Looks like we have to wait for the first reviews....
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 w/i9 + 2017 thermal design = iFurnace?
- Thread starter dspdoc
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Looks like we have to wait for the first reviews....
True. However, I have lost my faith. They are such lazy for the last few years. I'm also really curious how will be the psu inside the new iMac. We might even see throttling issues related to psu.
After thunderbolt 3 evolves into usb 4.0 without any royalty features, Apple should consider passing to AMD cpus if ARM won't be ready then.
Remember this i9 has thermal paste integrated into the chip itself...this i9 runs 10-15C cooler than any i7 or i5 with 90W
Its enough for this imac? we have to wait and see
See some tests also
I mean, they're allowing customers to put 5400 RPM HDDs into 2k USD computers, so I wouldn't put it past them.
Agreed. Lots of speculation going on here about a machine no one has even touched yet. Lots of people playing armchair engineers.
Where did this image come from? I am interested to look into it more.
For what it's worth, I have a custom loop water cooled system and I had to return my 9900k because I couldn't keep it at the temps I wanted to see. I went back to my 8700k running 5.2GHz on all cores that never gets above 75ºC. Meanwhile, the 9900k was hitting 80ºC+ before I even started to think about overclocking the thing. I still assume that I got a CPU that was on the bad end of the bell curve but my experience is not dissimilar from what I am seeing on other forums regarding the 9900k
Edit: Found it. It's Tom's Hardware's 9900k review. The graph is showing the difference between the thermal interface materials used in the 8700k and the 9900k. The temps are achieved using industrial chillers running 20ºC water (sub-ambient).
The section concludes with this quote:
"The 4.7 GHz all-core and a constant load are quite sufficient to make air cooling absurd."
Last edited:
You missed the part where I couldn't keep it below 80ºC on water cooling at stock settings.
If it is the 95W 8600K than it will likely run hot. If it is the 65W 8600, that should help with temps significantly.
15° C would be really helpful I would think. When I peg my i7 in my 2017, it is around 60° at 2700RPM vs 45° at "normal" where the fans run at 1200RPM.
7nm? I'd be happy if they could ship at 10nm.
The 5400RPM drive is on the $1500 base model. The 4K and 5K Fusion Drives are 7200RPM. Still glacially slow compared to an SSD, I admit. But as Jason Snell (rightly, IMO) points out, many "average" iMac users will be filling their computers with media files (photos, music, videos) and they likely need terabytes of storage. Even if Apple halved the price of their flash storage upgrades, a 1TB or 2TB SSD would still be extremely expensive.
But Apple has dropped the 3TB Fusion Drive option with the 2019 model, so it looks like they are expecting (hoping) their customers use iCloud Photos, Apple Music and "Apple Video" so they will be consuming media from the cloud and not local, which means that 512GB (or perhaps even 256GB) SSDs could work as the only storage available and Fusion Drives could be discontinued.
Six months later and we get 9th generation with tangible benefits over releasing 8th generation. Not a bad trade-off, IMO.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are talking about a Windows PC that you built. I didn’t miss anything. Again, we are talking about a machine no one has.
So is there any consensus in which of the options to order?
I know we’ll have to wait for reviews/teardowns, but I need to order before Apple’s 0% financing offer expires in a few days.
Hoping the forum’s collective wisdom can offer some advice, since the last iMac I bought was the 2010 model with i7 (the fans ran often, toward the second half of its lifespan - and noisily at that! Hoping to avoid that this time, but still see a significant improvement in performance ).
- 3.0GHz 6-core 8th gen. i5 (entry)
- 3.1GHz 6-core 8th gen. i5 (mid)
- 3.6GHz 8-core 9th gen. i9 (mid)
- 3.7GHz 6-core 9th gen. i5 (high)
- 3.6GHz 8-core 9th gen. i9 (high)
I know we’ll have to wait for reviews/teardowns, but I need to order before Apple’s 0% financing offer expires in a few days.
Hoping the forum’s collective wisdom can offer some advice, since the last iMac I bought was the 2010 model with i7 (the fans ran often, toward the second half of its lifespan - and noisily at that! Hoping to avoid that this time, but still see a significant improvement in performance ).
I would say wait until around April 10th. http://barefeats.com will have a lot of comparisons between the various tiers which will reveal any throttling issues with the i9 option.
Their side by sides are always very good. Case in point - http://barefeats.com/macbook-pro-vega-20-versus-560x.html
Their side by sides are always very good. Case in point - http://barefeats.com/macbook-pro-vega-20-versus-560x.html
Thanks. I can’t wait until then, though. The 0% finance offer ends on March 27…
Technically isn't turbo boost a form automatic overclocking? It ups the speed when it can and brings it back down when there is too much heat. Traditional overclocking kept the CPU running faster than designed no matter what and could eventually burn out the CPU if pushed too hard. turbo boost does the over clocking for you on the fly. The CPU is still the rated speed of 3.6ghz which is the normal operating speed. turbo boost allows it to overclock to up to 5.0ghz in short bursts on the fly as heat permits and brings the overclock down to compensate for heat. The better the cooling design of the system the more it can overclock on the fly and maintain higher turbo boost speeds.
Thats why I don't exactly like to call what happens on Macs throttling. Throttling indicates running lower than the base clock speed or under clocking. Adjusting the over clock speed on the fly is exactly what the system should be doing and really a 3.6ghz CPU is only designed by Intel to maintain 3.6ghz. Anything after that is a bonus. Some computers allow more of that bonus than others.
This is also why Geekbench scores are now more or less useless in the age of turbo boost CPUs. They only provide a score in a short burst or what the system is capable of handling turbo boost when at its coolest. They don't take into account system A or system B could maintain 3.6ghz or 5.0ghz for an extended period of time.
Just because a desktop PC with better cooling can maintain turbo boost longer doesn't mean a Mac is ripping people off. The CPU is designed and sold as a 3.6ghz CPU and as long as it can sustain that then it and the computer are doing as designed. If some desktop PCs can maintain 5.0ghz for long periods of time thats awesome for them but its still a bonus. Turbo boost is called that for a reason. Its a boost or extra push beyond the norm.
Some may say its semantics to not call it throttling but throttling is a negative term meaning getting less than what was paid for. Its more accurate to call it what it is and thats less turbo boost potential. Macs may be at a disadvantage to utilize turbo boost potential but we are still getting what we paid for which is a CPU that can maintain 3.6ghz. A 3.6ghz CPU is not a 5.0ghz CPU and unfortunately I think a lot of people look at 5.0ghz and think thats what they should get.
This is important in an all in one design where the computer is inches away from your face and ears.
I was in the same situation, with the zero financing period so, after a LOT of research and scouring this forum's posts, just decided to go for it and hope for the best re: heat/cooling etc. Good luck with your decision!
The 6-core 9th gen with Vega. Without a teardown, that's a logical guess for least heat. That or the base CPU/GPU model.
Without any evidence
I am thinking the 6C i5 9th gen is going to be a good balance between speed/temp. If I had to order a 2019 today - that one with 2TB SSD would be my pick.You are pretty right on overclocking and turbo boost. However, overclocking has other options too. I could overclock it higher to 5.0GHz but also let it dynamically lower the clock depending on load like Turbo Boost.
People should also realize that Turbo Boost is "stepped" overclocking. For the i9, IIRC only two cores boost up to 5.0GHz, four cores can go 4.8GHz, and all eight cores can go 4.7GHz.
Traditional overclockers also have the option to do selective core overclock, like trying to raise just two core's speed. It will usually net a higher clock speed vs an all core overclock and less heat overall.
I’m trying to find reasons to go with the i9 but the cost jump from the i5 is $480 Canadian.
Aside from a bit of future proofing (hoping to get 6-7 years out of this Mac ), what benefits are we getting?
Aside from a bit of future proofing (hoping to get 6-7 years out of this Mac ), what benefits are we getting?
Yes, but it's basically the same CPU, and unless he did a terrible job applying thermal paste or didn't screw down the block properly, it runs pretty hot for being water cooled (and at stock speed). Water cooling is usually significantly better than air cooling. Regular air cooling, even with a standard Intel heatsink+fan, is better than iMac air cooling. I suppose his point is that it doesn't look good for temps and throttling, something like the 15" MBP situation, but I guess we'll find out in a couple of weeks.
Thermal throttling is not an issue that concerns Apple. The vast majority of Apple computers do this. However, the person buying an iMac with the i9 isn't the same person buying an iPad or entry level Macbook Pro; they do care about performance.
I think the retail price is around $699 CAD for the CPU, so given Apple's prices, its not the worst deal. Assuming it performs well and doesn't throttle, I'd say get the i9 if you see yourself using CPU-intensive applications. Will you be photo or video editing or anything like that?
Looking ahead 6-7 years is hard at this point. Apple may possibly make a switch to ARM, the market is moving towards tablets and portables more and more. If you're looking to maximize $, you might be better off buying Apple refurb, then sell and upgrade every 2 years. I bought my late 2015 5K for like $1750 in 2016, and sold it recently for $1550.
Thermal throttling is not an issue that concerns Apple. The vast majority of Apple computers do this. However, the person buying an iMac with the i9 isn't the same person buying an iPad or entry level Macbook Pro; they do care about performance.
I think the retail price is around $699 CAD for the CPU, so given Apple's prices, its not the worst deal. Assuming it performs well and doesn't throttle, I'd say get the i9 if you see yourself using CPU-intensive applications. Will you be photo or video editing or anything like that?
Looking ahead 6-7 years is hard at this point. Apple may possibly make a switch to ARM, the market is moving towards tablets and portables more and more. If you're looking to maximize $, you might be better off buying Apple refurb, then sell and upgrade every 2 years. I bought my late 2015 5K for like $1750 in 2016, and sold it recently for $1550.