests to show it not to be the case, the i9 iMac is a universally superior choice than i5 just at a cost.
This thread's problem was derailing off to arguing on "throttling" semantics, and then expectation on Macs to be performant differs for different users.
Of course we now have enough field tests to show it not to be the case, the i9 iMac is a universally superior choice than i5 just at a cost.
This thread's problem was derailing off to arguing on "throttling" semantics, and then expectation on Macs to be performant differs for different users.
but if you're a fanboy who has to run Macintosh for personal or professional reasons and won't deal with Hackintosh or can't because your work won't fund you installing Mac OS on a home-brew PC, you sort of have to deal with it. you can send your feedback to Apple, buy the new whatever because you need it and that's that.
Sometimes, I feel lucky Apple even makes Macs at all anymore. It's a big business but small potatoes for them. I'm just happy we have MacOS at all.
Sure, I just think that has been established some time ago, and believe me, I'm very happy about it. Was anxiously awaiting the iMac refresh, hoping they would still do one more generation with Intel processors (for the rare occasions I'm "depending" on a certain software that's only available for Windows). Of course I was hoping for a redesign of the cooling system, but as far as we've seen, the new machines seem to be ok, quiet enough and a step up from the previous generation. And of course the i9 could even run faster in a different enclosure, but that is what Apple is willing to give us, now I just have to decide if it's worth its price to me or not.
I agree-I'm using my Mac professionally and can't go the Hackintosh route, but luckily I don't need the absolutely fastest machine available. I can understand that for someone who does, not using the full potential of the i9 might be enraging. It's like Apple is telling those users to buy into the iMac Pro line instead, for considerably more money.
And when it comes to MacOS, I also agree, I'm happy to have a relatively stable and working alternative to Windows.
Now the question I'm still pondering is (although it's not the topic of this thread): 580X or Vega? I'm not gaming on the Mac (use consoles for that), do you guys think there would be any real advantage on going with the Vega if my main uses are photo editing, office work and occasionally running Logic?
We’ve known for a few days now that the i9 running on only six cores still outperfoms the i5 (at least in Cinebench R20).
Last edited:
Video software make use of both CPU and GPU so Vega 48 and i9. I think you are trying to buy and install your own RAM?
Mac4Ever just uploaded to YouTube a fabulous comparison of a great many current Mac models, including all the variations of the 2019 i5 and i9 iMacs (as well as the 2018 Mac mini, the 2018 MacBook Pro, and the 8-, 10-, and 18-core iMac Pro).
(Don’t be put off watching just because your French might be a little rusty; it’s chock full of detailed charts with answers to many of the questions raised in this thread.)
Edit: You can read Mac4Ever’s review here.
(Don’t be put off watching just because your French might be a little rusty; it’s chock full of detailed charts with answers to many of the questions raised in this thread.)
Edit: You can read Mac4Ever’s review here.
Last edited:
If you're just using Photoshop than 580X and Vega if using Capture One. CO is very hard on these GPU's that already got their hands full powering a 5k display, add in RAW editing to the mix and you need every drop of GPU.
Photoshop doesn't care for CPU threads. I expect within 1 sec difference using the PS filters between the i5 and i9.
Concise summary of nearly ten pages.
Certain applications do favor frequency over thread count, so, depending how the load is spread across the threads, this will still effect resultant clock speed. Nevertheless, in these cases that may occur, it could be addressed at the software level.
Heard from Puget. They do not restrict their i9 machines, as they expect them to "perform at or very near their full turbo speeds under load." What does this mean for iMac? Nothing really, just that Apple isn't building the best they can—though, this machine is still a HUGE step above the 2017 model.
As someone previously alluded to, this may be the last of the "old" mac as we will come to know it.
Nobody has said much about performance with less than 100% CPU. I agree with those that say the 100% CPU tests show the temperature being kept down by lowering the CPU speed to 3.9GHz and without using the fan much.
But in contrast: I was running Lightroom (so real life test). The CPU was at about 70% (so most cores, but not all, in use). The CPU speed was up about 4.5GHz, temperature over 90C and fan about 2500rpm. Most definitely not throttling. And seriously using the fan.
But in contrast: I was running Lightroom (so real life test). The CPU was at about 70% (so most cores, but not all, in use). The CPU speed was up about 4.5GHz, temperature over 90C and fan about 2500rpm. Most definitely not throttling. And seriously using the fan.
What were you doing - was that during import, export of images? And did the fan noise bother you?
Which configuration does your iMac have?
Thx!
That's the thing. When Apple's hardware is usually last generation of what Windows users have had for a year and then Apple has the gusto to charge an ultra premium ($450 or $1000 more) for something that's an extra $150 in the Windows world, it hurts even more. Fine, don't give me a top of the line NVIDIA card so I could actually play a new game in Bootcamp on this beautiful 27" display but don't charge me $450 to upgrade to a middle-tier Vega, either. Storage / Memory prices have always been astronomical for Apple but if you live and breathe by every percentage of performance gains, you could have purchased 2 Windows machines with the exact same hardware for the $4300 they want us to pay for an iMac.
Yup. And, given that I primarily use my iMac for photo editing and occasional video editing, I'm beginning to wonder if I should pick up a Windows machine for that dedicated use with my daily digital life staying on my iPad Pro and iPhone where it is now. Making matters worse is the ery real possibility that the (expensive) 2019 iMacs may be rendered obsolete in a year or two if Apple goes with its own processors.
Yes this happened to me in 2006 with the Mac Pro tower. I bought a $3500 tower which at that time was like today’s $5000 Mac Pro that had Apples chip. The next year they switched over to Intels chip and two operating systems later was no longer able to update my OS. The real problem came when developers stopped supporting the older OS. Which came very quickly since more people bought the tower with the intel chip and more units were produced and sold.
Throw the web page into google translate and it works pretty good